This article is written by Shobhit Chakravarty B.L.S., LL.B 1st year law student of KLE LAW College during his internship at Le Droit India.
Keywords– Constitution, Repugnance,Doctrines
Introduction
The principles of repugnancy have been borrowed from the Australian Constitution for application in India. Black’s Law Dictionary has defined repugnancy as contradiction or inconsistency between two or more parts of a legal instrument in a system that divides its law-making power between the Centre and the States, an inconsistency can arise between the laws made by the Centre and those made by the State. The Centre and the State governments are empowered by the constitution to make laws by the virtue of Articles that are read with Schedule VII. The makers of the constitution introduced the doctrine of Repugnancy in the constitution to deal with the situations that may arise because of contradictions.
Article 254 of the Indian Constitution has imbibed the doctrine of repugnancy in India. The laws are made by the legislature and the power to make laws are given to the state and centre hence to understand the doctrine one must have a basic idea about the relations between state and centre and the schemes profound by the legislature. The laws made by the parliament are under Article 245 which is strengthened by Article 246. Article 245 grants Parliament the power of making laws for the whole or any part of the country and the State Parliaments are given the power of making the laws for the entire or some part of the state. Whereas 246 gives subject to the parliament for making laws.
The Parliament has the power of making laws on all the matters that are given in the Union list or List I of the Schedule VII of the Indian Constitution whereas the State Legislatures have the power of making laws for states or on the matters that are under State List or List II of Schedule VII and the Concurrent list or List III comes under both State and Centre jurisdiction so anyone can make laws on it.
When does Repugnancy arise?
Repugnancy arises when there is a contradiction between two laws that are being applied together but lead to different results. There may arise a time when two laws, one made by Centre and the other by State under list III are not compatible with one another and if one is applied other can get violated this situation will be known as repugnancy and then the doctrine of repugnancy will be used to resolve this situation. Article 254 states that if any provision made by the State Legislature is in conflict with any provision made by Parliament which Parliament or to any existing provision then the existing law, shall prevail and the law made by the Legislature of the State shall be void.
Article 254 also states that if any part of the law passed by the state is conflicting with any part of a Central law under List III, then the Central law made by the Parliament shall prevail and the law made by the State legislature shall become void.
Judicial interpretation
Government of Andhra Pradesh v. J.B. Educational Society is a landmark judgment which is directly related to Repugnancy. In this case, the Court observed that the judiciary must interpret law made by the Parliament and the State Legislature such that the conflict does not arise or be resolved. But if such a conflict between laws is unavoidable, then the Parliamentary law shall prevail. Since List III gives equal competence to both the Parliament and the State Legislatures, to enact laws, the highest scope of a conflict exists here.
What determines repugnancy?
As the principles of repugnancy are borrowed from the constitution of Australia so in the case of Deep Chand v. State of Uttar Pradesh Australian precedents were observed and it was found that repugnancy between two enactments can be determined if three tests are followed:
- Is there a direct conflict between the two conflicting provisions;
- Whether the Parliament intended to lay down an enactment on the matter or wants to replace the law made by the State legislature; and
- Whether the law made by the Parliament and that made by the State legislature concerning the same field.
Direct conflict
Direct Conflict occurs when two laws cannot be made effective at the same time whereas the occurrence of lucid repugnancy is one where one prohibits the effectiveness of another. Mati Lal Shah v Chandra Kanta Sarkar was a case before the Calcutta High Court in which there was a conflict between Section 20 and Section 34 of the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act, 1936, and Section 31 of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act, 1882.
Exhaustive code
Determination of direct conflict fails as the best for complex scenarios. A second principle evolved which was more effective in determining in case of complex scenarios the principle is, that if a code is drafted by the Central government intentionally for its exhaustive application for regulating the subject matter, then it would not be easy for the State legislation to function at the same time.
Occupying the same field
This test is quite similar to the exhaustive code test for determining repugnancy between two enactments. If the Central government has brought a law with the intention to occupy the whole field, then it would not be possible for the State to make law in the same field.
Conclusion
This doctrine makes the State law void in matters of repugnancy. If the Centre is occupying the area, the State law has no powers to override it only if Central law is repealed, then the State law shall come Article 254 proves that the Indian Constitution is both unitary and federal. This doctrine is very essential for maintaining good relations between the Centre-State relations in the country.
