The Concurrent List is List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India, enumerating subjects on which both the Union Parliament and the State Legislatures are competent to make laws under Article 246(2). This three-fold scheme of distribution—Union List (List I), State List (List II) and Concurrent List (List III)—was borrowed from the Government of India Act, 1935, and ultimately modelled on the Australian Constitution, the only major federal precedent then containing a concurrent field. As originally enacted the Concurrent List contained 47 entries; following the 42nd Amendment (1976) five subjects—education, forests, weights and measures, protection of wild animals and birds, and administration of justice/constitution of courts—were transferred from the State List, making the list more centralising in character and bringing the present count to 52 entries.
The operative principle is the doctrine of repugnancy in Article 254. Where a State law on a concurrent subject conflicts with a Union law, the Union law prevails and the State law is void to the extent of the inconsistency (Article 254(1)). The crucial exception is Article 254(2): a State law repugnant to an existing or earlier Union law may prevail within that State if it has been reserved for the consideration of the President and has received presidential assent—though Parliament retains the power under the proviso to subsequently override it by fresh legislation. Representative entries include criminal law and criminal procedure (Entries 1 and 2, embracing the Indian Penal Code and CrPC), civil procedure, marriage and divorce, contracts, bankruptcy, trade unions, social security, economic and social planning, electricity, factories, and price control. Courts apply the doctrines of pith and substance and harmonious construction to resolve overlaps, sustaining a law if its true nature falls within the legislating body's competence even if it incidentally trenches on another field.
Landmark judicial elaboration includes M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India (1979), which laid down the tests for repugnancy, and State of West Bengal v. Kesoram Industries (2004) on the boundaries between lists. The replacement of the Indian Penal Code, CrPC and Evidence Act by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (in force 1 July 2024) is a recent exercise of concurrent power over criminal law and procedure. Several States have used Article 254(2) to amend central labour and land-acquisition statutes with presidential assent. As of 2026 the Concurrent List remains a live arena of Centre–State contestation, particularly over education and agriculture-adjacent legislation.
For the UPSC examination, the Concurrent List is core to General Studies Paper II (Indian Polity and Governance) and recurs in Prelims through factual questions—which subjects lie in which list, the effect of the 42nd Amendment, and the entry count. Mains and interview questions probe the federal balance: the centralising tilt of the scheme, the working of Article 254 repugnancy, and debates on cooperative versus competitive federalism. Candidates must distinguish residuary powers (Article 248, vested in Parliament) from the three enumerated lists and recall the precise articles, amendment, and leading cases.
Example
In 2024, Parliament enacted the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita to replace the Indian Penal Code, exercising its concurrent power over criminal law under Entry 1 of List III of the Seventh Schedule.
Frequently asked questions
Under Article 254(1), the Union law prevails and the State law is void to the extent of the repugnancy. However, Article 254(2) allows a State law to prevail within that State if reserved for and granted the President's assent, subject to Parliament's power to override it later.