The document discusses the doctrine of repugnancy in Indian law. It defines repugnancy as an inconsistency between two legal instruments. Repugnancy can arise in three situations - direct conflict between laws, when laws cover the same field, or when a law is intended to occupy a field. For repugnancy to be established, the inconsistencies must be irreconcilable. The Supreme Court has interpreted that in cases of repugnancy, the Central law will prevail over the State law. The document outlines several cases that discuss applying the repugnancy doctrine when Central and State laws conflict.

1. DOCTRINE OF REPUGNANCY
BY-
ANGELINA NAOREM
SCHOOL OF LAW, ITM UNIVERSITY,
GURGAON

2. INTRODUCTION
With the enactment of laws by different legislative bodies all over
the world, conflict of laws is an unavoidable issue. Doctrine of
Repugnancy deals with the conflict of laws between the State and
the Centre.
Part XI of the Indian Constitution describes the legislative
relations between the Centre and the States. The legislative field
of the Parliament and the State Legislatures has been specified in
Article 246 of the Constitution whereas Article 254 of the
Constitution describes the mechanism of for resolution of
conflict between the Central and the State legislations enacted
with respect to any matter enumerated in List III of the Seventh
Schedule.

3. DEFINITION
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)”.
Article 245 states that 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. It further states that no law made by Parliament shall
be deemed to be invalid on the ground that it would have extra-
territorial operation.
Article 246 also talks about Legislative power of the Parliament and the
Legislature of a state. It states that:
1.The Parliament has exclusive power to make laws with respect to any
of the matters enumerated in List I or the Union List in the Seventh
Schedule.
2.The Legislature of any State has exclusive power to make laws for
such state with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List II or

4. 3.The Parliament and the Legislature of any State have power to
make laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List
III or Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule.
4.Parliament has power to make laws with respect to any matter
for any part of the territory of India not included in a State
notwithstanding that such matter is a matter enumerated in the
State List.

5. WHEN REPUGNANCY ARISES
1)Direct Conflict- There may be inconsistency in the actual terms of
the Statute as when one legislature says “do” and the other says
“don’t”. There is a clear and direct inconsistency between the
Central Act and the State Act and such an inconsistency is
absolutely of such a nature as to bring the two Acts into direct
collision and a situation is reached where it is impossible to obey
the one without disobeying the other.
2)Occupied Field- There may be not an apparent conflict or collision
between the two provisions yet there may be repugnancy between
both covering the same field.
3)Intended Occupation- This may happen when there is no direct
conflict in the two provisions nor the Act directly takes away a right
conferred by the other, yet there may be repugnancy because it may

6. CONDITIONS
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.

7. Thereafter, the court laid down the 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

8. SUPREME COURT’S INTERPRETATION OF
THE DOCTRINE
Article 254 has been beautifully summarized by the Supreme Court
in Karunanidhi v. Union of India . The court 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 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 that the State Act has

9. 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 any analysis of the provisions of the Act
it appears that they by and large the law falls within the four corners
of the State List and entrenchment, is purely incidental.
4)Where, 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 law can be protected by
obtaining the assent of the President under Article 254(2).

10. CASE LAWS
1) Deepchand v. State of UP (1959): UP Transport Services Act
authorized State Government to frame schemes of “nationalization
of motor transport”. The law was necessitated because the Central
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 did not contain any such provision.
Later, Parliament amended the Act by adding a new chapter
enabling the State Government to frame and execute schemes of
Nationalization.
It was held that two laws belong to same field and the State Law, to
extent of repugnancy, is void. New Chapter in the Act does not
indicate that schemes already finalized should be reopened. The law
under UP Act subsists to support schemes framed and becomes
void only in respect of schemes framed under Central Act. Thus,

11. 2)National Engg. Industries Ltd. v. Shri Kishan Bhageria : Sabyasachi
Mukharji, J., opined that the best test of repugnancy is that if one
prevails, the other cannot prevail. Nicholas in his Australian
Constitution, 2nd Edition, page 303, refers to three tests of
inconsistency or repugnancy :-
(1) There may be inconsistency in the actual terms of the competing
statutes;
(2) Though there may be no direct conflict, a State law may be
inoperative because the Commonwealth law, or the award of the
Commonwealth Court is intended to be a complete exhaustive code;
and
(3) Even in the absence of intention, a conflict may arise when both
State and Commonwealth seek to exercise their powers over the same

12. 3)Govt. of AP v. J.B. Educational Society : Taking into account the
ambit of and scope of Articles 246 and 254 and considering the
scheme laid down by this Court in M. Karunanidhi case with respect to
the situations in which repugnancy would arise, held that "Parliament
has exclusive power to legislate with respect to matters in List I. The
non obstante clause under Article 246(1) indicates the predominance
or supremacy of the law made by the Union Legislature in the event of
an overlap of the law made by Parliament with respect to a matter in
List I and law by the State Legislature with respect to matter
enumerated in List II.

13. THANK YOU