The doctrine of repugnancy in India provides that if there is a conflict between a state law and a parliamentary law on the same concurrent subject matter, the parliamentary law will prevail to the extent of the inconsistency. Repugnancy can arise in cases of direct conflict between provisions, if both laws cover the same field, or if the parliamentary law was intended to occupy the whole field. For a state law to be repugnant to a central law, there must be a clear inconsistency making it impossible to obey both laws. The Supreme Court has held that the central law will prevail in cases of full inconsistency, while an assented state law will prevail to the extent of any repugnancy with
The doctrine of repugnancy in India provides that if there is a conflict between a state law and a parliamentary law on the same concurrent subject matter, the parliamentary law will prevail to the extent of the inconsistency. Repugnancy can arise in cases of direct conflict between provisions, if both laws cover the same field, or if the parliamentary law was intended to occupy the whole field. For a state law to be repugnant to a central law, there must be a clear inconsistency making it impossible to obey both laws. The Supreme Court has held that the central law will prevail in cases of full inconsistency, while an assented state law will prevail to the extent of any repugnancy with
The doctrine of repugnancy in India provides that if there is a conflict between a state law and a parliamentary law on the same concurrent subject matter, the parliamentary law will prevail to the extent of the inconsistency. Repugnancy can arise in cases of direct conflict between provisions, if both laws cover the same field, or if the parliamentary law was intended to occupy the whole field. For a state law to be repugnant to a central law, there must be a clear inconsistency making it impossible to obey both laws. The Supreme Court has held that the central law will prevail in cases of full inconsistency, while an assented state law will prevail to the extent of any repugnancy with
The doctrine of repugnancy in India provides that if there is a conflict between a state law and a parliamentary law on the same concurrent subject matter, the parliamentary law will prevail to the extent of the inconsistency. Repugnancy can arise in cases of direct conflict between provisions, if both laws cover the same field, or if the parliamentary law was intended to occupy the whole field. For a state law to be repugnant to a central law, there must be a clear inconsistency making it impossible to obey both laws. The Supreme Court has held that the central law will prevail in cases of full inconsistency, while an assented state law will prevail to the extent of any repugnancy with
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 13
DOCTRINE OF REPUGNANCY
Introduction The Constitution of India vests the law-making powers between the Union Parliament and State Legislatures in terms of its various provisions read with Schedule VII. It therein distributes the subject-matters over which the two are competent to make laws; List I being the fields allocated for the Parliament, List II being those within the exclusive domain of the State Legislatures and List III represents those areas where both carry concurrent powers to make laws. The Constitution, however, itself provides [vide Article 254] that a law on a subject matter prescribed in List III enacted by the State Legislature would be valid only in the absence of or not being contrary to a law made by the Parliament on the same subject matter. Thus has developed the Doctrine of Repugnancy which is employed to test as to when and where a State law turns repugnant to the Parliamentary legislation. Repugnancy under Indian Constitution Article 245 states that Parliament may make laws for whole or any part of India and the Legislature of a state may make laws for whole or any part of the State. It further states that no law made by Parliament shall be deemed to be invalid on the ground that it would have extraterritorial operation. Article 246 also talks about Legislative power of the Parliament and the Legislature of a state. It states that: 1.The Parliament has exclusive power to make laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List I or the Union List in the Seventh Schedule.
2.The Legislature of any State has exclusive power to make laws for such state with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List II or the State List in the Seventh 3.The Parliament and the Legislature of any State have power to make laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List III or Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule.
4.Parliament has power to make laws with respect to any matter for any part of the territory of India not included in a State notwithstanding that such matter is a matter enumerated in the State List.
However, it is Article 254 of the Constitution of India that firmly entrenches
the Doctrine of Repugnancy in India. When Repugnancy Arises 1)Direct Conflict- There may be inconsistency in the actual terms of the Statute as when one legislature says “do” and the other says “don’t”. There is a clear and direct inconsistency between the Central Act and the State Act and such an inconsistency is absolutely of such a nature as to bring the two Acts into direct collision and a situation is reached where it is impossible to obey the one without disobeying the other.
2)Occupied Field- There may be not an apparent conflict or collision between the two provisions yet there may be repugnancy between both covering the same field.
