Introduction
Under the Constitution, the Concurrent List (List III, Seventh Schedule) allows both the Union and states to legislate on specified subjects. However, conflicts can arise when laws overlap or diverge—forcing courts to interpret the hierarchy under Article 254, and practitioners to navigate competing claims. Simultaneously, interstate issues like water-sharing and land disputes test cooperative federalism in practice. Resolving these disputes—whether via the judiciary or institutional mechanisms—is central to India’s federal stability.
Constitutional Framework: Article 246–254
-
Article 246 sets the distribution of legislative powers: Union List (exclusive Centre), State List, and Concurrent List (shared).
-
Article 254 addresses inconsistencies: Union law prevails over conflicting state law—unless the state law received Presidential assent and Parliament does not override it subsequently. (“Implied repeal”).
-
Courts also apply the “pith and substance” doctrine to resolve overlaps or incidental encroachments—preserving both sets of legislation wherever possible.
Bar and Bench - Indian Legal news+6aishwaryasandeep.in+6Indian Kanoon+6Legal Research Wing
Landmark Rulings & Repugnancy Doctrine
The Naeem Bano Alias Gaindo v. Mohammad Rahees (2024) decision reaffirmed that a Parliamentary amendment on Transfer of Property Act (Concurrent List) overrides a prior state amendment—even if the latter had Presidential assent—under the proviso to Article 254(2) Legal Research Wing+1CaseMine+1.
Similarly, cases like State of West Bengal v. Kesoram Industries and Forum for People’s Collective Efforts v. West Bengal have struck down conflicting state laws (e.g. West Bengal’s RERA dilution) where they contradicted central statutes without valid assent iPleaders+1aishwaryasandeep.in+1.
The Supreme Court has emphasized a harmonious construction approach, trying to uphold both central and state laws unless the conflict cannot be reconciled. But constitutional supremacy makes central law final where irreconcilable conflicts persist The Financial Express+3iPleaders+3Legal Research Wing+3.
State Initiatives and Sub-Classification in Federal Space
The State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh (2024) judgment upheld state power to introduce sub-classification within SC/ST reservations—despite being normally a Union subject—as long as it does not alter the Presidential list. The decision reflects the Supreme Court’s recognition of state innovation within overlapping fields, subject to constitutional guardrails Supreme Court Observer+1Wikipedia+1.
Further, states have asserted domain over industrial alcohol regulation—held permissible under State List Entry 8 (intoxicating liquor)—despite central claims under Union List Entry 52 (industry), affirming nuanced federalism rather than rigid Union dominance Supreme Court Observer.
Interstate Disputes: Concurrent Issues in Practice
Water-sharing and Tribunal Disputes
River water conflicts—such as those over Cauvery, Krishna, and Godavari—are often framed through Interstate River Water Dispute mechanisms (Article 262) and tribunals.
-
The Kaveri dispute illustrates judicial enforcement under Concurrent List overlap: Centre issues notifications (Parliamentary law), but states contest implementation—requiring Supreme Court or tribunal adjudication. The Court’s repeated interventions reflect complexity where state and Union policies intersect Wikipedia+12Wikipedia+12Wikipedia+12Legal Research Wing+6Reddit+6CaseMine+6.
-
Recently, the Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal has been extended by a year, with the Union actively mediating between Maharashtra, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, and Telangana through committee mechanisms—highlighting the federal mediation role The Times of India.
Border and Regional Disputes
Disputes like Maharashtra vs Telangana's 14 border villages (Chandrapur/Jiwti tehsil) remain unresolved due to overlapping administrative claims. Despite being state domains, the Centre’s role becomes critical in final adjudication, reflecting how Concurrent themes bleed into territorial governance The Times of India.
Likewise, Belagavi border dispute between Maharashtra and Karnataka continues decades-long contest over jurisdiction, highlighting constitutional ambiguity and federal friction Wikipedia.
Political & Structural Critiques
-
Constitutional scholars like TCA Srinivasa-Raghavan argue that the Concurrent List often hinders genuine federalism, enabling excessive Union encroachment into state domains. Particularly when state autonomy is overridden by central supremacy via repugnancy doctrine Business Standard+1Reddit+1.
-
Public sentiment, as visible in forums like Reddit, suggests many favor abolishing the Concurrent List to devolve more power to states—emphasizing subsidiarity and cultural specificity. Critics counter that concurrent authority permits national uniformity, shared resources, and coordinated finance in matters needing central policy cohesion Reddit.
Constitutional & Governance Challenges
-
Ambiguity in delegation: Courts must continue mediating overlap without full clarity on the scope of entries.
-
Delayed presidential assent: Some state laws with presidential assent remain dormant because Parliament hasn’t repealed them, causing legal uncertainty.
-
Centre vs State tensions: Instruments like governors’ assent powers and Article 131 jurisdiction create friction points in legislative disputes Wikipedia+15CaseMine+15Indian Kanoon+15Legal Research Wing+1CaseMine+1The Financial Express+1Drishti IAS+1.
-
Institutional absence: Apart from tribunals for river disputes, no formal federal arbitration body exists to resolve policy overlaps—reliance falls heavily on courts.
Recommendations: Rebalancing Concurrent Governance
-
Judicial Guidelines for Harmonious Construction
SC should issue interpretive frameworks aiming to preserve maximum validity of both laws, pushing repugnancy analysis only where essential. -
Periodic Legislative Review
Constitution Amendment to rationalize the Concurrent List: shift certain subjects (e.g. education, water) back to state lists or design uniform central standards with state flexibility. -
Institutional Mechanisms for Coop-Federal Arbitration
Empower zonal Councils or taskforces under NITI Aayog to act as mediation platforms before legal escalation. -
Transparency in Presidential Assent Records
Publish data on state laws receiving President’s assent under Article 254(2) to minimize ambiguity. -
Clarity through Model Law Templates
Draft model regulations for subjects like property, educational institutions, water boards—ensuring uniform provisions while allowing local adaptation.
Conclusion
Disputes over the Concurrent List reflect deeper structural tensions in India’s federal architecture—between uniformity and diversity, centre-state balance, and legal authority. Judicial precedents like Naeem Bano reaffirm central supremacy in conflicts, but cases like Punjab sub-classification show room for state innovation. Interstate water and border disputes further underscore the limitations of formal lists when real politics intersects with federal boundaries.
Resolving these disputes requires a calibrated approach: robust constitutional interpretation, institutional arbitration mechanisms, political dialogue, and legislative refinement. By revisiting the Concurrent List, clarifying overlap, and strengthening cooperative tools, India can respect constitutional design while preserving federal plurality and legal coherence.