The State of Karnataka passed a special enactment in the year 2022 on the exact subject matter on

which the Central Legislature had passed a law in the year 2010. The two enactments are
inconsistent with each other. How do you resolve the said inconsistency?

Presumptions: The law is presumed to be constitutional, just, fair, and reasonable. It is assumed
that legislatures are competent, mindful, and that their intentions are clear and consistent. Laws
are also presumed to serve their intended purposes and to align with the legislative intent and
purpose.

Interpretation: To resolve the inconsistency between the State of Karnataka's 2022 special
enactment and the Central Legislature's 2010 law on the same subject, the first step is to identify
the inconsistency. The primary approach is "Harmonious Construction," which interprets and
applies both laws to allow them to coexist and complement each other. This involves carefully
examining conflicting provisions and interpreting them in a way that minimizes conflicts or
inconsistencies.

If harmonious construction fails, the next step is the "Doctrine of Repugnancy" under Article 254
of the Constitution of India. This requires determining which legislature has the authority to make
laws on the subject by referring to the Constitution's Schedule. If only one legislature can make
laws on the subject, its law prevails. If both can but there's inconsistency, the Central law prevails
over the State law.

The general rule is that a special law overrides a general law. However, there are exceptions. If
either law has a Non-Obstante Clause, it overrides the other. If neither does, the more
comprehensive law prevails. If both do, the later law prevails.

How to identify the inconsistency between two legislations?

To identify inconsistencies between two laws, we follow a checklist:

• Determine if both laws cover the same subject matter.

• If they do, assess the extent of their inconsistency.
• Attempt to harmonize the laws through "Harmonious Construction." If unsuccessful,
proceed to the ancillary test.
• Apply the doctrine of repugnancy under Article 254 of the Constitution of India. Determine
which legislature has authority over the subject matter. If only one legislature is competent,
its law prevails. If both are competent but there's inconsistency, the Central law prevails.
• If the inconsistency persists, consider if the laws are general or special statutes. Special
statutes usually prevail, but there are exceptions.
• Exceptions include Non-Obstante Clauses. If present in either law, it overrides the other. If
no Non-Obstante Clause, the more comprehensive law prevails. If both have it, the later
law prevails.
• If no resolution, check for a saving clause. If one law contains it, that law prevails.
In summary, we use a step-by-step approach to identify and resolve inconsistencies between laws,
ensuring clarity and coherence in their application.

The State Legislature had passed an Amendment Act. The Amendment Act was to come into force
with a notification to be issued by the State Government. The State Government did issue a
notification in which sections 12, 13 and 14 were not notified to have come into force, the
remaining sections came into force at once. Sections 12, 13, 14 of the Act before its amendment
prescribed punishment for six months for each of the offences stipulated therein. Whereas, two
months of imprisonment was prescribed for the same offences in the Amendment Act under
sections 12, 13, 14. In this backdrop, how to construe and apply the sections named above to the
pending cases. Decide with reasons.

If the Amendment Act completely repealed the earlier statute, pending cases would lack applicable
laws, and thus no punishments would apply unless saved by a saving clause in the new statute or
amendment act.

However, since the State Government’s notification indicates that section 12, 13, and 14 were not
yet enforced, it implies a partial enforcement of the Amendment Act, maintaining the original
provisions for these sections. This means that if the Amendment Act only partially amends the
existing statute, as indicated by the State Government’s notification, the original sections 12, 13,
and 14 prescribing a 6-month punishment remain in force for pending cases unless otherwise
notified.

Pending cases should be interpreted based on the legal framework that existed at the time of the
alleged offenses. This means that the original provisions prescribing a 6-month punishment will
continue to apply until the State Government issues a valid notification enforcing sections 12, 13,
and 14 of the Amendment Act. Therefore, until such notification is issued, the Amendment Act's
changes to the penalties for these offenses do not apply, and the original penalties of 6 months for
each offense should be applied in the pending cases.