3)Intended Occupation- This may happen when there is no direct conflict in the two provisions nor the Act directly takes away a right conferred by the other, yet there may be repugnancy because it may be in conflict with intention of the dominant law to cover the whole of the subordinate law. Conditions Now, the conditions which must be satisfied before any repugnancy could arise are as follows: 1.That there is a clear and direct inconsistency between the Central Act and the State Act.
2.That such an inconsistency is absolutely irreconcilable.
3.That the inconsistency between the provisions of the two Acts is of such nature as to bring the two Acts into direct collision with each other and a situation is reached where it is impossible to obey the one without disobeying the other. Supreme Court’s Interpretation Article 254 has been beautifully summarized by the Supreme Court in Karunanidhi v. Union of India . The court said that:
1)Where the provisions of a Central Act and a State Act in the Concurrent List are fully inconsistent and are absolutely irreconcilable, the Central Act will prevail and the State Act will become void in view of the repugnancy.
2)Where however a law passed by the State comes into collision with a law passed by Parliament on an Entry in the Concurrent List, the State Act shall prevail to the extent of the repugnancy and the provisions of the Central Act would become void provided that the State Act has been passed in accordance with Article 254(2). 3)Where a law passed by the State Legislature while being substantially within the scope of the entries in the State List entrenches upon any of the Entries in the Central List, the constitutionality of the law may be upheld by invoking the doctrine of pith and substance if on an analysis of the provisions of the Act it appears that by and large the law falls within the four corners of the State List and entrenchment, is purely incidental or inconsequential.
4)Where, a law made by the State Legislature on a subject covered by the Concurrent List is inconsistent with and repugnant to a previous law made by Parliament, then such law can be protected by obtaining the assent of the President under Article 254(2). Case Laws 1) Zaverbhai v. State of Bombay (1954): Parliament enacted the Essential Supplies Act,1946, for regulating production, supply and distribution of essential commodities. A contravention of any provisions of the above Act was punishable with imprisonment up to 3 years or fine or both. In 1947, considering the punishment inadequate, the Bombay Legislature passed an Act enhancing the punishment provided under the Central Law. The Bombay Act received the assent of the President and thus prevailed over the Central Law and became operative in Bombay. However in 1950, the Parliament amended its Act of 1946, and enhanced the punishment. It held that as both occupied the same field the State Law became void as being repugnant to the Central Law. 2) Deepchand v. State of UP (1959): UP Transport Service (Development) Act authorized the State Government to make the scheme for nationalization of Motor Transport in the State. The law was necessitated because the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 did not contain any provision for the nationalization of the Motor Transport Services. Later on, in 1956 the Parliament with a view to introduce a uniform law amended the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and added a new provision enabling the State Government to frame rules of nationalization of Motor Transport. The Court held that since both the Union and the State Law occupied the same field, the State Law was void to the extent of repugnancy to the Union Law. 3) In Hoechst Pharmaceutical Ltd. v. State of Bihar (1983), the Supreme Court has explained the purport of Art. 254(1). “Cl. (1) lays down that if a State law relating to a concurrent subject is ‘repugnant’ to a Union Law relating to that subject, whether the Union Law is prior or later in time, the Union Law will prevail and the State Law shall, to the extent of such repugnancy, be void.”
4) In National Engg. Industries Ltd. v. Shri Kishan Bhageria (1988): Sabyasachi
Mukharji, J., opined that the best test of repugnancy is that if one prevails, the other cannot prevail. 5) Govt. of AP v. J.B. Educational Society (1998) : Taking into account the ambit and scope of Articles 246 and 254 and considering the scheme laid down by the apex court in M. Karunanidhi case with respect to the situations in which repugnancy would arise, the court held that Parliament has exclusive power to legislate with respect to matters in List I. The non obstante clause under Article 246(1) indicates the predominance or supremacy of the law made by the Union Legislature in the event of an overlap of the law made by Parliament with respect to a matter in List I and a law made by the State Legislature with respect to a matter enumerated in List II. Thank You!
Wolfgang Benedek, Christopher Daase, Vojin Dimitrijević, Petrus van Duyne (eds.) - Transnational Terrorism, Organized Crime and Peace-Building_ Human Security in the Western Balkans-Palgrave Macmillan
Wolfgang Benedek, Christopher Daase, Vojin Dimitrijević, Petrus van Duyne (eds.) - Transnational Terrorism, Organized Crime and Peace-Building_ Human Security in the Western Balkans-Palgrave Macmillan
