This document discusses the doctrine of repugnancy in Indian law. It explains that under Article 254 of the Indian Constitution, if a central law conflicts with a state law on a subject in the Concurrent List, the central law will prevail. It provides examples of direct conflicts, occupied fields, and intended occupation that can result in repugnancy. Key court cases are discussed that have established conditions for applying the doctrine and interpreted how it is to be implemented. The conclusion emphasizes that the doctrine preserves integrity and avoids conflicting laws on the same subjects between central and state legislatures.

1. DOCTRINE OF
REPUGNANCY
PAYAL RAMNIKBHAI SHAH
A - 049
JITENDRA CHAUHAN
COLLEGE OF LAW
PROF. AMARO HENRIQUES
&
PROF. SUSHMA MHASKE
INTERPRETATION
OF STATUTES

2. INTRODUCTION
• The Doctrine of Repugnancy has been stated in Article 254 of
the Indian Constitution, under Part XI
• Blacks' 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 Constitution under Schedule VII sets out the various
subjects on which the Parliament and State may legislate,
under List I and List II respectively. Under List III, also known
as the Concurrent List, both the Parliament and the States have
the power to make laws

3. INDIAN
CONSTITUTION
Article 245 of Constitution of India
• Parliament to make laws for the whole or any part of
India
• State legislature to make laws for the whole or any
part of the State
Article 246 of Constitution of India
(Seventh Schedule)
• Union List or List I – Parliament’s exclusive power to
make Laws
• State List of List II – Exclusive powers to States to
make Laws
• Concurrent List or List III – Both i.e. Centre and
State have powers to make Laws
Article 254 of Constitution of India
• if a conflict arises between a Central and a State
legislation, then the Central law will prevail

4. WHEN REPUGNANCY ARISES
DIRECT CONFLICT
• Clear and direct inconsistency between the Central Act and the State Act
• Situation is reached where it is impossible to obey the one without
disobeying the other
Occupied field
• Not apparent conflict
• But repugnancy between two Acts covering same field
Intended occupation
• 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

5. CONDITIONS TO BE SATISFIED FOR APPLICATION OF
DOCTRINE OF REPUGNANCY
Landmark judgments concerning this doctrine is M. Karunanidhi v.
Union of India
A direct inconsistency between the Central Act and the State Act
The inconsistency must be irreconcilable
The inconsistency between provisions of two Acts are such that there
is direct collision and it is impossible to obey one without disobeying
the other

6. IMPORTANT JUDICIAL DECISIONS
State of Jammu and Kashmir v. M.S.Farooqi, Bar Council of
Uttar Pradesh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, and in the case
of K.S.E. Board v. Indian Aluminium Co.
• Repugnancy arises and Article 254(1) would apply only when both the Central
and the State laws have been enacted on a subject in the Concurrent List and
not otherwise
Bharat Hydro Power Corpn. Ltd. v. State of Assam, as well as
in the case of Central Bank of India v. State of Kerala
• Every effort should be made to reconcile the two enactments and construe
them both, in such a way, so as to avoid them being repugnant to each other

7. IMPORTANT JUDICIAL DECISIONS
Government of Andhra Pradesh v. J.B. Educational Society
• Judiciary must interpret legislation made by the Parliament and the State
Legislature in such a way that the question of conflict does not arise or can be
circumvented
• If such a conflict between laws is unavoidable, then the Parliamentary law shall
prevail
Zameer Ahmed Latifur Rehman Sheikh v. State of Maharashtra
and Ors
• Of it could not be shown that core area and the subject matter of the legislation is
covered by an entry in the State List, then any incidental encroachment upon an
entry in the Union List would not be enough so as to render the State law as valid

8. IMPORTANT JUDICIAL DECISIONS
Kannan D.H.P.Co. v. State of Kerala
• Supreme Court did envisage the possibility of repugnancy
between a Central Act on a subject in List I and a State Act
on a state subject on List II
Srinivasa Raghavachar v. State of Karnataka
• There was indeed a repugnancy between the Advocates Act,
1961, which was a Central Act enacted by the Parliament
under entries 77 and 78 of List I and a State law prohibiting
legal practitioners from appearing before a land tribunal,
enacted under List II

9. CONCLUSION
• Parliament as well as the State Legislatures enjoy absolute authority when
they legislate on their subject matters
• This doctrine plays a critical role in order to preserve the integrity of the
Country and avoid two laws on the same subject matter
• Article 254 clearly states the clauses regarding how to deal with State and
Centre issues and which has to be given importance so that there are no two
different laws on one subject
• No repugnancy of law passed by the state enactment would be required if
the matter is unique