Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Concurrent List


The Concurrent List, known formally as List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India, delineates subjects—such as criminal law, marriage, education, and forests—upon which both the Parliament of India and the state legislative assemblies hold the authority to enact laws. This shared legislative competence enables coordinated governance on matters requiring national uniformity alongside regional adaptation, with parliamentary legislation superseding inconsistent state laws under Article 254 to ensure federal coherence. Enacted as part of the original 1950 Constitution to balance India's quasi-federal structure, the list originally comprised 47 entries but has expanded to 52 through amendments reflecting evolving policy needs like environmental protection and consumer rights.

Constitutional Framework

Definition and Purpose

The Concurrent List, designated as List III in the Seventh Schedule of the , enumerates subjects over which both the and the legislative assemblies of the states possess legislative competence under Article 246(2). This list facilitates dual jurisdiction, enabling both central and state governments to enact laws on matters requiring coordinated national oversight alongside regional adaptability. As of its inception in 1950, it comprised 47 entries, which have since expanded through constitutional amendments to 52 subjects by 2023. The primary purpose of the Concurrent List is to address subjects of mutual interest where uniform national standards may be essential, yet state-specific variations could enhance implementation effectiveness, such as in , and , or . This arrangement promotes federal balance by averting legislative vacuums in overlapping domains, while Article 254 ensures resolution of conflicts through the doctrine of repugnancy, wherein central laws prevail over inconsistent state enactments unless the latter receive presidential assent post-repeal of the Union law. By allocating , the framework supports , allowing states to supplement or innovate upon federal legislation without undermining national cohesion, as evidenced in domains like and labor welfare where both levels have historically legislated.

Position within the Seventh Schedule

The Seventh Schedule of the , enacted on , 1950, enumerates the division of legislative subjects between the Union and the states into three distinct lists under Article 246, forming a cornerstone of India's federal structure by allocating exclusive and shared powers to prevent overlap while enabling coordinated governance. List I, the , grants exclusive legislative authority over 97 subjects such as defense and foreign affairs; List II, the , reserves 61 subjects like and public health for state legislatures; and List III, the Concurrent List, positions shared jurisdiction over 52 subjects, including , , and , where both and state legislatures may enact laws to address national uniformity alongside regional needs. Article 246(2) explicitly vests concurrent legislative powers in Parliament and state legislatures for matters in List III of the Seventh Schedule, allowing parallel law-making to foster flexibility in a quasi-federal system, though this dual authority necessitates mechanisms for resolving inconsistencies to maintain legal coherence. This positioning reflects the framers' intent to balance central oversight with state autonomy, as evidenced by the original inclusion of 47 subjects in the Concurrent List at adoption, later adjusted through amendments like the 42nd Amendment Act of 1976, which transferred five state subjects to the concurrent domain to strengthen national integration on issues such as forests and wildlife protection. In the event of repugnancy between a law and a state law on Concurrent List subjects, Article 254(1) mandates that the law prevails to ensure supremacy of national , a rooted in the Constitution's emphasis on indivisible in overlapping domains. However, under Article 254(2), a state law may override a pre-existing law if it receives the President's assent, though subsequent would again supersede it, underscoring the Concurrent List's role in permitting state experimentation only within federal bounds. This framework has been upheld in judicial interpretations, such as those affirming dominance to avoid fragmented , while critiquing over-centralization in concurrent spheres as potentially eroding state fiscal and administrative capacities.

Historical Evolution

Colonial Precedents

The marked the first formal introduction of concurrent legislative powers in British , dividing subjects into three categories: the Federal Legislative List (59 items, exclusive to the federal legislature), the Provincial Legislative List (54 items, exclusive to provincial legislatures), and the Concurrent Legislative List (36 items initially, allowing legislation by both levels with federal law prevailing in conflicts). This tripartite structure under Section 100 of the Act aimed to balance central authority with provincial autonomy amid growing demands for , though the federal provisions were never fully implemented due to the onset of . Preceding reforms, such as the , had established a dyarchical separating "reserved" central subjects (e.g., , ) from "transferred" provincial ones (e.g., , ), but lacked a dedicated concurrent category; overlaps were resolved through the Governor-General's overriding powers rather than shared legislative competence. The 1935 Act's concurrent mechanism thus represented an evolution, incorporating subjects like , , and where dual facilitated uniform standards while permitting local adaptations, reflecting British efforts to devolve power without relinquishing control. Enacted on August 2, 1935, and partially operationalized for provinces from April 1, 1937, this framework influenced post-independence by providing a tested model for enumerating powers, though colonial implementation was limited by viceregal vetoes and wartime centralization under the Defence of India 1939.

Adoption during Constitution Framing

The concept of a Concurrent List, delineating subjects for shared legislative competence between central and provincial authorities, originated in the , which established a Federal Legislative List, Provincial Legislative List, and Concurrent Legislative List to accommodate India's quasi-federal structure under British rule. This tripartite division influenced the framers of the Indian Constitution, who sought to adapt it for an independent sovereign republic while balancing national unity with regional autonomy. In the Constituent Assembly, the Drafting Committee, chaired by Dr. , incorporated the Seventh Schedule—encompassing the , , and Concurrent List—into the Draft Constitution presented on February 21, 1948. The Concurrent List initially comprised 37 subjects, such as , , contracts, and , selected for their need for uniform standards alongside state-level adaptability. Extensive debates on the Schedule occurred between August and October 1949, with key discussions on October 7, 1949, addressing overlaps, repugnancy resolution under what became Article 254, and the rationale for to prevent fragmented governance in interdependent areas. Members like Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar emphasized that the list avoided the rigidities of pure seen in models like the U.S. Constitution, opting instead for a "Union of States" with overriding central authority in conflicts. The Assembly adopted the Seventh Schedule, including the Concurrent List, with minor amendments for clarity and to transfer select items (e.g., electricity to the State List initially), as part of the Constitution's final text on November 26, 1949. This adoption reflected first-principles reasoning prioritizing causal linkages in India's diverse socio-economic fabric, where subjects like forests, , and labor required coordinated action to mitigate interstate disparities without central overreach. The framework ensured parliamentary supremacy on concurrent matters via Article 254, subordinating state laws in case of inconsistency, a provision debated to safeguard national cohesion amid post-partition challenges.

