Doctrine of Repugnancy

The doctrine of Repugnancy essentially deals with the conflict between the laws of Centre and State. India adopts a federal structure of governance, therefore the extent of legislative powers is distributed between the Centre and the States. As per Article 245, Parliament may make laws for whole or any part of India and the legislature of a State may make laws for whole or any part of the State and Article 246 clearly mentions the extent of legislative powers of the Parliament and State governments.  Schedule VII of the Constitution has three lists viz: List I (Union List), List II (State List) and List III (concurrent list). The Centre has the exclusive power to legislate over the topics mentioned in List I and the State governments have the exclusive authority to legislate on the subject-matters included in List II. The Concurrent list included those items which can be legislated upon by both the Centre and the States. Thus there is a possibility of occurrence of conflict during making legislation on the subjects listed in the concurrent list.

According to Black’s Law Dictionary, Repugnancy could be defined as an inconsistency or contradiction between two or more parts of a legal instrument (such as a statute or a contract).

The concept of Doctrine of Repugnancy is included in the Article 254 of the Constitution of the constitution. According to this Article any law made by the State legislature on subject-matter enlisted in List III would be valid only in the absence of any contrary law passed by the Centre government. Article 254 was included as a mechanism to resolve this repugnancy between the powers of the Parliament and State legislatures.

The Doctrine of Repugnancy deals with the distribution of powers between the Central and State legislatures. This doctrine reflects the quasi-federal structure of the Constitution. It has clearly laid down the powers of the Parliament and State legislature to avoid inconsistencies and conflicts.

M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India  AIR 1979 SC 898 Case:

In this case, the Court has explained the Doctrine of Repugnancy and said that

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.

Now, the conditions which must be satisfied before any repugnancy could arise are as follows:

1. That there is a clear and direct inconsistency between the Central Act and the State Act.
2. That such an inconsistency is absolutely irreconcilable.
3. That the inconsistency between the provisions of the two Acts is of such nature as to bring the two Acts into direct collision with each other and a situation is reached where it is impossible to obey the one without disobeying the other.

Thereafter, the court laid down following propositions in this respect:

1. That in order to decide 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. That there can be no repeal by implication unless the inconsistency appears on the face of the two statutes.
3. That where the two statutes occupy a particular field, but there is room or possibility of both the statutes operating in the same field without coming into collision with each other, no repugnancy results.
4. That where there is no inconsistency but a statute occupying the same field seeks to create distinct and separate offences, no question of repugnancy arises and both the statutes continue to operate in the same field.” 

A.P. v. J.B. Educational Society (Appeal (civil) 976-978 of 1999 in Supreme Court) Case:

In Govt. of A.P. v. J.B. Educational Society (Appeal (civil)976-978 of 1999 in Supreme Court) case, the court held that:

1. There is no doubt that both Parliament and the State Legislature are supreme in their respective assigned fields. It is the duty of the court to interpret the legislation made by Parliament and the State Legislature in such a manner as to avoid any conflict. However, if the conflict is unavoidable, and the two enactments are irreconcilable, then by the force of the non-obstante clause in clause (1) of Article 246, the parliamentary legislation would prevail notwithstanding the exclusive power of the State Legislature to make a law with respect to a matter enumerated in the State List.
2. With respect to matters enumerated in List III (Concurrent List), both Parliament and the State Legislature have equal competence to legislate. Here again, the courts are charged with the duty of interpreting the enactments of Parliament and the State Legislature in such manner as to avoid a conflict. If the conflict becomes unavoidable, then Article 245 indicates the manner of resolution of such a conflict.”

The Court also said that:

1. Where the legislations, though enacted with respect to matters in their allotted sphere, overlap and conflict. Second, where the two legislations are with respect to matters in the Concurrent List and there is a conflict. In both situations, parliamentary legislation will predominate, in the first, by virtue of the non-obstante clause in Article 246(1), in the second, by reason of Article 254(1).
2. Clause (2) of Article 254 deals with a situation where the State legislation having been reserved and having obtained President’s assent, prevails in that State; this again is subject to the proviso that Parliament can again bring a legislation to override even such State legislation.

In National Engg. Industries Ltd. v. Shri Kishan Bhageria, AIR 1988 SC 329 case, the Supreme Court held that the provision of the Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishment Act, 1958 (State law) were not repugnant but supplemental to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central law) insofar as the former provided safeguards to the workman in addition to those provided in the latter. The Court further observed: “In order to raise a question of repugnancy two conditions must be fulfilled. The State law and the Union law must operate in the same field and one must be repugnant or inconsistent with the other. These are cumulative conditions. … the best test of repugnancy is that if one prevails, the other cannot prevail”.

In Sajjan Singh v. The State of Rajasthan (1965) 1 SCA 875 case, the Court held that for determining the constitutional validity of an impugned Act, it would relevant to inquire what the pith and substance of the impugned Act is.

Conclusion:

There are some subject-matters where the powers and interest of both the union and the state governments collide and a proper and logical mechanism to counter any inconsistency or conflict needs to be in place to ensure the efficiency of governance. Doctrine of repugnancy thus provides for an effective mechanism to deal with any such inconsistencies. we see that Doctrine of Repugnancy is firmly entrenched in our constitutional scheme and is here to stay for a long time to come.