Concurrent List

Also called: List III · Topic: Federalism and Centre-State Relations · NCERT: Class 7, Ch 6 "The State, the Government, and You"; Class 8, Ch 6 "The Parliamentary System: Legislature and Executive"; Class 9, Ch 6 "Democracy"; Class 10, Ch 2 "Federalism"; Class 11, Ch 7 "Federalism"

Meaning

The Concurrent List (List III) is the list of subjects in the Seventh Schedule on which both Parliament and the state legislatures can make laws (Article 246(2)) [2]. If a Union law and a state law on the same subject clash, the Union law normally prevails (Article 254). A state law can prevail only in that state, and only if it was reserved for the President and got the President's assent.

It matters because it is the shared ground of Indian federalism. Subjects such as education, forests, criminal law and electricity are both national and local, so the Constitution lets both levels make laws on them.

Explanation

How it works

• Federalism means two levels of government, the Union and the states, share power. The Seventh Schedule sets out the three lists that divide law-making power between them [2]:
• List I (Union List): only Parliament can make laws (Art. 246(1)) [2].
• List II (State List): only the state legislature can make laws for that state (Art. 246(3)) [2].

• List III (Concurrent List): Parliament and the state legislatures can both make laws (Art. 246(2)) [2].

• Ranking when lists overlap (from the "notwithstanding" words in Article 246):

• Art. 246(1) begins "notwithstanding anything in clauses (2) and (3)". So the Union List wins over both the other lists.
• Art. 246(2) begins "notwithstanding anything in clause (3)". So the Concurrent List wins over the State List.

• Order: List I > List III > List II.

• Roots: the Government of India Act 1935 already had a Federal, a Provincial and a Concurrent List. The Constitution kept this three-list design.

• Borrowed idea: India took the Concurrent List idea from Australia.

Main subjects in List III

• Criminal law (entry 1) and criminal procedure (entry 2).
• Marriage, divorce, adoption and succession (entry 5).
• Transfer of property other than agricultural land (entry 6).
• Forests (entry 17A) and protection of wild animals and birds (entry 17B).
• Population control and family planning (entry 20A).
• Trade unions (entry 22).
• Education (entry 25).
• Trade in the products of industries the Union controls (entry 33). State List entry 26 (trade within the state) is "subject to" this entry.
• Weights and measures, except setting standards (entry 33A).
• Electricity (entry 38).
• Size: 47 entries in 1950, about 52 today. New entries get letters (11A, 17A), so the last entry number is not the same as the number of entries.

When the two laws clash: repugnancy (Article 254)

Repugnancy means a state law and a Union law on the same Concurrent subject cannot both be obeyed. Article 254 settles it in three steps:

1. General rule (Art. 254(1)): the Union law prevails. The state law is void to the extent it clashes.
2. Exception (Art. 254(2)): a state law prevails in that state if it was reserved for the President's assent and received it.
3. Override: Parliament can later make a law that adds to, changes or repeals even that state law. - Limit: this rule applies only to Concurrent subjects. A clash between a Union List and a State List subject is settled by Article 246 and the court doctrines, not by Article 254.

In the Constitution and practice

• Where it sits: Part XI, Chapter I (Arts. 245–255). Article 246(2) gives the shared power [2]. Article 254 settles clashes. The list itself is in the Seventh Schedule [2].
• 42nd Amendment (1976): passed during the Emergency, it moved five subjects from the State List to the Concurrent List:

Subject	Old State List entry	New Concurrent List entry
Education	11 (deleted)	Merged into entry 25
Administration of justice (setting up and organising courts other than the Supreme Court and High Courts)	Part of 3	11A
Forests	19 (deleted)	17A
Protection of wild animals and birds	20 (deleted)	17B
Weights and measures (except setting standards)	29 (deleted)	33A

• It also added a new subject: population control and family planning (entry 20A).

• Result: the list grew from 47 to about 52 entries.

• One-way movement: subjects have only ever moved from the states to the Union or Concurrent List, never back. This feeds the states' complaint that the system leans towards the centre.

• In practice: the Right to Education (RTE) Act 2009 is a Parliament law that applies across India. Parliament could pass it because education is a Concurrent subject.
• How courts read the entries: when a law seems to touch more than one list, courts use pith and substance (they look at the law's main purpose). Prafulla Kumar Mukherjee v. Bank of Commerce, Khulna (Privy Council, 1947) and State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara (1951) are the leading cases. Courts also use harmonious construction: they read entries together so that none becomes useless, and they try to fit both entries before using the Union-prevails rule.

Don't confuse with

• State List (List II): only the state can make laws on it, such as police, public order, public health and agriculture. These were not moved by the 42nd Amendment. Concurrent subjects are shared.
• Residuary power (Art. 248 + Union List entry 97): covers subjects in none of the three lists, such as cyber laws. It belongs only to Parliament, so it is not shared like List III.
• Union List (List I): atomic energy is Union List entry 6. Electricity is Concurrent List entry 38. NCERT's loose word "Energy" hides this difference.
• Art. 246A (GST, 101st Amendment, 2016): Parliament and the states both tax the supply of goods and services. This shared power comes from a separate article, not from a Concurrent List entry. Only Parliament can tax supplies between states.

Prelims Hooks

• Art. 246(2) → Parliament and states both make laws on List III [2]. Art. 254 → the Union law prevails in a clash, unless a state law reserved for the President got the President's assent.
• Source of the idea: Concurrent List from Australia. Residuary power with the centre from Canada. The USA has no formal concurrent list.
• 42nd Amendment (1976) moved education, forests, weights and measures, protection of wild animals and birds, and administration of justice to List III, and added population control and family planning (20A). Trap: agriculture, police and public health were not moved.
• Entry count: 47 (1950) → about 52 after the 42nd Amendment added 11A, 17A, 17B, 20A and 33A.
• Entry matches: criminal law (1), marriage, divorce, adoption and succession (5), forests (17A), trade unions (22), education (25), electricity (38).
• Overlap ranking: List I > List III > List II, because of the "notwithstanding" words in Art. 246(1) and 246(2).

Mains Points

• A shared list that leans towards the centre:
• Under Art. 254, the Union law wins in a clash, and Parliament can override even a state law that got the President's assent.
• The 42nd Amendment (1976) shrank the State List, and subjects have only ever moved one way.

• A balanced answer weighs the need for one national standard (for example, RTE Act 2009) against local needs and the states' freedom to decide for themselves.

• A meeting ground for cooperative federalism:

• Subjects such as education, forests and electricity work best when the Union consults the states before making a law.

• Reform debates ask for prior consultation with states before Union laws on Concurrent subjects. They also ask whether subjects such as education should go back to the State List.

• Courts as the balancing force:

• Pith and substance and harmonious construction let both Union and state laws survive where entries overlap, instead of striking them down.
• Clearer drafting of entries, or a regular review of the Seventh Schedule, would cut down Centre–state court cases.

Related concepts

• Seventh Schedule
• Union List
• State List
• Residuary powers
• Transfer of subjects to the Concurrent List
• Doctrine of pith and substance
• Doctrine of colourable legislation
• Doctrine of territorial nexus

Read more

• Distribution of legislative powers: the Seventh Schedule and its interpretation