The Seventh Schedule and the Three Legislative Lists

The Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India divides law-making power between Parliament and the State Legislatures through three lists: List I (Union List), List II (State List) and List III (Concurrent List). Article 246 says Parliament alone legislates on List I, the States alone on List II, and both on List III, while Article 254 decides which law survives when a Central and a State law on a Concurrent subject clash.

This explainer is for first-year B.A. LL.B. and LL.B. students meeting federalism for the first time, and for any citizen who wonders why Tamil Nadu can make its own law on online gambling but cannot run its own army. Once you can place a law in the right entry, half of every constitutional law problem is solved.

What does Article 246 actually say?

Article 246 has four clauses, and the order matters.

• Clause (1): Parliament has exclusive power over matters in List I, "notwithstanding anything in clauses (2) and (3)". The Union List therefore wins any overlap.
• Clause (2): Parliament and, subject to clause (1), every State Legislature can make laws on List III.
• Clause (3): Subject to clauses (1) and (2), a State Legislature has exclusive power over List II for that State or any part of it.
• Clause (4): Parliament can legislate even on State List matters for any part of India that is not included in a State.

Read together, this is a hierarchy: Union List first, Concurrent List next, State List last. Courts use this order when two entries seem to cover the same ground.

What is in each list?

List I: Union List

The Union List runs to Entry 97. It covers defence (Entry 1), the armed forces (Entry 2), atomic energy (Entry 6) and taxes on income other than agricultural income (Entry 82). Entry 97 is the residuary entry: any matter not in List II or List III, including any tax not mentioned in either list.

List II: State List

The State List runs to Entry 66, though several numbers (11, 19, 20, 29, 36, 52 and 55 in the current text) have been omitted over time. It covers public order (Entry 1), police (Entry 2), public health and hospitals (Entry 6), agriculture (Entry 14), land (Entry 18), betting and gambling (Entry 34) and taxes on mineral rights (Entry 50).

List III: Concurrent List

The Concurrent List has 47 numbered entries plus five lettered ones (11A, 17A, 17B, 20A and 33A). Entry 1 reads "Criminal law, including all matters included in the Indian Penal Code at the commencement of this Constitution". That is why Parliament could replace the IPC with the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the CrPC with the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Entry 2, criminal procedure), from 1 July 2024. Education, including medical education and universities, sits in Entry 25.

How have the lists changed since 1950?

The biggest single change came through the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976. Section 57 of that Act omitted Entries 11 (education), 19, 20 and 29 of List II, removed administration of justice from Entry 3 of List II, substituted Entry 25 of List III, and inserted five new Concurrent entries: administration of justice (11A), forests (17A), protection of wild animals and birds (17B), population control and family planning (20A), and weights and measures (33A). It also added Entry 2A to List I, on deploying Union forces in aid of civil power. Education left the State List in this way, which is why debates in Tamil Nadu about admissions to medical colleges are, at their root, debates about a Concurrent List entry.

The second major change was the Constitution (One Hundred and First Amendment) Act, 2016. It inserted Article 246A, which lets both Parliament and the State Legislatures make laws on goods and services tax, "notwithstanding anything contained in articles 246 and 254", and gives Parliament exclusive power over GST on inter-State supplies. Article 248 on residuary power was made subject to Article 246A.

When can Parliament enter the State List?

1. Article 249: if the Rajya Sabha resolves, by at least two-thirds of members present and voting, that it is in the national interest. The resolution lasts up to one year and can be renewed, and the law lapses six months after the resolution ends.
2. Article 250: while a Proclamation of Emergency is in operation.
3. Article 252: when two or more State Legislatures pass resolutions asking Parliament to legislate on a matter.
4. Article 253: to implement a treaty or international agreement.

How do the courts settle overlaps?

Pith and substance

In State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara (1951), the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 was challenged because it touched the import of liquor, a federal subject under the Government of India Act, 1935. In its judgment of 25 May 1951, the Supreme Court looked at the true nature and character of the law. It found that in pith and substance the Act dealt with possession and sale of intoxicating liquor (Entry 31 of the Provincial List), not import (Entry 19 of the Federal List), and held that any encroachment on import was only incidental. Legislative competence was upheld. A few provisions, such as the ban on medicinal and toilet preparations containing alcohol, still fell, but on Article 19 grounds, not for lack of competence. Keep those two questions separate in an answer.

Repugnancy under Article 254

Article 254(1) says a State law that conflicts with a Parliamentary law on a Concurrent subject is void "to the extent of the repugnancy". Article 254(2) saves the State law within that State if it was reserved for and received the President's assent, though the proviso lets Parliament later amend or repeal it. In Vijay Kumar Sharma v. State of Karnataka (decided 27 February 1990), the majority held that repugnancy needs both laws to occupy the same field with a direct conflict, and found none between the Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Act, 1976 and the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, because they dealt with different Concurrent entries: acquisition under Entry 42 and mechanically propelled vehicles under Entry 35. Justice K. Ramaswamy dissented and would have found parts of the Karnataka Act repugnant.

Taxing entries read as separate fields

In Mineral Area Development Authority v. Steel Authority of India (2024), a nine-judge bench held by majority (Justice B.V. Nagarathna dissenting) that royalty under Section 9 of the MMDR Act, 1957 is not a tax, overruling India Cement Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu (1989). States can tax mineral rights and mineral-bearing land under Entries 49 and 50 of List II.

What has the Madras High Court said?

In All India Gaming Federation v. State of Tamil Nadu, decided in November 2023 by a Division Bench of Chief Justice S.V. Gangapurwala and Justice P.D. Audikesavalu, the court upheld the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Online Gambling and Regulation of Online Games Act, 2022, holding that the State has power to ban online gambling. But it held that including rummy and poker, which are games of skill, exceeded the State's legislative competence. The State can still regulate such games, for example through time limits and an age bar of 18. Before relying on this case in practice, check whether any appeal or later Central law has changed the position.

How should you answer a Seventh Schedule question in an exam?

1. Start with Article 246 and state the hierarchy of the three lists.
2. Identify the entry or entries the law could fall under, quoting entry numbers.
3. Apply pith and substance (Balsara) to find the dominant subject, and treat incidental overlap as harmless.
4. If both laws are on a Concurrent subject, run the Article 254 repugnancy test (Vijay Kumar Sharma) and check for presidential assent under Article 254(2).
5. Mention Articles 249 to 253, and 246A for GST, only where the facts call for them.
6. Conclude with a clear answer on validity.

A student in Nagercoil asked whether Tamil Nadu can ban a card game played online should walk through exactly these steps, with Entry 34 of List II and the 2023 Madras High Court ruling as the anchors. You will practise this method in constitutional law under our programmes.

Sources

• Constitution of India: Article 246: text of the distribution of legislative power.
• Constitution of India: List III, Concurrent List: current entries of the Concurrent List (List I and List II are on the same site).
• Constitution of India: List I, Union List: current entries of the Union List.
• Constitution of India: List II, State List: current entries of the State List, with omitted numbers.
• Constitution of India: Article 248: residuary power, subject to Article 246A.
• Constitution of India: Article 254: text of the repugnancy rule.
• Supreme Court of India: State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara (1951): official copy of the judgment.
• Supreme Court of India: Vijay Kumar Sharma v. State of Karnataka (1990): official copy of the judgment.
• Supreme Court Observer: Mineral Area Development Authority order summary: summary of the 2024 nine-judge ruling and the follow-up order.
• Bar and Bench: Madras High Court on the Tamil Nadu online gaming law: report of the November 2023 judgment.