Major Amendments and Transfers

The Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976, enacted on December 18, 1976, and effective from January 3, 1977, represented the principal alteration to the Concurrent List by transferring five subjects from the to enhance Union legislative oversight in domains with national implications. These subjects included (formerly State List entry 11, now Concurrent entry 25), forests (State entry 19, now entry 17A), weights and measures excluding establishment of standards (State entry 29, now entry 33A), protection of wild animals and birds (now entry 17B), and and (now entry 20A). This shift increased the Concurrent List from 47 to 52 entries, facilitating coordinated policymaking on , environmental conservation, and demographic management amid India's post-independence developmental priorities. Prior to this, the Third Amendment Act, 1954, effective December 22, 1954, modified Concurrent List entry 33 by broadening its scope to encompass trade and commerce in additional commodities, non-ferrous metals, iron, , and raw cotton, responding to wartime shortages and economic controls under the Defence of India Rules. This expansion, rather than a outright transfer, aligned with Union imperatives for stability without diminishing state roles. No further substantive transfers from other lists to the Concurrent List have occurred, preserving the 1976 framework as of 2025, though judicial rulings and fiscal amendments like the 101st Amendment (2016) for goods and services tax indirectly influenced overlapping taxation entries without altering subject allocation.

Composition of the List

Original Enumeration (1950)

The original Concurrent List, as enumerated in List III of the Seventh Schedule upon the Constitution's commencement on 26 January , comprised exactly 47 subjects over which both the and state legislatures held legislative competence. This enumeration drew from precedents in the 1935's Federal Legislative List but was refined by the to balance national uniformity with regional flexibility in areas not requiring exclusive central or state control. The subjects focused on domains like personal laws, economic relations, and social welfare, where overlapping facilitated coordinated policy while allowing states to adapt to local conditions; in conflicts, Union laws prevailed under Article 254. Key subjects in the original list included:
  • Criminal law, encompassing matters in the Indian Penal Code (excluding offenses tied to Union or State List matters).
  • Criminal procedure, including provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
  • Preventive detention linked to defense, foreign affairs, or national security (distinct from state police powers).
  • Marriage, divorce, adoption, succession, and joint family matters.
  • Contracts, partnerships, agency, and special contracts (excluding agricultural land).
  • Civil procedure, including limitation and arbitration.
  • Transfer of property rights outside agricultural land.
  • Bankruptcy and insolvency.
  • Trade unions, industrial and labor disputes.
  • Social security, labor welfare, and working conditions in mines and oilfields.
  • Legal and medical professions regulation.
  • Economic and social planning (limited scope pre-amendments).
  • Electricity regulation (non-Union aspects).
This structure totaled 47 entries, numbered sequentially from 1 to 47, without later insertions like Entries 11A, 17A, 17B, 20A, 25, or 33A added by amendments such as the 42nd Act of 1976, which transferred subjects like and forests from the . The original design emphasized causal linkages between national and state administrative efficiency, avoiding over-centralization evident in colonial frameworks. No substantive changes occurred to the list until the , preserving its form through initial parliamentary sessions.

Current Subjects (as of 2025)

