Repugnancy under Article 254

Repugnancy arises when a valid Union law and a valid State law governing the same Concurrent List matter are so inconsistent that they cannot operate together. Article 254 determines which law prevails and preserves the federal balance while maintaining Parliamentary supremacy.

General rule under Article 254(1)

Under Article 254(1), a law made by Parliament prevails over a repugnant State law, whether the Parliamentary law was enacted before or after it. The State law becomes void only to the extent of the repugnancy, so its separable and non-conflicting provisions may continue to operate.

• The rule also covers repugnancy between a State law and an existing law concerning a Concurrent List subject.
• Each legislature must first possess legislative competence over the subject; Article 254 resolves inconsistency rather than curing lack of competence.

How repugnancy is determined

Courts first attempt to interpret both laws harmoniously. Repugnancy generally exists where obedience to one law would entail disobedience to the other, or where Parliament has enacted an exhaustive code intended to occupy the same legislative field.

• Both laws must operate within the same field of the Concurrent List; mere incidental overlap is insufficient.
• If the conflicting provisions can operate together without contradiction, Article 254 is not attracted.

Exception for a State law with Presidential assent

Under Article 254(2), a State law repugnant to an earlier Parliamentary law may prevail within that State if it has been reserved for the President's consideration and has received Presidential assent.

• The State law prevails only within the concerned State and does not displace the Parliamentary law elsewhere.
• Parliament may subsequently add to, amend, vary or repeal the assented State law, thereby reasserting Parliamentary supremacy.