DH Deciphers | Can Congress-led state governments bypass central farm laws?

Congress interim president Sonia Gandhi has asked state governments led by the party to consider using Article 254(2) of the Constitution to bypass the three controversial agricultural laws passed by Parliament and assented to by the President of India. The laws, as we know, have triggered large-scale protests across the country, especially in Punjab and Haryana. The union government has strongly defended the laws and there's little indication that it will go back on them. Can Congress-ruled states bypass these laws?

What does Article 254(2) say?
"Where a law made by the legislature of a state with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List contains any provision repugnant to the provisions of an earlier law made by Parliament or an existing law with respect to that matter, 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 is the Concurrent List?
The legislative section of the Constitution of India is divided into Union List, State List and Concurrent List. The Union List includes matters that come under the purview of the union government. For example, defence, foreign affairs, etc. The State List includes matters that come under the purview of state governments, such as law and order, public health, etc. The Concurrent List includes matters that come under the purview of both the union and state governments. Criminal law, education, etc, are some of them. While agriculture is a state subject, the Centre can also make some laws on it.

What if a central law contradicts a state law on the Concurrent List? Which will prevail?
While state legislatures also have the power to make laws on the matters on the Concurrent List, the law passed by Parliament will prevail in case of any inconsistency (repugnancy) between the two laws. Article 254(1) of the Constitution states: "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, subject to the provisions of clause (2), 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."

Even Article 254(2), which empowering state legislatures to make laws on the Concurrent List, states: "Provided that nothing in this clause shall prevent Parliament from enacting at any time any law with respect to the same matter including a law adding to, amending, varying or repealing the law so made by the Legislature of the State."

Put simply, a law passed by Parliament will prevail over a state law in a matter on the Concurrent List in case of a contradiction between the two. Parliament also has the authority to change or repeal a conflicting state law on the Concurrent List. Lastly, laws passed by Congress-ruled states are unlikely to get the President's assent, which is exercised as per the advice of the union government.

So is the Congress announcement more optics than substance?
The probability of state legislatures negating the three central farm laws is low. More than anything, the Congress announcement shows the party's political messaging. That the party is ready to take on the central government and try its best to counter the "anti-farmer" laws. This may well resonate in Punjab, where the Congress is in power, and Haryana, where it's a strong opposition.