Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The Indian Constitution operates on a dual polity system, dividing legislative powers between the Union and State governments. This division, however, can lead to situations where laws enacted by both entities conflict. This conflict, termed “repugnancy,” poses a challenge to the legal framework. Article 254(4) of the Constitution addresses this issue, establishing a hierarchy of laws and outlining which law prevails when such a conflict arises. The principle of repugnancy and its resolution have been shaped by judicial interpretations, most notably through the *Kesavananda Bharati* case, emphasizing the supremacy of the Constitution.
Understanding Repugnancy
Repugnancy arises when a State law directly contradicts a Union law on the same subject matter. This contradiction can manifest in two forms:
- Direct Repugnancy: The State law explicitly and directly contradicts the provisions of the Union law.
- Indirect Repugnancy (Implied Repugnancy): The State law is inconsistent with the purpose or effect of the Union law, even if it doesn't directly contradict it.
Article 254(4) and the Hierarchy of Laws
Article 254(4) of the Constitution is the cornerstone for resolving repugnancy. It states: "If any law made by the State Legislature is found to be inconsistent with the provisions of any law made by Parliament, then the law made by Parliament shall prevail and the law made by the State Legislature shall be void." This establishes the clear supremacy of Parliament-enacted laws over State laws when a conflict exists.
Case Laws and Judicial Interpretation
The interpretation of Article 254(4) has evolved through several landmark judgments:
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
While not directly focused on repugnancy, this case established the "basic structure" doctrine, limiting the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution. This indirectly impacts how repugnancy is interpreted, ensuring that Union laws don't violate the fundamental principles enshrined in the Constitution. The principle of judicial review reinforces the supremacy of the Constitution over both Union and State laws.
PRC v. Union of India (1960)
This case clarified that if a State law attempts to deal with a subject matter that is also covered by a Union law, even if the State law doesn’t directly contradict the Union law, it would still be considered void due to repugnancy.
Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980)
This case further reinforced the basic structure doctrine and the principle of judicial review, emphasizing the limitations on Parliament’s power to legislate even under Article 254(4). It stated that the power of Parliament to enact laws must be exercised within the constitutional framework.
Which Law Prevails?
Under Article 254(4), the law enacted by Parliament invariably prevails over the State law in case of repugnancy. The State law becomes void to the extent of the inconsistency. However, the Union law must also be constitutionally valid; if the Union law itself is unconstitutional, the State law will prevail.
Limitations and Considerations
- Constitutional Validity of Union Law: The Union law must be constitutionally valid. If the Union law is declared unconstitutional, the State law becomes operative.
- Concurrent Powers: Many subjects fall under the Concurrent List (List III of the Seventh Schedule), where both Union and State legislatures can legislate. This necessitates careful drafting to avoid repugnancy.
- Doctrine of Harmonious Construction: Courts often attempt to interpret laws in a way that avoids a direct conflict, applying the doctrine of harmonious construction.
| Law | Scope | Prevailing in Repugnancy |
|---|---|---|
| Union Law (Parliament enacted) | Covers subjects in Union List (List I) and Concurrent List (List III) | Prevails over State law |
| State Law (State Legislature enacted) | Covers subjects in State List (List II) | Void to the extent of inconsistency with Union law |
Conclusion
In conclusion, Article 254(4) firmly establishes the supremacy of Union laws over State laws in cases of repugnancy. Landmark judgments like *Kesavananda Bharati* have reinforced this principle while also emphasizing the constitutional limits on Parliament’s legislative power. The doctrine of harmonious construction and judicial review play crucial roles in interpreting laws and resolving conflicts, ensuring the smooth functioning of India’s federal structure. Careful drafting and adherence to constitutional principles remain essential to avoid such conflicts.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.