Article 254 (1) says that any provision of law made by the Legislature of the state of the is repugnant to any provision of a law made by Parliament which is competent to enact or to any provision of the existing law with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the concurrent list then the law made by the parliament, whether passed before or after the law made by the legislature of such stage or as the case may be, the existing law shall prevail and the law made by the legislature of the state shall, to the extent of the repugnancy be void.
Art. 254(1) only applies where there is inconsistency between a Central Law and State Law relating to the subject mentioned in the concurrent list. But the question is how the repugnancy is to be determined?
In M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India , Fazal Ali J., reviewed all his earlier decisions and summarised the text of repugnancy. According to him a repugnancy would arise between the two statues in the following situations:-
1. It must be shown that there is clear and direct inconsistency between the two enactments [Central Act and State Act] which is irreconcilable, so that they cannot stand together or operate in the same field.
2. There can be no repeal by implication unless the inconsistency appears on the face of the two statues.
3. Where the two statues occupy a Parliament field, but there is room or possibility of both the statues operating in the same field without coming into collision with each other, no repugnancy results.
4. Where there is no inconsistency but a statue occupying the same field seeks to create distinct and seperate offences, no question of repugnancy arise and both the statues continue to operate in the same field.
The above rule of repugnancy is, however, subject to the exception provided in clause (2) of this article according to clause (2) if a State Law with respect to any of the matters enumerated in the concurrent list contain s any provision repugnant to the...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document