Discuss the constitutional route by which a State law on personal matters may prevail over Central law. Evaluate its implications for federalism.

Marriage, divorce and succession fall under Entry 5 of the Concurrent List, so Parliament and the States can both legislate on them. The President's assent to the Gujarat Uniform Civil Code Bill, 2026 [1] shows how a State personal law can override Central law. That route gives States real room to legislate, but the Union keeps the final word.

Constitutional route

• Article 254(1): if a State law conflicts with a Central law on a Concurrent subject, the Central law prevails. The State law is void to the extent of the conflict [2].
• Article 254(2): the State law prevails within that State if the Governor reserves it for the President (Articles 200–201) and the President assents [2].
• Applied: the Gujarat Assembly passed the Bill on 24 March 2026, and the President assented on 17 September 2026. Its rules on marriage, divorce, succession and live-in relationships can now override conflicting central personal laws in Gujarat [1].
• Limits: under Kaiser-I-Hind v. NTC (2002), assent covers only the conflicts actually placed before the President. Under the proviso, Parliament can later amend or repeal the State law [2].

Implications for federalism

Positives

• State experiments: States can test reforms, such as the bigamy ban, before a national consensus forms [1].
• Local choices: Gujarat excludes Scheduled Tribes (Article 342) and groups whose customs are protected under Part XXI [1].
• Built-in balance: Presidential assent checks the State without Parliament having to pass a law.

Negatives

• Union control: the President acts on the Union Cabinet's advice, and no time limit applies. Gujarat waited about six months for assent [1].
• Different rules in each State: separate State codes mean a couple's rights can change at a State border. This sits uneasily with Article 44's idea of one code "throughout the territory of India" [2].
• Reach outside the State: the Act also covers Gujarat residents living elsewhere [1]. This sits uneasily with Article 245(1), which limits State laws to the State's own territory.
• Little consultation: the 21st Law Commission preferred reforming each personal law separately [3], and the 22nd Commission's consultation is still open [4].

Article 254(2) thus balances State initiative against Union oversight. To strengthen cooperative federalism, the route needs time-bound assent decisions and a common model framework shaped by the Law Commission's consultation [4]. That would let States reform family law without breaking up Article 44's goal of one code for the whole country.