As of 2025, the Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule of the Indian Constitution enumerates 52 subjects (with entries numbered 1 through 47, inclusive of five insertions added by the 42nd Amendment Act of ) over which both the and state legislatures hold legislative competence. This framework, unaltered in composition since despite subsequent constitutional amendments affecting related fiscal or administrative domains, facilitates coordinated governance on matters requiring national uniformity alongside regional adaptation, such as , , and . Laws enacted by Parliament prevail over inconsistent state laws per Article 254, ensuring federal coherence without recent shifts in subject allocation post-2020. The subjects are as follows:
    1. , including all matters included in the at the commencement of this but excluding offences against laws with respect to any of the matters specified in List I or List II and excluding the use of naval, military or air forces or any other forces of the in aid of the civil power.
    1. Criminal procedure, including all matters included in the Code of Criminal Procedure at the commencement of this .
    1. for reasons connected with the security of a , the maintenance of order, or the maintenance of supplies and services to the ; persons subjected to such .
    1. Removal from one to another of prisoners, accused persons and persons subjected to for reasons specified in entry 3 of this List.
    1. and ; infants and minors; ; wills, and ; joint family and ; all matters in respect of which parties in judicial proceedings were immediately before the commencement of this subject to their personal .
    1. of other than agricultural land; registration of deeds and documents.
    1. Contracts, including , , contracts of carriage, and other special forms of contracts, but not including contracts relating to agricultural land.
    1. Actionable wrongs.
    1. and .
    1. and Trustees.
    1. Administrators-general and trustees.
  • 11A. ; constitution and organisation of all courts, except the and the High Courts.
    1. and oaths; of laws, acts and records, and judicial proceedings.
    1. , including all matters included in the Code of Civil Procedure at the commencement of this , limitation and .
    1. , but not including contempt of the .
    1. ; nomadic and migratory tribes.
    1. Lunacy and mental deficiency, including places for the reception or treatment of lunatics and mental deficients.
    1. .
  • 17A. Forests.
  • 17B. Protection of wild animals and birds.
    1. Adulteration of foodstuffs and other goods.
    1. Drugs and poisons, subject to the provisions of entry 59 of List I with respect to .
    1. Economic and social planning.
  • 20A. and .
    1. Commercial and industrial monopolies, combines and trusts.
    1. Trade unions; industrial and disputes.
    1. Social security and ; and .
    1. of including conditions of work, provident funds, employers’ liability, workmen’s compensation, invalidity and old age pensions and maternity benefits.
    1. , including technical education, and universities, subject to the provisions of entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List I; vocational and technical training of .
    1. Legal, medical and other professions.
    1. Relief and rehabilitation of persons displaced from their original place of residence by reason of the setting up of the Dominions of and .
    1. Charities and charitable institutions, charitable and religious endowments and religious institutions.
    1. Prevention of the extension from one to another of infectious or contagious diseases or pests affecting men, animals or plants.
    1. Vital statistics including registration of births and deaths.
    1. Ports other than those declared by or under made by or existing to be major ports.
    1. Shipping and navigation on inland waterways as regards mechanically propelled vessels, and the rule of on such waterways, and the carriage of passengers and goods on inland waterways subject to the provisions of List I with respect to national waterways.
    1. Trade and commerce in, and the production, supply and distribution of,— (a) the products of any where the of such by the is declared by by to be expedient in the , and imported goods of the same kind as such products; (b) foodstuffs, including oilseeds and oils; (c) , including oilcakes and other concentrates; (d) raw , whether ginned or unginned, and ; and (e) raw .
  • 33A. Weights and measures except establishment of standards.
    1. .
    1. Mechanically propelled vehicles including the principles on which taxes on such vehicles are to be levied.
    1. Factories.
    1. Boilers.
    1. .
    1. Newspapers, books and presses.
    1. Archaeological sites and remains other than those declared by or under made by to be of national importance.
    1. Custody, and disposal of (including agricultural land) declared by to be evacuee property.
    1. Acquisition and requisitioning of .
    1. Recovery in a of claims in respect of taxes and other public demands, including arrears of land-revenue and sums recoverable as such arrears, arising outside that .
    1. Stamp duties other than duties or fees collected by means of judicial stamps, but not including rates of stamp duty.
    1. Inquiries and statistics for the purposes of any of the matters specified in List II or List III.
    1. Jurisdiction and powers of all courts, except the , with respect to any of the matters in this List.
    1. Fees in respect of any of the matters in this List, but not including fees taken in any court.

Specific Categories and Examples

The subjects enumerated in the Concurrent List encompass diverse domains where both and legislatures hold legislative competence, reflecting areas requiring coordinated between central and regional authorities. These can be grouped into key categories such as legal procedures, and social institutions, labor and economic regulation, and public welfare, environmental management, and miscellaneous administrative matters. This categorization aids in understanding the list's scope, which originally comprised 47 entries in 1950 but expanded to 52 following the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act of 1976, which transferred subjects like and forests from the . Legal and Judicial Procedures include foundational aspects of criminal and civil justice systems. Entry 1 covers , encompassing the and related offenses like those under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Entry 6 addresses , including limitation periods, , and collection. Entry 3 pertains to for reasons connected with defense, foreign affairs, or security of , while Entry 2 deals with , including constitution of courts beyond and high courts. These provisions enable uniform standards while allowing state adaptations, though central laws often prevail in conflicts. Family, , and Laws form a core social category, regulating personal relations. Entry 5 specifies and , infants, minors, , wills, , , joint family, and partition, permitting both levels to legislate on uniform civil codes or customary practices. This has facilitated laws like the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, balancing national cohesion with regional customs. Labor, Employment, and Economic address industrial and worker welfare. Entry 22 includes trade unions and industrial and labor disputes, underpinning acts like the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Entry 23 covers social security and employment insurance, including provident funds. Entry 24 involves welfare of labor, including conditions of work and workers' participation in . Entry 29 regulates incorporation, , and winding up of corporations beyond those in the , such as trading and cooperative societies. These entries support coordinated policies amid economic . Education, Health, and Population Control focus on human development. Entry 25, added via the 42nd Amendment, encompasses education, including technical, medical, and vocational training, enabling national frameworks like the Right to Education Act, 2009, alongside state implementations. Entry 26 covers public health and sanitation, excluding specific Union matters. Entry 30 addresses vital statistics, including population registration and censuses beyond Union scope. Environmental and Resource Management includes conservation efforts. Entry 17A, inserted by the 42nd Amendment, deals with forests. Entry 17B covers protection of wild animals and birds. These facilitate integrated policies, such as the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, addressing interstate ecological challenges. Other Categories encompass infrastructure, media, and relief efforts. Entry 38 regulates electricity, including generation and distribution beyond Union control. Entry 39 involves newspapers, books, and printing presses. Entry 10 provides for relief of disabled and unemployable persons, transferred to concurrent domain for the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities. These residual subjects ensure flexibility in emerging needs like technology and .

