REPUGNANCY

INTRODUCTION

The Indian Constitution contains many articles which are responsible for providing an
intelligible view and also to avoid any further confusion which might be there if these articles
were not provided by The Constitution itself, among these articles of incomparable
importance is Article 254 of The Constitution which provides for The Doctrine of
Repugnancy. As indicated in Black’s Law Dictionary, Repugnancy could be characterized as
“an inconsistency or contradiction between two or more parts of a legal instrument (such as a
statute or a contract)”. The Doctrine of Repugnancy is included to remove any skepticism
which might be present in the minds of people as to which legislation will prevail if there is
Repugnancy between a Central Legislation and State legislation.

EVOLUTION

From time unknown, the legislative bodies are making laws concerning matters in their
country. The clash between these different legislative bodies or the law that they formulate is
unavoidable and imminent, to prevent any such clash between legislative bodies The Indian
Constitution, makers put provided the Doctrine of Repugnancy. The Constitution of India is
known to be of the Quasi-Federal kind which means that it is neither federal nor unitary but
the Doctrine of Repugnancy brings out more of the federal side of the Constitution.

DOCTRINE OF REPUGNANCY

The key part of having repugnancy laws is to maintain a strategic distance from two laws on
a similar topic and accomplish uniform law all through the country which is one reason
behind comprising the Indian Constitution. Such sort of uniformity is fundamental to have a
mature legitimate framework and this can be taken forward just by a power who has uniform

purview everywhere throughout the country, which is the parliament in India . Article 245 of
the Indian constitution states that Parliament may make laws for whole or any part of India
and the Legislature of a State may also 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 extra-territorial operation. Article 246 Deals with three lists which provides
subject-matters on which whether Centre can make law or State or both. Doctrine of
Repugnancy deals with conflict between two pieces of legislation which when applied to the
 same facts produce different results. Repugnancy arises when the provisions of two laws are
so inconsistent and irreconcilable that it is impossible to do one without disobeying the other. 

Article 254 of the Indian Constitution firmly entrenches the Doctrine of Repugnancy in India.
This doctrine deals with the conflict of law arises between Center and States.
Article 254(1) states that if any provision of law or law made by the legislature of the State is
repugnant to the any provision of law or law made by the Parliament, then the law made by
Parliament will prevail over State enacted Law.

Article 254(2) defines that if any provision of law or law made by the legislature of the State
on the matter enumerated in concurrent list, is repugnant to the any provision of law or law
made by the Parliament and if it has been reserved for the assent of the President and got the
assent from the President ten State law will prevail over the law enacted by Parliament.
Provided that Parliament at any time before the assent of the President can amend or repeal
the repugnant law.

TESTS FOR DETERMINIG REPUGNANCY

The principles of repugnancy have been applied under the Australian Constitution and have
been borrowed by analogy for their application in India. Following Australian precedents, the
Court in the case of Deep Chand v. State of Uttar Pradesh observed that repugnancy between
two enactments can be identified with the help of the following three tests:

1. Whether there is a direct conflict between the two conflicting provisions;

2. Whether the Parliament intended to lay down an exhaustive enactment on the subject-
matter and to replace the law made by the State legislature; and
3. Whether the law made by the Parliament and that made by the State legislature occupies
the same field.

Direct conflict

Direct conflict is said to exist when two laws cannot be effectuated at the same time. A lucid
occurrence of repugnancy is when the existence of one law prohibits the application of
another law with respect to the same conduct. Such were the circumstances in the case Mati
Lal Shah v Chandra Kanta Sarkar before the Calcutta High Court. A conflict arose between
Section 20 and Section 34 of the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act, 1936, and Section 31 of
the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act, 1882 which is an existing Indian law in force. The
former required that the service of a notice shall stay for the execution of certain decrees
against the agricultural debtors while the latter required that the execution shall take place
through other courts, if necessary. The Court held the provisions of the Bengal Act void due
to repugnancy.

In another case of Vishwanath v. Harihar Gir (1939), Section 16 read with Section 17 of

the Bihar MoneyLenders Act, 1938 was conflicting with Order 21, Rule 66 of the Code of
Civil Procedure. The Bihar Act provided that the Court should fix an amount of the property,
when it is brought for sale, and not permit its sale below that fixed amount. On the other
hand, the Code provided that the Court shall mention the amount of the property which is
mentioned by the Decree holder or judgment debtor but is not required to vouch for the
correct price of the property. The Court observed that the application of both the provisions at
the same time is impossible as they are contradictory to each other. Hence, in substance, there
is repugnancy. The Court held the provisions of the Bihar Act void and applied those of the
Code. In this case, it was seen that although there is a judicial eagerness to limit the area of
repugnancy, however, when it is coupled with mechanical reconciliation, the result might not
always end up being desirable or beneficial for the society in general. The implementation of
the doctrine remains unpreventable.

