Doctrine of repugnancy

Also called: Article 254 · Topic: Federalism and Centre-State Relations · NCERT: Class 8, Ch 6 "The Parliamentary System: Legislature and Executive"; Class 10, Ch 2 "Federalism"

Meaning

The doctrine of repugnancy (Article 254) is the rule for what happens when a state law and a Union law on the same Concurrent List subject clash so badly that both cannot be obeyed at once. The Union law wins, and the state law becomes void (has no legal force) only to the extent of the clash [2]. There is one exception. A state law prevails in that state if it was reserved for the President and got the President's assent.

This rule decides who has the last word when both the Centre and the states can make laws on the same subject. That is why it comes up again and again in fights over jallikattu, the farm laws and NEET.

Explanation

The general rule: Article 254(1)

• Concurrent List (List III of the Seventh Schedule) is the list of subjects on which both Parliament and the state legislatures can make laws.
• Repugnancy means the two laws clash so much that obeying one means breaking the other.
• Who wins: the Union law prevails [2].
• How much of the state law dies: the state law is void only to the extent of the clash. It is not struck down as a whole [2]. The parts that do not clash survive.
• When the Union law was made does not matter. It wins whether Parliament passed it before or after the state law.
• It also applies to "existing laws". These are laws that were in force before 1950. A state law that clashes with one of them also gives way [2].

The exception: Article 254(2), step by step

1. The state passes a law on a Concurrent subject that clashes with an earlier Union law.
2. The Governor reserves the bill. This means the Governor sends it to the President to decide, instead of signing it (Articles 200–201).
3. The President gives assent. The President acts on the advice of the Union Council of Ministers.
4. The state law prevails, but only in that state [2]. In every other state, the Union law still applies.

• Proviso (the limit): Parliament can later pass a law on the same matter that adds to, amends, changes or repeals the state law.
• So even an assented state law is not safe for ever.
• The Union keeps the last word.

How courts decide whether repugnancy exists

• M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India (1979) is the leading case. Repugnancy exists when: 1. there is a clear and direct conflict between the two laws; 2. the conflict is so strong that obeying one law means breaking the other; or 3. Parliament meant its law to cover the whole field of the subject. This is called the "occupied field" idea.

• Courts first try to read the two laws together (harmonious reading). They declare repugnancy only when this fails.

• Zaverbhai Amaidas v. State of Bombay (1954): a later Parliament law that covers the same subject fully overrides an earlier state law. This holds even if the state law got presidential assent under Article 254(2).

Limits of the doctrine

• It applies only to the Concurrent List.
• It is different from the rule for laws Parliament makes on State List subjects under Articles 249 and 250. That clash is governed by Article 251 [3].
• The state's "escape route" under Article 254(2) depends fully on the Centre:
• the President acts on Union ministers' advice and can withhold assent;
• Parliament can override the state law later.

In the Constitution and practice

• Where it sits: Article 254, Part XI (relations between the Union and the states). It works together with the Seventh Schedule (List III) and Articles 200–201, which cover reserving state bills for the President.
• Who uses it:
• courts, which test whether a clash exists;
• Governors, who reserve state bills;
• the President, acting on the Union Cabinet's advice, who gives or withholds assent;

• Parliament, which can override an assented state law under the proviso.

• Jallikattu: Article 254(2) at work

• Background: in Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja (2014), the Supreme Court held that jallikattu and bullock-cart races broke the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 [4].
• The states' response (2017): Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra and Karnataka each passed a Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (State Amendment) Act. Each got the President's assent under Article 254(2) [4].

• Judgment: in Animal Welfare Board of India v. Union of India (Constitution Bench, 18 May 2023), the Court held that the three Acts are valid and fall under Entry 17 of List III (prevention of cruelty to animals) [4]. It said that whether jallikattu is part of Tamil cultural heritage is for the legislature to decide, not the court [4].

• Farm laws (2020–2021)

• The Centre based the three farm laws on Entry 33, List III (trade and commerce in food items and other goods) [5].
• Maharashtra (2021) brought bills to amend the central farm laws for its own territory [6]. To prevail, such state laws would have needed presidential assent under Article 254(2).

• Both Houses repealed the laws on 29 November 2021 [5].

• NEET and Tamil Nadu

• Tamil Nadu passed a bill to exempt the state from NEET. The bill was reserved for the President.
• The President withheld assent in 2025.

• This shows that Articles 201 and 254(2) together leave the final say with the Centre.

• New criminal laws (2023): the BNS, BNSS and BSA replaced the IPC, CrPC and Evidence Act. Criminal law is a Concurrent subject. Several states objected that they were not properly consulted. Any state change to these laws would have to pass the Article 254 test.

Don't confuse with

• Article 251: it deals with clashes between a state law and a Union law made on a State List subject under Articles 249 or 250 [3]. Article 254 deals only with Concurrent List clashes.
• Doctrine of pith and substance: it asks which list a law truly belongs to, which is a question of power. Repugnancy assumes both bodies have power on a Concurrent subject and asks whose law wins.
• Article 304(b): a state bill that restricts trade needs the President's prior sanction before it can be introduced. Article 254(2) needs presidential assent after the bill is passed and reserved.
• Article 252: states hand over a State List subject to Parliament, and after that only Parliament can amend or repeal the law. Under Article 254(2), the state keeps its own law on a Concurrent subject.

Prelims Hooks

• Article 254 applies only to the Concurrent List. A clashing state law is void only to the extent of the clash, not as a whole [2].
• Article 254(2): a state law that was reserved and got the President's assent prevails in that state only. Parliament can still amend or repeal it later (proviso).
• Trap: the Union law prevails under Article 254(1) whether it was passed before or after the state law, and the rule also covers pre-1950 "existing laws" [2].
• Case–principle pairs: M. Karunanidhi (1979) gives the tests for repugnancy (direct conflict, cannot obey both, occupied field). Zaverbhai Amaidas (1954) says a later Parliament law covering the same field overrides even an assented state law.
• Jallikattu: the 2017 state amendments to the PCA Act 1960 got Article 254(2) assent, fall under Entry 17, List III, and were upheld on 18 May 2023 [4].
• Who acts: the Governor reserves the bill, and the President (on Union ministers' advice) gives assent. The state legislature alone cannot save a clashing law.

Mains Points

• Repugnancy as a two-way valve controlled by the Centre
• Article 254(2) lets states adjust central laws to local needs, as with jallikattu (2017–2023) [4].
• But the President acts on Union ministers' advice and can withhold assent, as with the NEET bill in 2025. Parliament can also override an assented law (Zaverbhai Amaidas, 1954).

• Reform idea: set time limits for presidential decisions on reserved bills, and require reasons when assent is withheld.

• Consult first to avoid clashes

• The farm laws (2020, repealed 2021) [5] and the 2023 criminal laws show that legislating on Concurrent subjects without the states causes political and legal conflict.

• The Sarkaria Commission (1988) [7][8] and the Punchhi Commission (2010) both asked the Union to consult the states before making Concurrent List laws, through the Inter-State Council (Article 263, set up in 1990) [7]. This fits the cooperative federalism idea of NITI Aayog (2015).

• Fits "holding-together" federalism

• Article 254 gives the country one rule where it is needed, while Article 254(2) leaves some room for local variation.
• Courts first try to read the two laws together (M. Karunanidhi, 1979) and strike down only the part that clashes. This protects state law-making as far as possible.

Related concepts

• Parliamentary legislation on the State List in the national interest
• Parliament's power to legislate during a national emergency
• Legislation by consent of states
• Legislation to implement international agreements

Read more

• Parliament's reach into the State List and the rule of repugnancy