repugnancy

Article 254(1) provides that if a State law on a Concurrent List matter is repugnant to a law made by Parliament on that matter, the parliamentary law prevails and the State law is void to the extent of repugnancy. Under Article 254(2), a State law that has received the President's assent prevails in that State, but Parliament may later override it.

In M. Karunanidhi the Court set out the tests: repugnancy arises where there is a direct conflict so that obeying one law means disobeying the other; where Parliament intended to occupy the whole field; or where both laws cover the same field. If the two laws can operate together, there is no repugnancy. Repugnancy applies to the Concurrent List; a conflict between laws on the Union and State Lists is solved by pith and substance and Article 246.

Example

The two Acts covered different aspects and could be obeyed together, so there was no repugnancy under Article 254.

In Indian law

• Article 254, Constitution of India
• M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India, 1979 INSC 42

See also

federalism · pith and substance · doctrine of eclipse

Read more in the study notes

• Federalism: the nature of the Indian federation (Constitutional Law II)
• Centre-State legislative relations (Constitutional Law II)
• The Family Courts Act and the Uniform Civil Code (Family Law II - Mohammedan Law)
• Indian federalism: Centre-State relations, the GST Council and the Governor (Indian Constitutional Law - New Challenges)
• Commencement, operation and repeal of statutes (Interpretation of Statutes and Principles of Legislation)
• The literal rule and the golden rule (Interpretation of Statutes and Principles of Legislation)