BharatNotes What is Doctrine of Repugnancy (Article 254)?
The Doctrine of Repugnancy resolves conflicts between Union and State laws on subjects in the Concurrent List (List III) of the Seventh Schedule. It is contained in Article 254, whose marginal heading reads "Inconsistency between laws made by Parliament and laws made by the Legislatures of States." Repugnancy means a direct, irreconcilable conflict between two laws such that obeying one necessarily means disobeying the other. The provision is derived from Section 107 of the Government of India Act, 1935.
The Two Clauses
Article 254(1) — the general rule. If a State law is repugnant to a Parliamentary law (or an existing law) on a Concurrent List matter, the Parliamentary law prevails — "whether passed before or after the law made by the Legislature of such State" — and the State law is void to the extent of the repugnancy. The State law is not wholly struck down, only the conflicting portion.
Article 254(2) — the exception. A State law on a Concurrent List subject that is repugnant to an earlier Central law may nevertheless prevail within that State if it has been reserved for the consideration of the President and has received the President's assent. Crucially, the proviso restores Parliamentary supremacy: Parliament may at any time enact a fresh law "adding to, amending, varying or repealing" the State law.
| Feature | Article 254(1) | Article 254(2) |
|---|---|---|
| Situation | State law conflicts with Central law | State law conflicts with earlier Central law |
| Which prevails | Central law | State law (within that State) |
| Pre-condition | None | Reserved for and assented by President |
| Parliamentary override | Not applicable | Yes, via the proviso |
Tests for Repugnancy: M. Karunanidhi (1979)
In M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India (decided 20 February 1979), the Supreme Court laid down that repugnancy arises only when:
- There is a clear and direct inconsistency between the Central and State Acts;
- The inconsistency is absolutely irreconcilable; and
- The two laws are in direct collision — it is impossible to obey one without disobeying the other.
Where both statutes can operate in the same field without colliding, no repugnancy arises.
Significance and UPSC Angle
The doctrine is a cornerstone of India's quasi-federal scheme. It preserves national uniformity on shared subjects while the Article 254(2) exception accommodates regional diversity — making it a vivid illustration of "cooperative federalism" and its limits. For UPSC GS2, link the doctrine to Centre-State legislative relations, the role of Presidential assent, and tensions over the Concurrent List. A common pitfall to avoid: repugnancy under Article 254 applies to the Concurrent List, not to Union or State List subjects, where the rule is exclusive legislative competence rather than conflict resolution.
