DOCTRINE OF REPUGNANCY

According to Black’s Law Dictionary, Repugnancy can be defined as “An inconsistency or

contradiction between two or more parts of a legal instrument (such as a statute or a contract)” 1.
The Supreme source of Law of India that is the Constitution of India provides law-making power
between the Union Parliament and State Legislatures through various Articles. Article 2462 of the
Constitution provides the legislative areas of the union Parliament and State Legislatures and
similarly Article 2453 provides the extent of these laws. Moreover, Article 2544 describes about
the mechanism of the incompatibility between the Central and the State legislations enacted with
respect to any matter listed in List III (Concurrent List) of the Seventh Schedule.

Both the Union Parliament and the State Legislature have the power to make laws regarding the
subjects mentioned in the concurrent list, but in case of conflict between laws made by the Union
Parliament and the State Legislature with respect to any subject of the above-mentioned list. In
that situation, the laws made by the Union Parliament will prevail and the laws made by the State
Legislature will be declared void unless the law made by the State Legislature has received assent
of the President. It is important to note here that according to Article 745 of the Indian Constitution
the President should act according to the advice of “Council of Ministers and Prime Minister”
hence these ministers can be considered as the Centre. Therefore, President is not entitled to have
direct Powers but the Center has, as a result the more extent of Power rests in hands of Union or
Center as compared to State Legislature.

The Constitution also exhibits that no doubt there is supremacy of powers of Parliament over State
Legislature under Article 2466 it has been laid down certain grounds where it could clearly
observed. Parliament also got many additional powers over State under Article 248, 249, 250, 3527
etc. However, there is also limitations of theses powers neither Parliament nor the State Legislature
have enormous power individually. There are certain grounds where the power of Center and State

1
http://thelawdictionary.org/repugnancy/
2
The Constitution of India, Bare Act.
3
The Constitution of India, Bare Act.
4
The Constitution of India, Bare Act.
5
The Constitution of India, Bare Act.
6
State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal, AIR 2010 SC 1496.
7
The Constitution of India, Bare Act.
apart from the Fundamental Rights and other specific Provisions restraining their powers in certain
matters under Article 276(2)8 and also under Article 3039.

Both the clauses of Article 254 use the expression, repugnant, such partition of a State Law as are
repugnant to a Central Law in the concurrent sphere become invalid. However, the question is
when we can say that there is repugnancy or inconsistency between the two provisions. Following
are some of the cases in which repugnancy has been explained by the courts and from which the
technique of resolving the question of repugnancy may be noticed.

In National Engineering Industries Ltd. vs. Shri Kishan Bhageria,10 the Supreme Court observed:

In order that a question of repugnancy may be arise, two conditions must be fulfilled, namely that
the State Law and the Laws of the Union must operate the name field and one must be repugnant
or inconsistent with the other. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a
Legislation falling under the concurrent list is now well settled. In A.S Krishna vs. State of
Madras11 after referring to Section to 107 of the Government of India Act 1935, which is in term
similar to clause (1) of Article 254, the Supreme Court observed:

For the application of this section, two conditions must be fulfilled: -

1. The provisions of the provincial Law and those of the Central Legislation must both be in
respect of a matter which is enumerated in the concurrent list and;
2. They must be repugnant to each other.

In M. Karunanidhi vs. Union of India12 the Honorable Supreme Court after referring to reasoning
of various judgments on the subject, in para 38, laid down following propositions:-

1. In order to decode the question of repugnancy it must be shown that the two enactments
contain inconsistent and irreconcilable provisions. So that they cannot stand together or
operate in the same field.
2. There can be no repeat by implications unless the inconstancy appears on the face of the
two statute.

8
The Constitution of India, Bare Act.
9
The Constitution of India, Bare Act.
10
AIR 1958 SC 329.
11
1957 SCR 399.
12
AIR 1979 SC 898.
 3. Where the two statutes occupy a particular field but there is room or possibility of both the
statutes operating in the same filed without coming into collision with each other no
repugnancy result.
4. Where there is no inconsistency but a statute occupying the same field seeks to create
distinct and separate offence, no question of repugnancy arises and both the statutes
continue to operate in the same field.

CONCLUSION

In Article 245, they laid down that parliament might make laws for the whole or any part of the
territory of India, and the Legislature of the State might make laws for the whole or any part of the
State. Article 246 provided that parliament had exclusive power to legislate with respect to matters
included in the Union list, that State Legislatures had exclusive power to make laws with respect
to subjects in the State list, and that parliament and State Legislatures were laws with respect to
matters in the concurrent list.

Article 254 provides that the law made by parliament, whether passed before or after the law made
by the Legislature of a State, shall prevail, and the law made by the Legislature of the State shall
to the extent of repugnancy be void.