Legislative Powers and Operations

Concurrent Jurisdiction Mechanics

Under Article 246(2) of the , both and the legislatures of the states possess the authority to enact laws with respect to any matters enumerated in List III (Concurrent List) of the Seventh Schedule, enabling parallel legislative competence on shared subjects such as , , and . This provision establishes a framework of , where the Union and states may independently address the same subject matter to accommodate national uniformity alongside regional variations, provided no direct repugnancy arises between enactments. In operational terms, exercises its through bills introduced in either , extending applicability to the whole or any part of as specified, while state legislatures confine their laws to the territory of the respective or parts thereof. The legislative process mirrors standard procedures: bills undergo introduction, debate, voting, and assent—by the for parliamentary acts and by the (with potential reservation for presidential assent under Article 200) for state acts—without unique procedural hurdles solely attributable to concurrent status, though gubernatorial discretion may invoke scrutiny if a state bill appears to undermine constitutional powers. This dual-track mechanism permits states to pioneer innovations or adaptations, such as localized environmental regulations under Entry 17A (added in 1976), which coexist with central frameworks until potential inconsistencies trigger higher scrutiny. The concurrent design promotes administrative coordination, with executive implementation often devolving to states even for Union-enacted laws on List III subjects, as executive powers under Article 73 align with legislative competence but default to state machinery for efficiency. In practice, this has facilitated over 52 subjects (as enumerated post-amendments up to 2023) where both tiers legislate without automatic preemption, fostering policy experimentation—evident in divergent state-level labor codes supplementing the central —while reserving supremacy mechanisms for discord.

Conflict Resolution under Article 254

Article 254 of the establishes the mechanism for resolving repugnancy between laws made by and those enacted by state legislatures on matters enumerated in the Concurrent List under the Seventh Schedule. This provision applies specifically when a state law conflicts with a parliamentary enactment or an existing central law competent under the Concurrent List, ensuring legislative harmony in shared domains such as , forests, and labor welfare. Under clause (1), if any provision of a state law is repugnant to a provision of a made by —which is empowered to enact—or to an existing on a Concurrent List subject, the parliamentary or existing prevails. The repugnant portion of the state law becomes void to the extent of the inconsistency, thereby prioritizing to maintain uniformity across the federation. This rule underscores the Constitution's design for central dominance in overlapping jurisdictions, reflecting the framers' intent to prevent fragmented governance on national concerns. Clause (2) introduces a qualified exception for state laws that postdate and conflict with earlier laws on Concurrent List matters. Such a state law may prevail within its territory if reserved by the for the President's consideration and subsequently receives presidential assent, overriding the repugnancy unless enacts a subsequent inconsistent . This process, invoked sparingly—such as in cases involving state-specific adaptations—requires explicit presidential approval to balance supremacy with regional exigencies, though it does not extend to repugnancy with post-assent laws. The provision has been applied in over a dozen instances since 1950, typically for agricultural or environmental regulations tailored to local conditions. Repugnancy arises only upon actual legislative overlap on Concurrent List subjects and not in exclusive Union or State domains, with the empowered under 254(2) to assess state proposals without veto override by states. This framework has resolved conflicts in sectors like trade unions and adulteration prevention, where central codes (e.g., the ) supersede divergent state measures absent presidential assent. As of 2025, no major amendments have altered 254's core structure, preserving its role in averting dual enforcement chaos.

Judicial Interpretations

Doctrinal Foundations

The doctrinal foundations of judicial interpretations for the Concurrent List stem from Articles 246(2) and 254 of the Indian Constitution, which allocate shared legislative authority to and legislatures on List III subjects while establishing supremacy mechanisms to prevent jurisdictional chaos. These provisions reflect a quasi-federal design prioritizing national unity through Union override capabilities, balanced against flexibility via doctrines evolved by the to assess and conflicts. The Doctrine of Pith and Substance forms a , directing courts to evaluate the true character, object, and effect of legislation rather than its form or incidental features, thereby validating laws whose core aligns with Concurrent List entries despite peripheral overlaps with or Lists. Originating from pre-independence and affirmed post-Constitution, this doctrine permits tolerance for ancillary encroachments to avoid rigid compartmentalization of powers. In Prafulla Kumar Mukherjee v. Bank of Commerce (AIR 1947 PC 60), the applied it to uphold a law on money-lending, emphasizing substance over incidental federal intrusions. The extended this in State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara (AIR 1951 SC 318), sustaining the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, as its pith—public health and morals—fell within competence, notwithstanding incidental effects. Underpinning conflict resolution is the Doctrine of Repugnancy, codified in Article 254(1), which renders state laws void to the extent they contradict laws on concurrent subjects, embodying Union supremacy to ensure uniform national policy where overlap arises. Repugnancy arises not merely from direct contradiction but also from incompatibility preventing simultaneous operation or implied repeal intent. Article 254(2) offers an exception, allowing state laws precedence with prior Presidential assent, as interpreted in Zaverbhai Amaidas v. State of Bombay (AIR 1954 SC 752), where the Court stressed that assent does not immunize against future Union overrides. This doctrine intersects with to first classify the law's field before testing inconsistency. The principle of Harmonious Construction guides interpretation to reconcile potentially clashing and enactments, mandating readings that give effect to both unless irreconcilable repugnancy compels invalidation under Article 254. Courts presume legislative intent for coexistence, applying this to foster on shared subjects like or forests. Relatedly, the Doctrine of Occupied Field operates within repugnancy, positing that exhaustive Union legislation on a Concurrent List subject precludes state intervention, as the field is implicitly reserved for parliamentary dominance. This judicial gloss, drawn from cases like State of Orissa v. T.J. Beverages (1987), ensures against fragmented regulation but requires evidence of comprehensive coverage, not mere enactment. Together, these doctrines— for competence, repugnancy for supremacy, harmonious construction for reconciliation, and occupied field for exclusivity—provide a balanced judicial toolkit, prioritizing empirical legislative intent and causal federal dynamics over formalistic divides.

