INTRODUCTION
Article 254 declares that in case of any inconsistency between a parliamentary law and a state law in respect of matters enumerated in the Concurrent List, the parliamentary law shall prevail, and the state law shall be void to the extent of Repugnancy.
Article 254(2) provides that, in the Concurrent sphere, in case of Repugnancy between a Union and a State Law relating to the same subject, the formal shall prevail.
However, if a State Law was reserved for the assent of the President and has received such assent, the State law may prevail notwithstanding such Repugnancy, but it would still be competent for the Parliament to override such state law by the subsequent Legislation.
DOCTRINE OF REPUGNANCY
Black’s Law Dictionary defines Repugnancy as inconsistency or contradiction between two or more Legal Instruments.
The Repugnancy between two statutes would arise if there is a direct conflict between the two provisions of the Law made by the Parliament and the law made by the Parliament.
The doctrine of Repugnancy has been stated in Article 254 of the Constitution.
PRINCIPLES
In M. KARUNANIDHI V. UNION OF INDIA, the principles to be applied for determining repugnancy between a law made by the Parliament and a law made by the State Legislature were considered by a constitutional bench.
The Supreme Court laid down the following tests:
- 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.
- That there can be no repeal by implication unless the inconsistency appears on the face of the two statutes.
- 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.
- Where there is no inconsistency but a statute occupying the same field seeks to create distinct and separate offenses, no question of repugnancy arises and both statutes continue to operate in the same field.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the doctrine of repugnancy serves as a crucial legal principle in India. It ensures harmony between central and state laws, resolving conflicts and maintaining consistency in the legal framework. When a state law contradicts a central law, the latter prevails, rendering the former void to the extent of its repugnancy. This doctrine upholds the constitutional balance and facilitates effective governance across the nation.