REPUGNANCY between Central
Law and State Law:
“It would be seen that so far as
clause (1) of Article 254 is concerned it clearly lays down that where there is
a direct collision between a provision of a law made by the State and that made
by Parliament with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent
List, then, subject to the pro-visions of clause (2), the State law would be
void to the extent of the repugnancy.
This naturally means that where both
the State and Parliament occupy the field contemplated by the Concurrent List
then the Act passed by Parliament being prior in point of time will prevail and
consequently the State Act will have to yield to the Central Act.
In fact, the scheme of the
Constitution is a scientific and equitable distribution of legislative powers
between Parliament and the State Legislatures.
First, regarding
the matters contained in List I, i.e. the Union List to the Seventh Schedule,
Parliament alone is empowered to legislate and the State Legislatures have no
authority to make any law in respect of the Entries contained in List I.
Secondly, so far as
the Concurrent List is concerned, both Parliament and the State Legislatures
are entitled to legislate in regard to any of the Entries appearing therein,
but that is subject to the condition laid down by Article 254(1) discussed
above.
Thirdly, so far as
the matters in List II, i.e. the State List are concerned, the State
Legislatures alone are competent to legislate on them and only under certain
conditions Parliament can do so.
It is, therefore, obvious that in
such matters repugnancy may result from the following circumstances:
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 the State Act
has been passed in accordance with clause (2) of Article 254.
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,
if any, is purely incidental or inconsequential.
4. Where, however, 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 a law can be
protected by obtaining the assent of the President under Article 254(2) of the
Constitution. The result of obtaining the assent of the President would be that
so far as the State Act is concerned, it will prevail in the State and overrule
the provisions of the Central Act in their applicability to the State only.
Such a state of affairs will exist only until Parliament may at any time make a
law adding to, or amending, varying or repealing the law made by the State
Legislature under the proviso to Article 254.
(The Supreme Court in M.Karunanidhi
-vs- Union of India reported in AIR 1979 SC 898)
**
