Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 16

A

PROJECT ON

DOCTRINE OF REPUGENCY

SUBMITTED TO:
PRAMOOD RANJAN SHARMA
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR
INTERPRETATION

SUBMITTED BY:
TUSHAR MISHRA
ROLL NO. 35, BCOM LLB 7th SEMSTER

DATE OF SUBMISSION: 08.11.2016

SCHOOL OF LAW
GURUGHASIDAS CENTRAL UNIVERSITY,
BILASPUR

Page 1 of 16
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Declaration3

Certificate.4

Acknowledgement5

Table of Cases...6

Research Methodology7,8

Introduction ..........9,

Meaning of accomplice..9,10

Objective of repugency10

Condition of repugency...11,13,

Case laws ..........14

Conclusion. .15

Bibliography..16

Page 2 of 16
DECLARATION

I, TUSHAR MISHRA, Roll No. 35, BCOM LLB 7th Semester of Guru Ghasidas University
do hereby declare that, this project is my original work and I have not copied this project or
any part thereof from any source without due acknowledgement. I am highly indebted of the
my subject professor who guide me and help me out in making this project, authors of the
books that I have referred in my project as well as the writers of the articles and the owner of
the information taken from website on it. It is only because of their contribution and proper
guidance of my faculty advisor PRAMOOD RANJAN SHARMA, that I was able to gather
lights on this project.

TIUSHAR MISHRA

Roll No. 35

BCOM LLB 7TH SEMSTER

Page 3 of 16
CERTIFICATE

I am glad to submit this project on DOCTRINE OF REPUGENCY UNDER


INTERPRETATION OF STATUES as a part of my academic assignment. The project is
based on repugency. It furthers them dealing with central and state relationship. I hope this
be significant for academic purposes as well as prove informative to all readers.

Here though I declare that this paper is an original piece of research and all borrowed texts
and ideas have been duly acknowledged.

TUSHAR MISHRA Faculty Signature: Roll No.


35

BCOM LLB 7TH SEMSTER

Page 4 of 16
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my earnest and deepest gratitude to, PRAMOOD RANJAN
SHARMA SIR Faculty for giving me this opportunity to do a project on such a valuable
topic of DOCTRINE OF REPUGENCY UNDER INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES . I
am grateful for the assistance, guidance and support that were extended during the course of
excellent research. I am also thankful to the Department for providing the resources
necessary for the research work. I thank my parents and my friends for their moral support
and love throughout my research work and project preparation. Above all I thank God
Almighty for blessing me with the health and vitality to complete the project.

TUSHAR MISHRA

ROLL NO. 35

BCOMLLB 7TH SEMSTE

Page 5 of 16
TABLE OF CASES

Case Name Page No.

1) Bantwala & Company v. Life Insurance Corporation of


India, AIR 2011 3699

2) Girnar v State of Mharashtra, 2011 3 SCC.

Page 6 of 16
Research Methodology

Title

Doctrine of repugency.

Problem

It is very hard to write such a vast topic in few pages if we have to deal with all the doctrine
of repugency.

Rationale

To study the condition of repugency.

To study the Relation between central and state.

Objective of the project

The objective of the project is for the fulfillment of assignment work given to me. The
fundamental objective of my research is to analyze the A doctrine repugency under
interpretation of statues. The object of writing this project is to give a clear picture of the
doctrine of approver in The Scope is confined only to interpretation of statutes.

Review of literature

Page 7 of 16
1. Dr. Mathur D.N.
2. Dr. Jain M.P.

Source of Data

The secondary sources of data collection such as the books and various journals have been
used with the help of the access to the library and the software. The database which is used
in this particular project is from the library, Google books and articles from the internet.

Method of Research

For this project, I followed doctrinal method which includes both descriptive method and
analytical method of writing throughout this project. Books and other reference materials are
taken from the Department Library and this book are very helpful for the completion of this
research paper.

Time limit

Time limit for submission this project is 8th November, 2016 and it takes two months for
completion of project on doctrine of Repugency.