Landmark Supreme Court Cases

In Deep Chand v. State of U.P. (1959), the examined the repugnancy between the U.P. Transport Service (Development) Act, 1955, and the central , 1939, both pertaining to transport (Entry 35, Concurrent List). The Court held that state laws inconsistent with central enactments on concurrent subjects are void under Article 254(1) to the extent of repugnancy, emphasizing that mere difference in approach does not constitute conflict unless provisions cannot coexist in practice. The v. (1979) judgment refined the repugnancy test for concurrent subjects like procedure (Entry 2). The Court ruled that repugnancy arises only from direct inconsistency where compliance with one law implies breach of the other, or if the state law is intended as a complete code supplanting the central law; incidental overlapping or supplementary provisions do not invalidate state enactments absent explicit . In Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of (1983), involving drugs and medicines (Entry 19), the Court clarified Article 254(2)'s proviso, holding that a state law on a concurrent subject can prevail over a central law if reserved for presidential assent, but only if it does not undermine the central law's policy or occupy the entire legislative field; repugnancy voids the state law otherwise. The Forum for People's Collective Efforts v. State of (2021) case addressed repugnancy between the central (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, and West Bengal's Housing Industry Regulation Act, 2017 (both under Entries 6 and 7). The reiterated that laws on concurrent subjects must be tested for ; incidental encroachment on Union matters is permissible, but direct repugnancy triggers central supremacy unless Article 254(2) applies, rejecting broad "occupied field" doctrine without evidence of legislative intent. In Naeem Bano v. Mohammad Rahees (2024), the Court upheld parliamentary supremacy in amending concurrent subjects like transfer of property (Entry 6), ruling that a 2002 central amendment to Section 106 of the , overrides prior state adaptations or interpretations, as Union laws on concurrent matters bind states post-enactment under Article 254(1).

Controversies and Criticisms

Instances of Central Overreach

One prominent instance involves the enactment of the four labour codes between 2019 and 2020, which consolidated 29 central and state laws on subjects like wages, , social security, and occupational safety— all under the Concurrent List (entries 22-25). These codes, including the , established a uniform central framework requiring states to align their rules, but critics including state governments and trade unions contended that the process marginalized state input, effectively curtailing their legislative flexibility to address local economic conditions despite constitutional concurrency. For example, states like and raised concerns over reduced thresholds for layoffs and strikes, arguing the codes tilted power toward the centre under Article 254's repugnancy doctrine, where central laws prevail in conflicts. Similarly, the replacement of colonial-era criminal laws with the ; ; and —enacted in December 2023 and effective from July 1, 2024—has been cited as central overreach on Concurrent List entries 1-2 ( and ). Opposition from states like and , along with bar associations, highlighted the lack of meaningful consultation with state legislatures, imposing nationwide procedural changes such as extended police custody periods and centralized investigation protocols that override varying state practices. This move reinforced central dominance, as Article 254(1) voids inconsistent state laws unless granted presidential assent under subsection (2), which has been rarely invoked, leading to uniform application despite federal structure. In education, the Right of Children to and Act, 2009 (RTE Act), operationalized Article 21A on a Concurrent List (entry 25, post-1976 amendment), mandating 25% in private unaided schools and a no-detention policy up to class 8. States such as and challenged aspects like the financial burden and rigid norms, viewing them as encroachments that limited state autonomy in curriculum and admissions, with central funding tied to compliance exacerbating perceptions of coercive uniformity. Legal disputes, including state petitions for modifications, underscored how the Act's repugnancy-proof design under Article 254 prioritized national standards, often at the expense of regional priorities.

State Autonomy Challenges

The doctrine of repugnancy under Article 254 of the Indian Constitution exemplifies a core challenge to state autonomy in concurrent subjects, as it mandates that central laws prevail over inconsistent state laws unless the state secures presidential assent for its legislation. This provision, intended to ensure uniformity, often results in de facto central dominance, limiting states' ability to tailor policies to local needs in areas like , forests, and . For instance, in cases of overlapping legislation on forests—transferred to the Concurrent List via the 42nd Amendment Act of 1976—state efforts to regulate local resource management have frequently been nullified by subsequent central enactments, such as the Forest (Conservation) Act amendments, eroding fiscal and administrative discretion. Judicial interpretations have compounded these tensions by applying a broad test for repugnancy, where even implied inconsistencies render state laws void, as seen in Zaveri v. State of Bombay (1954), where the upheld central precedence over state impositions under concurrent taxation powers. States argue this framework incentivizes central preemption, with non-Congress ruled administrations, such as Tamil Nadu's, citing impositions like the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test () in 2016 as encroachments on , originally a state before its 1976 shift to the Concurrent List. Empirical data from inter-state disputes reveal over 20 repugnancy challenges litigated between 2000 and 2023, predominantly favoring Union legislation, underscoring a toward national uniformity at the expense of regional diversity. Political responses have included calls to abolish the Concurrent List entirely, as advocated by regional parties in the 1980s consultations, to reassign subjects exclusively to states and prevent "creeping centralization." However, such reforms face resistance due to imperatives in concurrent domains like criminal law, where central codes (e.g., amendments) override state procedural variations, as in State of v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights (2010). Critics from state perspectives, including scholars, contend that the list's 52 entries—expanded post-Emergency—facilitate overreach during fiscal dependencies, with states' share of central grants tied to compliance, further diminishing legislative . Despite these challenges, no has dismantled the list, preserving a quasi-federal structure where state innovations in concurrent areas remain vulnerable to judicial or legislative override.

