Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
Latest News
Back
DOCTRINE OF REPUGNANCY IN THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION
The laws made by the Centre have been given more priority than other laws. There are different clauses in the Articles giving superior power to the Centre or the Parliament. In circumstances of conflict between laws, the laws made by the Centre will triumph. Most of the times, the conflict occurs in the Concurrent list. For the matters in the Concurrent list, both the Centre and the State has the power to make laws. They both have equal authority to come up with legislation. But, the laws made by the Centre for the same matters as the State shall prevail. Article 254 of the Indian Constitution enumerates the concept of doctrine of repugnancy.
The concept of repugnancy arises when there is inconsistency of laws. In ITC Ltd. v. Agricultural Produce Market Committee[1], the Supreme Court found a direct inconsistency between an Act enumerated by the Centre and an Act enacted by the State. So, the Court held that there is no chance of allowing the functioning of both the laws. In the given instance, the law made by the Centre prevails over the law made by the State. The contradiction of such laws arises during the application of it. There will be a disagreement in the legal results when the statutes made regarding the same subject matters are applied.
If the situation of repugnancy arises, the Court tries to resolve the matter by application of various doctrines like colorable legislation, pith and substance etc.,. As mentioned under Article 254 of the Constitution, the State law is void only to an extent it is repugnant with the laws of the Centre. In Bhikaji v. State of Madhya Pradesh[2], the Court mentioned that just because the legislature enacted is repugnant in nature, it does not make the entire part invalid and in case if the laws made by the Centre are repealed at any point of time, it would become operative at a later stage. If the Parliament tries to be overpowering and enacts law that covers the entire field, then it is called as the rule of occupied field.
In M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India[3], the Centre and the State made laws on the same subject matter were discovered to be complimentary but not conflicting. So the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in this case that the laws enacted by both the Centre and the State could co-exist by not colliding or overlapping with each other. But when there are different spheres of operation the question of repugnancy does not arise. The State usually make way for the Centre to enact laws when there are instances of repugnancy.
Among the three lists (i.e. Union list, state list, and concurrent list) as mentioned in the Article 246 of the Constitution, the Union list has a distinct domination over the other lists. This is due to the superiority as the subject matters in the Union list involve the matters of national importance. Such legislations are essential for the smooth functioning of the country. The framers of the Constitution analyzed the integrity of the functioning of the nation and established a strong Central governance.
There is no defined set of rules or procedure that is followed in the federal nations with regards to the distribution of powers. It is based on the simple application of ad hoc formula that is ascertained as to the locus of a country or capacity of the State to deal at the local level. The subject matters are not put into a pre-settled notion as it depends on the needs and demands of the matter with respect to the social political scenario. In India, there exists composite legislation that means there is more than one entry that may overlap to cover the subject matter of a single piece of legislature.
The non- obstante clause of Article 246 is the last resort available and it is utilized in circumstances of irreconcilable conflicts. The court shall consider all the possible attempts to interpret the entries so as to settle the repugnancy and overlapping. The application of liberal and harmonious construction requires conflicting entries and the intent of conflicting entries are kept by the Court to give a compatible solution for the concerned situation. In Ujagar Prints v. Union of India[4], the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that in declining the validity of law questioned on the ground of legislative competence, the State can always show that the law was supportable under any other entry that is within the competency.
The words in the ‘Concurrent list’ seemed to qualify only the ‘present’ law that means that the prevailing law in relation to a matter in the Concurrent List triumphs over a State law in the particular area in case of inconsistency. So, if there is repugnancy between a State law and Central law filling in the respective lists, then the latter should prevail over the former. However, the judicial interpretation of the Article 254(1) has so far been otherwise.[5]
There is no provision to confine Article 254(1) only to circumstances where the Central and the State lists fall under the Concurrent lists rather than the circumstances mentioned under various other lists. It is not inconceivable that similar difficulty may arise if the two statutes come under separate lists.
