The rule for resolving conflict between a Union law and a State law made on the same Concurrent List subject: under Article 254 the Union law prevails and the State law becomes void to the extent of the repugnancy.
- Applies to subjects in List III (the Concurrent List) of the concept seventh schedule.
- Article 254(1): if a State law is repugnant to a Parliamentary law (or an existing law) on a Concurrent subject, the Parliamentary law prevails and the State law is void to the extent of the inconsistency.
- Article 254(2) exception: a State law reserved for and assented to by the President prevails in that State, even over an earlier Union law; but Parliament can still later override it by a fresh law on the same subject.
- For repugnancy to arise there must be a direct, irreconcilable conflict, or Parliament must have intended its law to be a complete and exhaustive code on the field.
- Discussed in M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India (1979) and other cases on Concurrent List conflicts.
It is the operative rule of Centre-State legislative supremacy on the Concurrent List, a high-frequency federalism item paired with the legislative lists.
Repugnancy concerns the Concurrent List only; presidential assent under Article 254(2) lets a State law prevail locally, but Parliament can reassert supremacy afterwards.
On a Concurrent subject the Union law prevails and the conflicting State law is void, unless the State law had Presidential assent under Article 254(2).