Page 8 of 16
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES
==DOCTRINE OF REPUGENCY==

INTRODUCTION: Part XI of the Indian Constitution describes the legislative


relations between the States and Centre. Article 254 to establish the doctrine of
Repugnancy is one of the laws laid down under the Indian Constitution as a safeguard to
solve disputes arising between the states and the Union. Repugnancy is meant to express
conflict, whereby there is an expressed inconsistency between the State-made law and the
Union-made law. Both parliament and the state legislature are competent to
makes laws on the subjects assigned to term under the constitution. The
parliament can makes laws on the enters in list I, i.e., Union list whereas the
state legislature can make laws on the enters in list II, i.e., State list. There is a
third list also called list III or concurrent on the subject of which both
Parliament and state legislature may enact. The law enacted by parliament is
often referred to as central law and the law made by state legislature is called
state law. Since the parliament as well as state legislature are competent to
enact on the entries in list III, i.e., concurrent list the possibility of inconsistent
enactments cannot be ruled out. It is quite likely that certain provisions of a
state law are in conflict with the provision of central law on the subject
matter.1

MEANING OF REPUGENCY: Repugency between two pieces of legislation,


generally speaking, means that conflicting results are produced when both the laws are
applied to the same facts. Repugency arises when the provisions of the two laws are fully
inconsistent and are absolutely irreconcilable and that it is impossible to obey one without
disobeying the other, e.g. when one statutes says do while the other says dont in the
same set of facts.2 In this case, there is a contradiction in the actual terms of the statutes and
this can easily be detected.
Such situation arose in ITC where the Supreme Court found direct

1
Mathur D.N., Interpretation of Statues, p.52, (central law publication), Allahabad, (5th edition 2105).

2
Deep Chand V. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1959 SC 548, Prof. Jain M.P. Indian constitutional law, p. 604,
(Lexis Nexis) Haryana, (5th edition and reprint 2013)

Page 9 of 16
collision between an act enacted by parliament and a state act. The court ruled that the
question of allowing both of them to operate would not arise. In such s situation the
central legislation would prevail over state law. The central act in question was the tobacco
board enacted under entry 52. List I. The state act was the agriculture products market act
enacted under entry 27, List II. The court observed;
.. We hold that the tobacco board
act and the agriculture produce market act, collide with each other and cannot be operated
simultaneously. Necessarily therefore, the tobacco board act would prevail and the
agriculture produce market act, so far as it relates to levy of fee for sale and purchase of
tobacco within the market.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this article is to explain the distribution of legislative


powers between centers and states in general and its main object is deals with the Doctrine
of Repugnance under Article 254 of the Indian Constitution. The Constitution of India the
lawmaking power between the Union Parliament and State Legislatures in terms of its
various provisions read with Schedule VII. It therein distributes the subject-matters over
which the two are competent to make laws; List I being the fields allocated for the
Parliament, List II being those within the exclusive domain of the State Legislatures
and List III represents those areas where both carry concurrent powers to make laws. The
Constitution, however, itself provides [vide Article 254] that a law on a subject-matter
prescribed in List III enacted by the State Legislature would be valid only in the absence of
or not being contrary to a law made by the Parliament on the same subject-matter. Thus
has developed the doctrine of repugnancy which is employed to test as to when and where a
State law turns repugnant to the Parliamentary legislation.

CONDITION OF REPUGENCY: Article 254 (1) says that any provision of law
made by the Legislature of the state of the is repugnant to any law with respect to one of
the matters enumerated in the concurrent list then the law made provision of a law made
by Parliament which is competent to enact or to any provision of the existing 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?

Page 10 of 16
In M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India3 , Fazal Ali J., reviewed
all his earlier decisions and summarized 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 separate 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 provision of an
earlier law made by Parliament, or an existing law with respect of that matter, then the
state law if it has been reserved for the assent of the President and has received his assent,
shall prevail notwithstanding such repugnancy. But it would still be possible for the
Parliament under the provision to clause (2) to override such a law by subsequently
making a law on the same matter. If it makes such a law the State Law would be avoid to
the extent of repugnancy with the Union Law.

