Doctrine of Repugnancy

Introduction:

The “Repugnant” means a contradiction of ideas. In the wide sense, it can be defined as inconsistency between the clauses of the deed, contract or document. Black’s 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 main feature of federalism is the distinction between the power of the State and Centre. The Doctrine of Repugnancy is adopted from the Constitution of America. In India, the Doctrine of Repugnancy arose in the Indian  Constitution.

This Doctrine talks about the conflicts between the laws of the Central Government and State Government. With an object to avoid conflicts between the State laws and Centre laws, the Constitution of India enacted Article 254. The Constitution enacted the 7th Schedule which talks about Union List (List I), State List (List II) and Concurrent List (List III). Since India has adopted the Quasi- Federal structure of government, the power of legislation is distributed between State and Central government. Indian Constitution has given the power to the State and the Central government, therefore, there are high chances of laws made by the respective government are not consistent.

Doctrine of Repugnancy and Ultra Vires: Distinction

Ultra Vires refers to when the State exceeds its legislative power, e.g. when the State makes a law in List I or Union List even though the State does not have the legislative power to make laws in that particular List. In Ultra Vires, the law becomes invalid when the legislation power exceeds the law. In Ultra Vires, there is no competition between the two legislatures. In Repugnancy, both the legislatures are competent to make laws. If they are not consistent with each other, the laws made by the State would be held void.

Power of Parliament and State Legislature

Article 245 gives power to Parliament to make laws for India wholly or part of India. Also gives power to the States to frame the laws for State wholly or part of the State.

Article 245 also ensures that law made by Parliament shall not be deemed to be invalid on the ground that it would have extra-territorial operation.

Article 246 of the Indian Constitution mentions the scope of power of Parliament and the State legislature. The 7th Schedule of the Constitution, three-fold distribution of legislative subjects between the Center and States, as follows:

• An exclusive power is given to Parliament for making the laws on the matters given in the Union List or the List I.

• An exclusive power is given to the State Legislature to make laws for such State on any of the matters given in the State List or List II.

• The Parliament and Legislature of any State have the power to make laws on any matters given in the Concurrent List or List III.

Method of Resolving Matter of Repugnancy

The Doctrine of Repugnancy was incorporated by Article 254. The Constitution lays power to the Central and States Legislature, therefore, inconsistency can arise between the laws.

1. Article 254 of Indian Constitution mentions any laws enacted by the State Legislature on matters listed in the List III would be valid if the contrary laws passed by the Union Government.
2. If a law enacted by the Parliament before or after the law enacted by any State Legislature, the law enacted by Parliament shall prevail and the law enacted by the State Legislature shall be void.
3. When a law enacted by the State Legislature on the matters given under Concurrent List contains a provision which repugnant to laws made earlier by the Parliament shall be subject to the consideration of the President. 

Interpretation of the Supreme Court on the Doctrine of Repugnancy

The Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of M Karunanidhi v. Union of India defined how the doctrine of repugnancy can be implied;

1. There should be a direct and clear inconsistency between the State and Central Act.
2. The inconsistency should be absolute and may not be reconcilable.
3. The inconsistency between the clauses and provisions of two Acts shall be of such character that it will bring two enactments into direct collision with each other.
4. It is not possible to obey one Act without obeying the other Act.

Further Supreme Court interpreted the Doctrine of Repugnancy as follows:

• For arising Repugnancy, it ought to be shown that the two Acts are contrary and not reconcilable provisions.
• When the two Acts cannot stand together or work in the same field.
• Where the enactments can not be repealed if they appeared on the face of the two statutes.
• Where there is scope for both the Acts to operate in the same field without coming into collision with each other, then the question of Repugnancy does not arise.
• There may not be any inconsistency between enactments but statute seeks to create different offences, then both Acts continue to operate in the same area without the doubt of Repugnancy.

Case Laws

• M Karunanidhi vs. Union of India

In 1973, the Tamil Nadu State passed an Act for the Tamil Nadu Public Men (Criminal misconduct) Act, 1973. It was further amended in the year of 1974. The enactment was challenged in the Supreme Court alleging that it was repugnant with the law passed by the Central Government including the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and  Indian Penal Code. The Court held that there is an indirect conflict between the Central and the State Acts. These are complementary Acts which can run pari passu which means side by side to the Act passed by Parliament. In this matter, the Court held that repugnancy may arise only when two Acts are not reconcilable or consistent and they can’t operate in the same area together. The question of repugnancy does not arise if the Acts can continue to operate without collusion. 

• Deep Chand vs. State of Uttar Pradesh:

The State Government of Uttar Pradesh introduced the Uttar Pradesh Transport Service Act and was added in the List III. There were some provisions and clauses which were in the Uttar Pradesh Transport Service Act but those were not in the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, Parliament amended the Motor Vehicles Act to create a uniform law. The Court held that both enactments are in a direct conflict and not consistent with each other, and occupied the same area. Therefore it was considered as void to the extent of Repugnancy.

• Zaveri Bhai Amaidas vs. State of Bombay:

The Parliament passed the Essential Supple Act, 1946 relating to the production and supply of essential goods. It was mentioned that rules listed in the Act are not followed then he shall be imprisoned for 3 years. The Parliament amended the Act for increasing the punishment of imprisonment up to 7 years. The Court passed the judgement that both the Acts enacted were in the same areas and colliding with each other. Therefore, the law passed by the State is void to the extent of Repugnancy.

• Zamir Ahmed Latifur Rehman Sheikh vs State of Maharashtra

In this case, the Supreme Court held that the provisions and clauses of Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA) were not in conflict of the Act passed by Parliament i.e. Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. It was alleged that the terms of Article 254 of the Constitution of India were not fulfilled before passing the enactment. Therefore, the Act to be declared as unconstitutional as it was repugnant to the enactment of Parliament.

Conclusion

The Doctrine of Repugnancy was added to the Constitution of India for eliminating the further dispute which may arise if the similar were passed. Repugnancy means contradiction of ideas between two entities. The Doctrine of Repugnancy provides guidelines for the Union and State government if any contradiction or collusion appears between two enactments. The interpretation of the doctrine has evolved over the times from courts to courts. The Supreme Court mainly interpreted the doctrine considered for maintaining the centre-State relation.

---

References:

• Darshit Hemang Vora, Constitutional Law: Doctrine of Repugnancy, LexLife India, ( 11 May 2020), https://lexlife.in/2020/05/11/constitutional-law-doctrine-of-repugnancy/
• http://studymaterial.unipune.ac.in:8080/jspui/bitstream/123456789/3677/1/Constitutional%20Law%20Doctrines%20Part%202.pdf
• Zamir Ahmed Latifur Rehman Sheikh vs State of Maharashtra, (2010), 5 SCC 246
• M. Karunanidhi vs Union of India 1979 SCR(3) 254
• Deep Chand Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors [1959] SC 3 (15 January 1959)
• Zaveri Bhai Amaidas vs State of Bombay AIR 1953 Bom 371, (1953) 55 BOMLR 387, ILR 1954 Bom 117