Repugnancy means inconsistency, contradiction or unwillingness. Here, the word repugnancy means inconsistency or contradiction between two laws. Where the subject matter of legislation is in the concurrent list and parliament as well as state enacts the individual act on the same subject and a conflict arises between the two acts than, act made by parliament will prevail.
Article 254(1) states that if there exists a central law on a concurrent subject, then a state law can’t override it.
Article 254(2) provides that if a state law receives presidential assent after due consideration, then it can apply in contravention to the central law in that particular state.
The Doctrine of Repugnancy deals with conflict between two pieces of legislation which when applied to the same facts produce different results.
- This doctrine was included as a mechanism to resolve this repugnancy between the powers of the Parliament and State legislatures. This doctrine reflects the quasi-federal structure of the COI. It has clearly laid down the powers of the Parliament and State legislature to avoid inconsistencies and conflicts.
For the application of article 254(2), the following conditions must be satisfied:
- Union law must be in evidence
- Subsequent to union law state legislature enacts a law and same subject matter in concurrent list
- State law resumed for the president’s consideration has receive his assent thereto.
What are the Conditions for Doctrine of Repugnancy?
-
- Clear and direct inconsistency between the Central Act and the State Act.
- Inconsistency is absolutely irreconcilable.
- 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.
RELEVANT CASE LAWS:
ZAVERBHAI VS STATE OF U.P.
Facts: In this case, “essential supplies act” was enacted by the parliament and on its violation 3 years punishment was involved. As this was the subject matter of concurrent list, State of Bombay amended this provision and punishment was led to 7 years for its territory of Bombay with the assent of 99. Later on parliament brings amendment in “essential supplies act” an dnow punishment was based on the category of offences committed. A suit was filed against state of Bombay as now the law was inconsistent with the law of central govt. and Zaverbhai shall be punished on the law of govt.
Issue: Whether law made by state of bombay is unconditional or valid?
Judgement: It was held that , the amendment made by the state legislature & the parliament are based on the same subject matter, i.e., “ESA”. The amendment of parliament contains wider aspect of category of punishment for life offences while state of Bombay had only uniform provision. As both the amendment were based on the same subject matter and the amendment of 87 legislature was against the amendment of the central govt. so following the principle of repugnancy, the amendment of state legislature was held unconstitutional and invalid and the law of parliament superseded the state legislatures law.
Hoechst Pharmaceuticals ltd. vs State of Bihar
Facts: In this case, one law is made by parliament i.e., “Essential Commodities Act” and one law is made by state of Bihar i.e.; “Bihar Finance Act”. Petitioner’s contention was that the some of the provisions of the state law is repugnant to the provision of the CH’s act, so it shall be declared unconstitutional. (state started charging surcharge with a condition that price shouldn’t be increased).
Issue: Whether the”Bihar Finance Act” was unconstitutional?
Judgement: It was held that “ECA” is made through concurrent list and “BFA” is made through state list. Both the act has come into existence from different field and state as have the power to look at its financial part, therefore no question arises of repugnancy. Hence, no provision of “BFA” contradicts the provision of “ECA” and “BFA” can’t be declared unconstitutional.
