The Doctrine of Repugnancy

 Introduction

Repugnancy refers to a contradiction or inconsistency between two or more provisions within a statute. The Doctrine of Repugnancy addresses conflicts between two legislative enactments that, when applied to the same facts, yield differing results.

What is the Doctrine of Repugnancy?

The Doctrine of Repugnancy is enshrined in Article 254 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI). This article deals with conflicts between laws made by Parliament and those made by State Legislatures. According to Article 254:

• If a provision of a State law is repugnant to a law passed by Parliament (which Parliament is competent to enact), or to any existing law under the Concurrent List, the law passed by Parliament prevails. The State law becomes void to the extent of the repugnancy.
• However, if a State law, passed under the Concurrent List, conflicts with an earlier Central law, and has received the President’s assent, the State law will prevail in that State, even overriding the Central law.

The Doctrine of Repugnancy was included in the Constitution to resolve conflicts between the powers of Parliament and State Legislatures. It reflects the quasi-federal structure of India and clearly outlines the powers of each legislative body to prevent inconsistencies and disputes.

Conditions

For the doctrine of repugnancy to apply, certain conditions must be met:

1. There must be a clear and direct inconsistency between the Central and State laws.
2. The inconsistency should be irreconcilable—meaning the two laws cannot coexist.
3. The conflict must be so severe that it becomes impossible to comply with both laws simultaneously. 

Landmark Case Laws 

1. M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India (1979)

   • 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.
   • Where however 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 the State Act has been passed in accordance with clause (2) of Article 254.
   • 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 an analysis of the provisions of the Act it appears that by and large the law falls within the four corners of the State List and entrenchment, if any, is purely incidental or inconsequential.
   • Where, however, 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 a law can be protected by obtaining the assent of the President under Article 254(2) of the Constitution. The result of obtaining the assent of the President would be that so far as the State Act is concerned, it will prevail in the State and overrule the provisions of the Central Act in their applicability to the State only.

2. Bharat Hydro Power Corporation Ltd. v. State of Assam (2004)
   The Supreme Court clarified that no repugnancy arises if the two laws operate in distinct areas without overlapping or encroaching upon each other.

3. Deep Chand v. State of U.P. (1959)
   The Court ruled that if both the Central and State laws address the same issue, the State law will be void to the extent of its repugnancy, with the Central law taking precedence.

 ensures that conflicts between central and state laws are resolved in a structured manner, maintaining the harmony of India’s federal system.