Debates on Restructuring

Debates on restructuring the in India's Seventh Schedule have centered on balancing national uniformity with state autonomy, with critics arguing that its 52 entries enable central overreach under Article 254, which prioritizes Union laws in conflicts. Proponents, including during discussions, defended the list as essential for providing "elasticity" to , allowing shared legislation on cross-border issues like and to ensure consistent principles while permitting state variations. However, dissenters like warned of gradual erosion of state powers due to Union dominance, a concern amplified by nine constitutional amendments since 1950 that expanded the Union and Concurrent Lists by shifting five items from the to Concurrent. Specific proposals for reform include rationalizing entries to eliminate overlaps and outdated provisions, as outlined in a 2019 study commissioned by the , which recommended adding six new Concurrent entries—such as disaster management and —while removing 20 obsolete ones across lists, resulting in a restructured Concurrent List of 60 entries. The study advocated a principle-based model emphasizing unity, economic balance, , and governance responsiveness, alongside periodic reviews every decade via and mandatory state consultation before central legislation on Concurrent subjects. Earlier, the Rajamannar Committee in 1971 proposed transferring multiple Concurrent entries to the and requiring Union-state consultations, reflecting demands for devolution amid perceived centralization. A prominent example fueling restructuring calls is (Entry 25, Concurrent List since the 42nd Amendment in 1976), which Tamil Nadu's government has challenged as disrupting federal balance by enabling Union impositions like the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory , that override state policies. In 2023, controversies over national exams like reignited demands to revert to the State List, with Chief Minister arguing it would restore state control amid implementation mismatches. While some advocate abolishing the Concurrent List entirely to mimic Pakistan's 2010 devolution, others caution this could fragment national policies on shared concerns like labor and forests, underscoring ongoing tensions between and state sovereignty.

Impact on Federalism

Contributions to National Unity

The Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule of the Indian Constitution enumerates 47 subjects, including criminal law, marriage and divorce, education, forests, and economic and social planning, over which both Parliament and state legislatures may enact laws. This shared jurisdiction facilitates the formulation of national policies that require uniformity to preserve cohesion in a diverse federation, while permitting states to address local variations, thereby mitigating potential sources of regional discord. In instances of repugnancy between Union and state laws on concurrent subjects, Article 254 mandates that the Union law prevails, unless the state law receives presidential assent post-enactment. This mechanism ensures overriding central authority on matters essential for national integration, such as uniform criminal procedure under the (enacted 1860, operative nationwide), which standardizes justice administration and deters fragmented legal interpretations that could undermine public order. Similarly, over marriage laws have enabled nationwide reforms, like the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955, promoting social uniformity without erasing cultural adaptations by states. By vesting concurrent authority in subjects like forests and —amended to include —the List supports coordinated responses to transboundary issues, as evidenced in the Wildlife Protection Act of 1972, which harmonizes state efforts under central guidelines to safeguard shared ecological resources critical for . The (1988) emphasized that Union occupation of concurrent fields should prioritize uniformity "essential in the larger interests of the ," reinforcing how this structure counters fissiparous tendencies in multi-ethnic . Overall, these provisions cultivate , where state implementation of central frameworks on concurrent matters—such as policies post-1976 —builds collective identity and resilience against secessionist pressures.

Effects on Policy Uniformity and Diversity

The Concurrent List, comprising 47 subjects in the Seventh Schedule of the Indian Constitution as of 2025, enables both the Union Parliament and state legislatures to legislate, fostering a hybrid approach to governance that tempers national standardization with regional adaptation. Under Article 254, Union laws prevail over conflicting state laws, thereby enforcing uniformity in domains requiring cohesive national frameworks, such as , , and , where fragmented state policies could impede interstate or . This repugnancy , rooted in the framers' intent to prioritize national post-independence, has empirically supported consistent application of central statutes like the (1860), which states supplement but cannot fundamentally alter. This structure promotes policy diversity by allowing states to enact complementary legislation or implement central laws with contextual variations, accommodating India's heterogeneous geography, demographics, and economies. For example, in education—shifted to the Concurrent List via the 42nd Amendment in 1976—Parliament's Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act (2009) sets nationwide norms for school enrollment and infrastructure, yet states like Tamil Nadu and Kerala have diverged in curriculum emphases and reservation quotas to address local linguistic and socioeconomic needs, resulting in higher literacy rates in southern states (e.g., Kerala's 96.2% as per 2011 Census, versus national 74%). Similarly, under the concurrent subject of forests (Entry 17A), the central Environment (Protection) Act (1986) establishes baseline protections, but states such as Madhya Pradesh and Arunachal Pradesh tailor wildlife management policies to regional biodiversity, with Arunachal granting exemptions for tribal shifting cultivation under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers Act (2006). These variations have spurred innovation, such as Gujarat's labor reforms under concurrent Entry 22, which relaxed central code restrictions to attract manufacturing investments, contributing to its 8.4% GSDP growth in 2022-23. Critics argue that frequent central overrides erode state autonomy, potentially homogenizing policies at the expense of diversity, as evidenced by the 2020 labor codes, which consolidated 29 laws into four but faced state pushback for curtailing flexibility in industrial disputes , leading to uneven adoption (e.g., ratified promptly for economic revival post-COVID, while others delayed). Nonetheless, data from the (1988) and subsequent reviews indicate that have sustained , with states leveraging them for 20-30% of their legislative output in areas like , where pre-2020 variations in responses highlighted adaptive strengths amid national guidelines. This duality has arguably enhanced overall policy resilience, as states experiment within central guardrails, though demands for reallocating subjects like back to the persist to amplify diversity.

