INTRODUCTION
India is a Union of States, where the powers are delimited between the Centre and States by the Constitution itself. The powers of the legislature are divided according to three lists namely: Union, State and Concurrent List, under which states and the centre can make laws within the scope of matters covered under their respective lists. However, sometimes the laws made under the respective heads may overlap each other or be repugnant to each other. Repugnancy emerges when the arrangement of two laws, is so conflicting and beyond reconciliation that it is difficult to do one without ignoring the other.[1]
Article 254 (1)[2] of the constitution States that if the law or any provision of law made by the state is repugnant to the law made by the Parliament, which comes within its jurisdiction, then such law or provision of the state law would be void to the extent of its repugnancy in relation with the law passed by the Parliament.
Therefore, if there is an antagonism between the state and central law, the law made by the Centre will prevail due to the Doctrine of occupied field i.e. when both laws occupy the same field or subject matter. This has been instilled to curb the chaos and confusion that would be created if two laws governing the same field were contradictory to each other. Thus, if a law is made by the parliament over the same subject matter, it will prevail over the law made by the state.
TEST OF REPUGNANCY
The Supreme Court in Deep Chand vs. State of Uttar Pradesh[3] laid down the criteria to determine the repugnancy between laws made by the Centre and the State. These tests are as follows:
- Inconsistency in the terms stated in the laws i.e. direct conflict in the laws.
- Laws are made regarding the same subject matter i.e. Concurrent List
- Union Law prevails even if there is no direct repugnancy as it is considered to be more exhaustive than the law made by the State.
Therefore, repugnancy arises when the enactments are made about the same subject, then to the extent of repugnancy law made by the Centre supersedes the State law.
In Bharat Hydro Power Corporation Ltd. vs. State of Assam[4], the Supreme Court held that when two laws are not inconsistent with each other and can effectively co-exist with each other then there would be no repugnancy and both will be held as valid.
In K.K Goyal vs State of Gujarat and Anr[5], the doctrine of implied repeal was highlighted which states that if the law made by the two authorities inhabits the same field and is repugnant to each other, then the state law shall stand impliedly repealed.
WHEN REPUGNANCY ARISES
It is stated that repugnancy arises from the making of the laws and not the commencement. The Supreme Court in State of Kerala vs. Mar Appraem Kuri Co. Ltd[6], held that the State law i.e. The Kerela Chitties Act, 1975 became void when the Central law was made, even though it wasn’t enforced in the state. Thus, the court differentiated between the making of laws and the commencement/ enforcement of the laws about repugnancy.
EXCEPTION TO REPUGNANCY
Article 254 (2)[7] of the Indian, Constitution states that when a law made by the State is repugnant to a Central law or an existing law in force, then such a law can be enforced if it is reserved for Presidential assent and receives such assent.
If a repugnant law made by the state, receives the assent of the President, it is to operate only in that particular state and not elsewhere[8]. It would operate over the central law only to the expanse of the irregularity and would not supersede the entire central law.
Two requirements have to be fulfilled to receive the assent of the President. These are as follows:
- The state law is to be reserved for the President’s assent.
- Reasons of repugnancy should be expressed to the President.
However, even though such a law is passed by the President, the Proviso of Article 254 lays down an exception to clause (2). It states that nothing in this clause shall prevent Parliament from enacting at any time any law concerning the same matter as to the law so made by the Legislature of the State, whether by an amendment, addition or repeal[9]. Therefore, the parliament can again supersede the state law passed by the Presidential assent if it is repugnant to the Central law.
In Zaverbhai Amaidas vs. State of Bombay[10], the Supreme Court iterated that the law made by one supersedes the other only when they occupy the same field. In the instant case, the centre had made a law, which also enlisted a certain punishment for the non-compliance of the same. The State of Bombay did not consider the punishment as adequate and passed another law and thus became operational in the State of Bombay. Subsequently, the Central law was amended and therefore, the Supreme Court decided that the state law would stand void as it is repugnant to the Central law, as they occupy the same field.
UNION BEING PREDOMINANT
Article 246 of the Constitution consists of the non-obstante clause which thus gives an overriding effect to some provisions over certain contrary provisions either of the same legislation or a different legislation. It enumerates that if there arises any conflict as to the matters in List I or List II, and they cannot be reconciled then the Union legislature will prevail over the State legislature. Similarly, if there is a conflict about List III, then also the Union has the overriding power.
CONCLUSION
India being a Quasi-federal state, enshrines the principles of both equitably. Article 254 is a classic example of it. It exemplifies the powers of both the Union and the state. Both the legislatures have the power to make laws with respect to the subject matters under their respective Lists along the Concurrent List. However, it states that when the laws made by both somehow overlap each other or occupy the same field, then to the extent of their repugnancy the Union law prevails over the State law. Therefore, it has been instilled to remove the chaos and confusion which may be caused due to similar laws made by the Centre as well as the State. The Doctrine of Repugnancy holds up the federal character of the Indian Constitution as well as the Centre- States legislative relations.
Author(s) Name: Ishita Jain (UILS, Panjab University)
References-
[1] Suman Lakhani, ‘Conceptual Comprehension of Doctrine Of Repugnancy And It’s Empirical Enactment’ (2023) < https://jcil.lsyndicate.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/8.-CONCEPTUAL-COMPREHENSION-OF-DOCTRINE-OF-REPUGNANCY.pdf > accessed on 4th July, 2024
[2] Indian Constitution. 1950, art. 254. (1)
[3] Deep Chand vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [1959] 1959 AIR 648
[4] Bharat Hydro Power Corporation Ltd. vs. State of Assam [2004] 2004 (2) SCC 553
[5] K. K Goyal vs. State of Gujarat and Anr [2003] AIR 2004 SC 1006
[6] State of Kerala vs. Mar Appraem Kuri Co. Ltd [2012] AIR 2012 SUPREME COURT 2375
[7] Indian Constitution. 1950, art. 254. (2)
[8] Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar [1983] AIR 1983 SUPREME COURT 1019
[9] The Constitution of India, 1949, s 254
[10] Zaverbhai Amaidas vs. State of Bombay [1954] 1954 AIR 752