Chapter I of Part XI of the Constitution deals with the subject of distribution of legislative
powers of the Parliament and the legislature of the States. Article 245 of the Constitution
provides that the Parliament may make laws for the whole or any part of the territory of
India, and the legislature of a State may make laws for the whole or any part of the State.
The legislative field of the Parliament and the State Legislatures has been specified in

Article 246 of the Constitution. Article 246, reads as follows:-

246. Subject-matter of laws made by Parliament and by the legislature of States.

3
[(1979) 3 SCC 431], , Prof. Jain M.P. Indian constitutional law, p. 605, (Lexis Nexis) Haryana, (5th edition and
reprint 2013)

Page 11 of 16
Notwithstanding anything in clauses (2) and (3), Parliament has exclusive power to
make laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List I in the Seventh Schedule
(in this Constitution referred to as the Union list).
2. Notwithstanding anything in clause (3), Parliament, and, subject to clause (1), the
legislature of any State also, have power to make laws with respect to any of the matters
enumerated in List III in the Seventh Schedule (in this Constitution referred to as the
Concurrent List).
3. Subject to clauses (1) and (2), the legislature of any State has exclusive power to make
laws for such State or any part thereof with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List
II in the Seventh Schedule (in this Constitution referred to as the
State List).
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.

Article 254 of the Constitution which contains the mechanism 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 reads as under:

254. Inconsistency between laws made by Parliament and laws made by the
legislatures of States. 1.Any provision of an existing law with respect to one of the
matters enumerated in the Concurrent List, then, subject to the provisions of Clause
(2), the law made by Parliament, whether passed before or after the law made by the
legislature of such State, 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.
2. Where a law made by the legislature of a State with respect to one of the matters
enumerated in the Concurrent List contains any provision repugnant to the provisions of an
earlier law made by Parliament or an existing law with respect to that matter, then, the
law so made by the legislature of such State shall, if it has been reserved for the
consideration of the President and has received his assent, prevail in that State:

Provided that nothing in this clause shall prevent Parliament from enacting at any time
any law with respect to the same matter including a law adding to, amending, varying or
repealing the law so made by the legislature of the State.

Page 12 of 16
CASE LAWS

1. In Bantwala & Company v. Life Insurance Corporation of India 4, It was held that
the question of repugency between the law made by the Parliament and the law
made by the state legislature may arises in cases when both the legislations occupy
the same field with respect to one of the matters enumerated in list III and where a
direct conflict in seen between the two.

2. In Grinar Traders V. State of Maharashtra,5 It was held that the question of


repugency arises only when both the legislature are competent to legislate in the
same filed, i.e., when both, the Union and the state laws, relate to a subject in list III.

4
Air 2011 sc 3619, Mathur D.N., Interpretation of Statutes, p.52, (Central law agency) (5th edition 2015)

5
2011 (3) SCC 1., Mathur D.N., Interpretation of Statutes, p.52, (Central law agency) (5th edition 2015)

Page 13 of 16
CONCLUSION: In Article 245, they laid down that parliament might make laws for
the whole or any part of the territory of India, and the Legislature of the State might make
laws for the whole or any part of the State. Article 246 provided that parliament had
exclusive power to legislate with respect to matters included in the Union list, that State
Legislatures had exclusive power to make laws with respect to subjects in the State list, and
that parliament and State Legislatures were laws with respect to matters in the concurrent
list.
Article 254 provided that the law made by parliament, whether
passed before or after the law made by the Legislature of a State, shall prevail, and the law
made by the Legislature of the State shall to the extent.

Page 14 of 16
BIBLIOGRAPHY:=
Books
a) Author Prof. Jain M.P.
b) Book Indian constitutional law.
c) Published by Lexis Nexis.
d) Published place Haryana.
e) Year and Edition 5th & 2013.

a) Author Mathur D.N.


b) Book Interpretation of statutes.
c) Published by Central law agency.
d) Published Place Allahabad.
e) Year and Edition 5th & 2015.

Page 15 of 16
Page 16 of 16