Doctrine of Repugnancy: Notes with Case Laws

 1. Definition:

The Doctrine of Repugnancy is a constitutional principle used to resolve conflicts between central (Union) laws and state laws in a federal system. It applies when a state law is inconsistent with a central law on the same subject matter, leading to a situation where the two laws are in conflict.

In simple terms, repugnancy occurs when two laws cannot coexist without one overriding the other. The doctrine ensures that the central law prevails in case of a conflict, provided it is consistent with the Constitution.

---

2. Constitutional Basis:

• Article 254 of the Indian Constitution:

  "(1) If any provision of a law made by the Legislature of a State is inconsistent with any provision of a law made by Parliament, which extends to the State, then, subject to the provisions of this article, the law made by Parliament shall prevail and the law made by the Legislature of the State shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void."

  • Sub-Article (2): Provides that a state law can override a central law if the state law has received presidential assent.

• Article 246:
  Deals with the distribution of legislative powers between the Union and the States through the Union List, State List, and Concurrent List.

---

3. Key Principles of the Doctrine:

1. Central Law Prevails in Case of Conflict:
   When a conflict arises between central and state laws on the same subject, the central law takes precedence.

2. Applicability to the Concurrent List:
   The doctrine applies primarily to laws in the Concurrent List (List III of the Seventh Schedule).

3. Presidential Assent Exception:
   A state law can override a central law if it has been approved by the President (Article 254(2)).

4. Conflict Must Be Direct and Clear:
   Repugnancy applies only when there is a direct conflict between the provisions, making it impossible to comply with both simultaneously.

---

4. Important Case Laws:

a) Union of India v. H.S. Dhillon (1964) - AIR 1615

• Facts:
  The case concerned the validity of a state law that conflicted with a central law related to the prevention of corruption.

• Judgment:
  The Supreme Court ruled that the central law prevailed because the state law was inconsistent with it, thus making the state law void under Article 254(1).

• Principle:
  "In case of conflict, the central law has primacy unless the state law has received presidential assent."

---

b) State of West Bengal v. Union of India (1963) - AIR 1241

• Facts:
  The case involved the issue of whether a state law that regulated inter-state trade could override the Union law on the same subject.

• Judgment:
  The Supreme Court held that the Union law prevailed, emphasizing the doctrine of repugnancy.

• Principle:
  "Union laws on matters in the Concurrent List will prevail over conflicting state laws unless explicitly overridden by the President."

---

c) Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980) - AIR 1789

• Facts:
  This case dealt with the validity of constitutional amendments that restricted the judiciary’s powers, leading to a conflict with fundamental rights.

• Judgment:
  The Court held that constitutional provisions could not be overridden by ordinary laws, applying the basic structure doctrine alongside repugnancy principles.

• Principle:
  "No law, whether central or state, can violate the basic structure of the Constitution, even if it is consistent with Article 254."

---

d) State of Madras v. V.G. Row (1952) - AIR 196

• Facts:
  The case involved a conflict between state and central laws concerning freedom of speech and expression.

• Judgment:
  The Supreme Court ruled that the central law, which restricted freedom of speech on grounds of public order, prevails over the conflicting state law.

• Principle:
  "Repugnancy applies when there is a direct conflict, and the central law must prevail unless otherwise specified."

---

5. Application of the Doctrine in Practice:

1. Trade and Commerce:

   • The Union can regulate inter-state trade, and state laws cannot override Union laws without presidential assent.

2. Criminal Law:

   • Both Union and states can make laws under the Concurrent List, but if there's a conflict, the central law prevails.

3. Environmental Laws:

   • Central environmental laws can override conflicting state laws unless the state law has been approved by the President.

---

6. Doctrine of Repugnancy in Federal Systems:

• United States:
  The principle is similar to the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2), where federal laws override conflicting state laws.

• Australia:
  The doctrine is applied under the Commonwealth Constitution, where Commonwealth laws prevail over state laws in cases of inconsistency.

---

7. Limitations of the Doctrine:

• No Override of Fundamental Rights:
  Even if a central law is consistent with Article 254, it cannot violate fundamental rights or the basic structure of the Constitution.

• Presidential Assent Exception:
  State laws with presidential assent can override central laws, making the doctrine not absolute.

• Indirect Conflicts:
  Repugnancy applies only in cases of direct conflict. Indirect or incidental conflicts do not trigger the doctrine.

---

8. Conclusion:

The Doctrine of Repugnancy is essential for maintaining the federal balance between the Union and the States. It ensures that national interests are protected while respecting the autonomy of states. Through this doctrine, the Constitution upholds the principles of supremacy of the Union, federalism, and constitutional harmony.