Más contenido relacionado

Similar a IOS_A049_PAYALSHAH.PPT.pptx(20)




  2. INTRODUCTION • The Doctrine of Repugnancy has been stated in Article 254 of the Indian Constitution, under Part XI • Blacks' Law Dictionary defines repugnancy as an inconsistency or contradiction between two or more parts of a legal instrument (such as a statute or a contract) • The Constitution under Schedule VII sets out the various subjects on which the Parliament and State may legislate, under List I and List II respectively. Under List III, also known as the Concurrent List, both the Parliament and the States have the power to make laws
  3. INDIAN CONSTITUTION Article 245 of Constitution of India • Parliament to make laws for the whole or any part of India • State legislature to make laws for the whole or any part of the State Article 246 of Constitution of India (Seventh Schedule) • Union List or List I – Parliament’s exclusive power to make Laws • State List of List II – Exclusive powers to States to make Laws • Concurrent List or List III – Both i.e. Centre and State have powers to make Laws Article 254 of Constitution of India • if a conflict arises between a Central and a State legislation, then the Central law will prevail
  4. WHEN REPUGNANCY ARISES DIRECT CONFLICT • Clear and direct inconsistency between the Central Act and the State Act • Situation is reached where it is impossible to obey the one without disobeying the other Occupied field • Not apparent conflict • But repugnancy between two Acts covering same field Intended occupation • There is no direct conflict in the two provisions nor the Act directly takes away a right conferred by the other yet there may be repugnancy
  5. CONDITIONS TO BE SATISFIED FOR APPLICATION OF DOCTRINE OF REPUGNANCY Landmark judgments concerning this doctrine is M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India A direct inconsistency between the Central Act and the State Act The inconsistency must be irreconcilable The inconsistency between provisions of two Acts are such that there is direct collision and it is impossible to obey one without disobeying the other
  6. IMPORTANT JUDICIAL DECISIONS State of Jammu and Kashmir v. M.S.Farooqi, Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, and in the case of K.S.E. Board v. Indian Aluminium Co. • Repugnancy arises and Article 254(1) would apply only when both the Central and the State laws have been enacted on a subject in the Concurrent List and not otherwise Bharat Hydro Power Corpn. Ltd. v. State of Assam, as well as in the case of Central Bank of India v. State of Kerala • Every effort should be made to reconcile the two enactments and construe them both, in such a way, so as to avoid them being repugnant to each other
  7. IMPORTANT JUDICIAL DECISIONS Government of Andhra Pradesh v. J.B. Educational Society • Judiciary must interpret legislation made by the Parliament and the State Legislature in such a way that the question of conflict does not arise or can be circumvented • If such a conflict between laws is unavoidable, then the Parliamentary law shall prevail Zameer Ahmed Latifur Rehman Sheikh v. State of Maharashtra and Ors • Of it could not be shown that core area and the subject matter of the legislation is covered by an entry in the State List, then any incidental encroachment upon an entry in the Union List would not be enough so as to render the State law as valid
  8. IMPORTANT JUDICIAL DECISIONS Kannan D.H.P.Co. v. State of Kerala • Supreme Court did envisage the possibility of repugnancy between a Central Act on a subject in List I and a State Act on a state subject on List II Srinivasa Raghavachar v. State of Karnataka • There was indeed a repugnancy between the Advocates Act, 1961, which was a Central Act enacted by the Parliament under entries 77 and 78 of List I and a State law prohibiting legal practitioners from appearing before a land tribunal, enacted under List II
  9. CONCLUSION • Parliament as well as the State Legislatures enjoy absolute authority when they legislate on their subject matters • This doctrine plays a critical role in order to preserve the integrity of the Country and avoid two laws on the same subject matter • Article 254 clearly states the clauses regarding how to deal with State and Centre issues and which has to be given importance so that there are no two different laws on one subject • No repugnancy of law passed by the state enactment would be required if the matter is unique