However, the spirit of federalism will be disturbed if the parliament is given the power to remove laws created by the state under the concurrent list so easily according to the provisions provided by Article 2.
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 Doctrine of repugnancy in india 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 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 2 of the Constitution.
State of Maharashtra and Ors. That such an inconsistency is absolutely irreconcilable. However, if the conflict is unavoidable, and the two enactments are irreconcilable, then by the force of the non obstante clause in clause 1 of Articlethe parliamentary legislation would prevail notwithstanding the exclusive power of the State Legislature to make a law with respect to a matter enumerated in the State List.
The concept of federalism which had been depicted by the US can be considered as the best example of federalism. Later on, in the Parliament with a view to introduce a uniform law amended the Motor Vehicles Act, and added a new provision enabling the State Government to frame rules of nationalization of Motor Transport.
Inconsistency between laws made by Parliament and laws made by the legislatures of States. There is no doubt that both Parliament and the State Legislature are supreme in their respective assigned fields.
In Deep Chand v. Though it is not accepted judicially that the parliament can repeal the state laws it has certainly gained attention from the judiciary. Articlereads as follows: The Court held that since both the Union and the State Law occupied the same field, the State Law was void to the extent of repugnancy to the Union Law.
The Constitution, however, itself provides [vide Article ] 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.
In both the situations, parliamentary legislation will predominate, in the first, by virtue of the non obstante clause in Article 1in the second, by reason of Article 1.
Thus, in the end the conclusion that was arrived at was that after applying the Doctrine of Repugnancy for the inconsistence of laws between the Union Law and the State Law the Union Law will prevail over the State Law after applying the Doctrine of Repugnancy and the State Law to the extent of repugnancy will be considered as void.
If the conflict becomes unavoidable, then Article indicates the manner of resolution of such a conflict. However, even though HM Seervai is arguing that the doctrine of repugnancy is not counter to Federalism, it is basically treating the local opinion as a child to be beaten and put in order by the paternal state much like the British State.
The legislative field of the Parliament and the State Legislatures has been specified in Article of the Constitution Articlereads as follows: That there can be no repeal by implication unless the inconsistency appears on the face of the two statutes.
There is no doubt that both Parliament and the State Legislature are supreme in their respective assigned fields. Article 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.
Second, where the two legislations are with respect to matters in the Concurrent List and there is a conflict. In the present post, I will confine myself only to Article and its niceties.
Subject-matter of laws made by Parliament and by the legislature of States. Union of India, is one of the most authoritative judgments on the Doctrine of Repugnancy. Inconsidering the punishment inadequate, the Bombay Legislature passed an Act enhancing the punishment provided under the Central Law.May 25, · Doctrine of Repugnancy: The law revisited The Constitution of India vests the law-making power between the Union Parliament and State Legislatures in terms of its various provisions read with Schedule killarney10mile.com: Tarun Jain.
Doctrine of Repugnancy From time immemorial, legislative bodies have been enacting laws all over the world. With the enactment of laws by different legislative bodies all over the world, conflict of laws is an unavoidable issue.
Essay on Doctrine of Repugnancy in. Union of India, is one of the most authoritative judgments on the Doctrine of Repugnancy.
In the said case, the principles to be applied for determining repugnancy between a law made by the Parliament and a law made by the State Legislature were considered. DO THE DOCTRINE OF REPUGNANCY AND SPIRIT OF FEDERALISM GO HAND IN HAND?
TheHon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case M. Karunanidhi v UOI, laid down conditions which must be satisfied before any kind of repugnancy could arise.
The conditions are as follows: Racolb Legal. Racolb Legal.
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 and the Constitution of India Introduction It is Article of the Constitution of India that firmly entrenches the Doctrine of Repugnancy in India.
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 .Download