Exhaustive code

The test of direct conflict can prove to be narrow for complex scenarios. Thus, a second
principle was evolved for the fuller understanding of the application of the dominant
legislation, which is, if the Central government intentionally drafted a code for its exhaustive
application for regulating the subject-matter, then it would not be harmonious for the State
legislation to function at the same time. This test provides ample scope for the Judiciary to
uphold the intended values, envisaged in the paramount legislation, by the makers of the
legislation and to defeat narrow arguments that could be raised on the basis of the direct
collision test.

In the case of State of Assam v. Horizon Union, the Apex Court undertook the exhaustive
code test. For appointing the Presiding Officer of an Industrial Tribunal, the qualifications
required by the candidate, as per the State law, were 3 years experience as a District Judge or
qualified for appointment as a High Court judge, provided that such appointment could be
made only after consultation with the High Court. The challenge, in the present case, was on
a candidate who was appointed without any consultation from the High Court. The Supreme
Court observed that the Central Act was intended to be an exhaustive code on the subject-
matter, i.e., the appointment of District Judges as a Presiding Officer, and the appointment
was valid. However, if a person qualified to be appointed as a Judge of the High Court were
to be appointed as the Presiding Officer, the provisions in the State law for consultation with
the High Court were still valid. This shows on what narrow field the Central Government was
held to have laid down an exhaustive code. 

In the above case, the test of direct conflict would have failed in determining the conflict. 

Occupying the same field

This test is in close relation with the exhaustive code test for identifying repugnancy between
two enactments. If the Central government has enacted a law with the intention of occupying
the whole field, then it would not be fit for the State law to legislate in the same field. 

In Zaverbhai Amaidas v. the State of Bombay, a convict pleaded that he was convicted by a
Court having no jurisdiction. According to the state law, the offence committed by him, that
is, transporting food grains without permit attracted imprisonment for a term of 7 years. On
the other hand, the Central law prescribed punishment of imprisonment for a term of 3 years
for the offence committed by him. An additional provision in the Central law was that the
punishment could be increased to 7 years if the person was found possessing double the
permitted quantity of food grains. The convict argued that he should have been governed by
the provisions of the Bombay Act and not the Central Act which would render the decision of
the court a faulty one, and without jurisdiction as the Magistrate who punished him could
sentence him for the imprisonment of only up to 3 years. The occupation of the field of both
the laws was observed as seen whether they occupy the same field or not. The Supreme Court
held that both the laws occupied the same field and cannot be split up. Hence, the State laws
were held to be void and the Central law prevailed as per the doctrine of repugnancy.

IMPORTANT JUDICAL PRONOUNCEMENTS

The judiciary has been responsible for some of the most practical implications of the Doctrine
of Repugnancy in the past and some of the authoritative judgments are being listed below -:
M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India –
This judgment is widely regarded as the most authoritative judgment given by the courts on
the use of the doctrine. The judgment said that if there is a direct conflict between legislatures
made on a matter listed in the concurrent list then the central law will prevail over the State
law. Where however a law has been passed by the State legislature related to a matter Stated
in The Concurrent list then the State legislature shall prevail over Centre’s legislature in only
that State if the State government takes proper assent from the President of India under
Article 254(2). Where a law passed by the State Legislature while being considerably inside
the extent of the sections in the State List endless supply of the Entries in the Central List, the
defend-ability of the law might be maintained by conjuring the principle of pith and
substance if on an investigation of the arrangements of the Act it gives the idea that all
around, the law falls inside the four corners of the State List and entrenchment, if any, is
purely incidental or inconsequential[1].
Bharat Hydro Power Corporation. Ltd. v. State of Assam–
In this case, the Apex court of India gave the order that there should be every effort made to
harmonize both the legislations of Centre and State which are in direct conflict with each
other. If both the laws made are not relating to the same list and there will be no
repugnancy[2].

In Deep Chand v. State of U.P3., nationalization of U.P. Transport Service Act was
repugnant to the later added section in Motor Vehicle Act 1939 by the Parliament. Thus the
Court held that both the laws were occupied in same field, the State law was void to the
extent of repugnancy to the Union Law.

Grand Kakatiya Sheraton Hotel and Towers Employees & Workers Union v. Srinivasa
Resorts Ltd–
In this case, The Supreme Court clearly stated that if State Government gets assent from the
President on the matter in dispute then only the State legislature has the power to prevail over
Centre’s legislation and this power granted to State is not indefinite for future legislature
rather it is only related to the matter of conflict [3]

National Engineering Industries Ltd. v. Shri Kishan Bhageri-

In this case the Court gave the best way to deal with a repugnancy between the legislature of
the State and the Centre is that if one prevails, the other cannot prevail. This judgment gave a
crystal clear view that the degree of repugnancy needs to be removed from the legislature in
question either by The Parliament or The State Government.[4]

CONCLUSION

The effect of the application of this doctrine will make the State law void to the extent of
repugnancy. As long as the Central law occupies the field, the State law is eclipsed. If, in
case, the Central law is repealed, then the State law shall revive. The doctrine of severability
also comes into application since if a State law is repugnant for a matter in the concurrent list,
then only the repugnant part will be held void and the rest shall function normally, thereby,
giving rise to severability. Article 254 proves that the Indian Constitution is both unitary and
federal. This doctrine is quintessential for the Centre-State relations in the country.