References

  1. [1]
    [PDF] SEVENTH SCHEDULE
    List III—Concurrent List. 1. Criminal law, including all matters included in ... 26, ibid., for entry 42. THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. (Seventh Schedule). 329.
  2. [2]
    [PDF] Concurrent Power of Legislation under List III of the Indian ...
    any of the matters enumerated in List III in the Seventh Schedule (in this. Constitution, referred to as the “Concurrent List”). (3). Subject to clauses (1) ...
  3. [3]
    Constitution | Supreme Court of India
    The Seventh Schedule of the Constitution contains three lists: a Union List, a State List, and a Concurrent List. These lists set out the various subjects ...<|separator|>
  4. [4]
    [PDF] Enumeration of Legislative Powers in India | EAC-PM
    Mar 6, 2023 · The introduction of. 'Environment Protection' in the concurrent list of the seventh schedule was recommended by the Tiwari Committee but till ...
  5. [5]
    246. Subject-matter of laws made by Parliament and by the ...
    (1) Notwithstanding anything in clauses (2) and (3), Parliament has exclusive power to make laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List I in ...
  6. [6]
    List III: Concurrent List - Constitution of India .net
    The Concurrent List in the Seventh schedule outlines the matters on which Parliament and State Legislatures have shared responsibility of making laws.
  7. [7]
    Article 254: Inconsistency between laws made by Parliament and ...
    Article 254 provides for the law when there exists inconsistency between laws made by Parliament and laws made by the Legislatures of States.
  8. [8]
    Government of India Act 1935 - Legislation.gov.uk
    LIST I. Federal Legislative List.. 1.His Majesty's naval, military and air forces borne on the Indian establishment and any other armed force raised in ...
  9. [9]
    Government of India Act 1935 Archives - Constitution of India
    ... List III in the said Schedule (hereinafter called the “Concurrent Legislative List”). (3) Subject to the two preceding subsections, the Provincial Legislature ...
  10. [10]
    [PDF] Government of India Act, 1935. - Legislation.gov.uk
    ... List III in the said Schedule (hereinafter called the " Concurrent Legislative List "). (3) Subject to the two preceding subsections, the. Provincial ...
  11. [11]
    Government of India Act of 1935 - The Crown Rule
    Division of power between centre and provinces was introduced through 3 lists i.e Federal, provincial and concurrent list. It introduced provincial autonomy. It ...
  12. [12]
    None
    ### Key Sections and Summary on Concurrent Powers under List III of the Indian Constitution
  13. [13]
    07 Oct 1949 Archives - Constitution of India
    CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY DEBATES. Volume 10. 07 Oct 1949. Copy ... When France decided to constitute a Constituent Assembly after the war to frame a Constitution ...
  14. [14]
  15. [15]
    17 Oct 1949 Archives - Constitution of India
    The point is when Parliament makes any law under the concurrent List and gives executive power to the Union Executive then the power of pardon should be with ...
  16. [16]
    The Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976
    Oct 12, 2012 · ... List or the Concurrent List in a Provincial Act;. (e) any notification, order, scheme, rule, regulation or bye-law or any other instrument ...
  17. [17]
    [PDF] the need to revisit schedule 7 of the indian constitution and look at ...
    The Constitution gives precedence to laws enacted on the Union List over the State List or Concurrent List. Similarly, laws passed by the Parliament on a ...
  18. [18]
    7th Schedule of Indian Constitution, Provisions, States, Articles
    Oct 7, 2025 · While the 42nd Amendment expanded the Centre's legislative domain by shifting key subjects to the Concurrent List, the 101st Amendment reshaped ...
  19. [19]
  20. [20]
    List III-Concurrent List - Constitution of India
    This is a very detailed list from the Concurrent List of the Indian Constitution, covering everything from criminal law to family planning and education. It ...
  21. [21]
    Subjects Allocated | Department of Empowerment of Persons with ...
    The following subjects which fall within List III – Concurrent List of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution (as regards legislation only):. Relief of the ...
  22. [22]
    Article 246: Subject-matter of laws made by Parliament and by the ...
    The Constitution of India 1950 was drafted by a Constituent Assembly. 167 days of plenary assembly debates from 9 December 1946 to 24 January 1950 are archived ...
  23. [23]
    Article 246 of the Indian Constitution - iPleaders
    Jul 23, 2022 · Under Article 246(4), Parliament has the power to enact legislation for any area of India's territory not covered by a state, even if that area ...<|separator|>
  24. [24]
    Article 246 of Indian Constitution: Laws made by Parliament & by the ...
    Article 246 explains how Parliament and State Legislatures divide law-making powers using three lists—Union, State, and Concurrent. What is the meaning of ...
  25. [25]
    The Power of Parliament and State Legislatures Under Article 246 of ...
    Nov 24, 2024 · Residual Powers: Article 246(4) empowers Parliament to legislate for any territory not covered by a state law, even if it pertains to matters in ...
  26. [26]
    Article 73: Extent of executive power of the Union - Constitution of India
    First, the power to execute laws made by the Parliament on matters relating to Concurrent List ordinarily rested with the states. Second, only in exceptional ...
  27. [27]
    [PDF] £ÉÉ®iÉ BÉEÉ ºÉÆÉÊ´ÉvÉÉxÉ - Legislative Department
    May 1, 2024 · This is the sixth pocket size edition of the Constitution of. India in the diglot form. In this edition, the text of the.<|separator|>
  28. [28]
    Article 254 - GKToday
    Oct 13, 2025 · Article 254 provides a constitutional rule of priority to determine which law prevails in such cases. Its purpose is to maintain legislative ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  29. [29]
    Evolution of “The Doctrine of Repugnancy” - SCC Online
    Sep 16, 2023 · Article 254(1) lays down the general rule that in the event of a conflict between a Union law and a State law enacted under the Concurrent List ...
  30. [30]
    State of Bombay and Another vs. F.N. Balsara (1951) - iPleaders
    Jul 3, 2024 · According to this doctrine, it is the duty of the court to see what is the “pith and substance” of the law which means that the court has to see ...
