Inconsistency Between Laws Made by Parliament and Laws Made by the Legislatures of States
(1) If any provision of a law made by the Legislature of a State is repugnant to any provision of a law made by Parliament which Parliament is competent to enact, or to any provision of an existing law with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List, then... the law made by Parliament, whether passed before or after the law made by the Legislature of such State, or, as the case may be, the existing law, shall prevail and the law made by the Legislature of the State shall, to the extent of the repugnancy, be void. (2) Where a law made by the Legislature of a State... contains any provision repugnant to the provisions of an earlier law made by Parliament... then, the law so made by the Legislature of such State shall, if it has been reserved for the consideration of the President and has received his assent, prevail in that State...
What this Article actually means
How it shows up in everyday life
This is the general federal conflict-resolution rule for Concurrent List subjects (like education, criminal law, marriage) — but it's worth knowing states aren't always automatically losers in these conflicts, since the President's-assent route (clause 2) can let a state's more specific or locally-tailored law prevail within that state.
Read alongside this one
Quick answers about Article 254
If my state has a specific law on a Concurrent List subject that conflicts with a central law, which one applies to me?
The text above reproduces Article 254 of the Constitution of India as amended to date, for general educational reference. It is public-domain legislative text, but we recommend cross-checking the authoritative version at legislative.gov.in or india.gov.in before relying on it for a legal matter. The explanation, examples and FAQs are general information, not legal advice — consult a qualified advocate for guidance on your specific situation.