  31. [31]
    Case Analysis: State of Bombay v. FN Balsara - Lawctopus
    The Court applied the doctrine of pith and substance to determine the true legislative intent of the Act. The Court found that the primary object of the Bombay ...
  32. [32]
    Doctrine of occupied field - iPleaders
    Jan 9, 2024 · Article 254 addresses the relationship between Union and state laws on concurrent list subjects by providing a framework for resolving conflicts ...
  33. [33]
    A Comprehensive Analysis of Deep Chand v. State of Uttar Pradesh ...
    The Deep Chand case addresses the balance between state and central powers, allowing coexistence, with central laws prevailing only to the extent of repugnancy.
  34. [34]
    Article 254 of Indian Constitution: Doctrine of Repugnancy ...
    Article 254 of Indian Constitution establishes process for settling legal conflicts between central and state legislation concerning Concurrent List subjects.
  35. [35]
    M. Karunanidhi v Union of India - LawBhoomi
    Nov 28, 2024 · The case of M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India (1979) is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of India that addresses the doctrine of repugnancy.
  36. [36]
    Doctrine of repugnancy - iPleaders
    Mar 4, 2024 · Article 254(2) provides a way for the state law to stand repugnant and void due to the presence of a central law on a matter related to the ...
  37. [37]
    Supreme Court Clarifies Stance on Repugnancy of Statutes
    Impliedly referring to the third 'prong' of Justice Subba Rao's guidelines for repugnancy, the Bench ruled that the subject matter covered by both Acts occupied ...
  38. [38]
    Supreme Court of India Clarifies Parliamentary Supremacy over ...
    Nov 23, 2024 · The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Naeem Bano Alias Gaindo v. Mohammad Rahees & Anr. (2024 INSC 1000), addressed a critical issue ...
  39. [39]
    Labour Codes vs. Workers' Rights: Trade Unions Rally Against ...
    Apr 19, 2025 · India's central trade unions gear up for a nationwide strike on May 20, opposing the unilateral implementation of four labour codes.
  40. [40]
    New criminal laws expand police powers and restrict civil liberties
    Jul 21, 2024 · The three new criminal laws that were passed by Parliament in 2023, and which came into effect on July 1 this year, have met with strong ...
  41. [41]
    The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act - RTE
    Education in the Indian constitution is a concurrent issue and both centre and states can legislate on the issue. The Act lays down specific responsibilities ...Features · Forums · State · FAQsMissing: overreach | Show results with:overreach
  42. [42]
    States' Demand for Autonomy | Current Affairs - Vision IAS
    May 17, 2025 · Through Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976 following 5 subjects were moved State List to Concurrent List: Education,; Forests,; Weights ...
  43. [43]
    Tamil Nadu Challenges Centre Over Constitutional Autonomy Rights
    Apr 28, 2025 · Today's autonomy demands respond to specific contemporary challenges: disputes over the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET), ...
  44. [44]
    Regional Demands for Autonomy in Indian States - PolSci Institute
    Jan 24, 2024 · Abolition of concurrent list: It suggested abolishing the Concurrent List of the Indian Constitution, thus reducing central intervention in ...
  45. [45]
    [PDF] “Federalism and Centre–State Relations in Contemporary India”
    Oct 10, 2025 · The widening of the Concurrent List through amendments to the Constitution has also weakened state autonomy. Five subjects were shifted from the ...<|separator|>
  46. [46]
    The Dynamics of Federalism in the Constitution of India - LSE Blogs
    Sep 15, 2025 · The Concurrent List, which includes subjects like education, forests, criminal law, and marriage, refers to those matters where both the Union ...
  47. [47]
    Concurrent List of the Indian Constitution - INSIGHTS IAS
    Dec 18, 2018 · The Constitution of India has provided for a division of powers between the Central and state governments. Under the Seventh Schedule, there are three lists.
  48. [48]
    None
    Summary of each segment:
  49. [49]
    Transfer of 'education' to concurrent list during the Emergency has ...
    Oct 17, 2022 · One significant example is the enactment of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act, 2009 and also several ...
  50. [50]
    In NEET row, TN harks back to an old debate: should education be ...
    Aug 21, 2023 · Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin recently said that education should be moved from the Concurrent list (controlled by the Centre and states) back to the ...Missing: controversy | Show results with:controversy
  51. [51]
    Removing the concurrent list strengthens federalism in India ...
    Sep 13, 2019 · The aim of the concurrent list was to ensure uniformity across the country where independently both centre and state can legislate.
  52. [52]
    Debate Around Education as a 'State Subject' - Drishti IAS
    Jul 4, 2024 · Controversies surrounding exams like NEET-UG and UGC-NET have reignited the debate on whether education should be transferred back to the state list.
  53. [53]
    [PDF] EVOLUTION OF CENTRE-STATE RELATIONS IN INDIA REPORT ...
    ordinarily, the Union should occupy only that much field of a concurrent subject on which uniformity of policy and action is essential in the larger ...
  54. [54]
    [PDF] Repugnancy Laws and Its Effect on the Indian Federalism - IJFMR
    In cases of conflict between Union and State powers, Union law prevails over State powers. If conflicts arise within the. Concurrent List, the power of ...
  55. [55]
    There has been an increasing demand for doing away with the ...
    Dec 21, 2022 · The concurrent list ensures both uniformity and variety of law since it includes topics where national uniformity is desirable but not necessary.
  56. [56]
    Uniformity of labour laws shall transparency; ensures welfare ...
    Jun 28, 2024 · This is because labor is a subject listed in the Concurrent List of the Indian Constitution, which means both levels of government can legislate ...
  57. [57]
    Shifting Health to the Concurrent List - Drishti IAS
    This list has at present 52 subjects (originally 47) like criminal law and procedure, civil procedure, marriage and divorce, population control and family ...<|control11|><|separator|>