Doctrine of Repugnancy — Interpretation of Statutes Notes

Doctrine of Repugnancy

On the Concurrent List, both Parliament and the States can legislate on the same subject — so what happens when the two laws collide? The Constitution answers cleanly in Article 254: the central law prevails, and the repugnant state law is void to the extent of the conflict. In M. Karunanidhi v Union of India (1979) the Supreme Court laid down the precise tests for when such repugnancy arises.

What is the doctrine of repugnancy?

Repugnancy is the inconsistency between a central law and a state law on a subject in the Concurrent List (List III). Article 254 resolves it: where a State law is repugnant to a law made by Parliament (which Parliament is competent to enact) or to an existing law on a Concurrent-List matter, the central/parliamentary law prevails and the state law is void to the extent of the repugnancy.

The scheme of Art. 254:

Article 254(1) — central law prevails. If a provision of a State law is repugnant to a provision of a Central law (or an existing law) on a Concurrent-List subject, the Central law prevails and the State law is void to the extent of the repugnancy.
Article 254(2) — the exception (Presidential assent). If the State law was reserved for and received the assent of the President, the State law prevails in that State — even over the earlier Central law. But Parliament may afterwards add to, amend, vary or repeal the State law, restoring the Central law’s supremacy.

The tests for repugnancy (M. Karunanidhi (1979)):

There is a direct conflict between the two provisions — obeying one means disobeying the other (they cannot both be obeyed); or
Parliament intended to lay down an exhaustive code on the subject, leaving no room for the State law; or
The two laws occupy the same field and cannot stand together.

Where the two laws can be reconciled or operate in different fields, there is no repugnancy (harmonious construction, Topic 4) and both survive.

Principle (Article 254(1)): “If any provision of a law made by the Legislature of a State is repugnant to any provision of a law made by Parliament which Parliament is competent to enact … the law made by Parliament … shall prevail and the law made by the State shall, to the extent of the repugnancy, be void.”

In Simple Terms: On the Concurrent List, if a State law and a Central law conflict, Article 254 makes the Central law win and the State law void so far as they clash. The exception is a State law that received the President’s assent — it prevails in that State, until Parliament legislates again. Repugnancy needs a real conflict, an exhaustive central code, or the same occupied field.

🧩 WORKED EXAMPLE — Conflicting Concurrent-List laws

Facts. Parliament and a State both legislate on a Concurrent-List subject. A provision of the State law directly conflicts with a provision of the Central law; the State law did not receive the President’s assent.

Rule. Under Art. 254(1), a State law repugnant to a competent Central law on a Concurrent-List subject is void to the extent of the repugnancy; the tests of repugnancy require a direct conflict, an exhaustive code, or the same occupied field (M. Karunanidhi (1979)).

Apply. There is a direct conflict — the two provisions cannot both be obeyed — and the State law lacked Presidential assent, so the Art. 254(2) exception does not apply.

Conclusion. The Central law prevails and the State law is void to the extent of the repugnancy. Had the State law received the President’s assent, it would have prevailed in that State until Parliament legislated afresh.

flowchart TD
    ROOT["Repugnancy (Art. 254) — Concurrent List conflict"]:::root
    ROOT --> A{"Do the central & state laws conflict?"}:::dec
    A -->|"No / different fields"| B["Both operate (harmonious)"]:::leaf
    A -->|"Yes"| C{"Did the state law get Presidential assent?"}:::dec
    C -->|"No (Art. 254(1))"| D["Central law prevails; state law void pro tanto"]:::leaf
    C -->|"Yes (Art. 254(2))"| E["State law prevails in that State (until Parliament acts)"]:::leaf
    classDef root fill:#FFF8DC,stroke:#000,stroke-width:1px,color:#000;
    classDef leaf fill:#E6F3FF,stroke:#1E3A8A,color:#000;
    classDef dec fill:#FFE8C2,stroke:#B45309,color:#000;
    linkStyle default stroke:#888,stroke-width:1px;

Case Laws

M. Karunanidhi v Union of India (1979) — lays down the tests of repugnancy under Art. 254; a direct conflict or an exhaustive central code is required.
Deep Chand v State of U.P. (1959) — where the central law occupies the field, the repugnant state law is void to the extent of the conflict.
Zaverbhai Amaidas v State of Bombay (1954) — the later, exhaustive central law prevails over the earlier state law on the same subject.

📄 Full notes + Question Bank (₹199) — every topic in depth, model answers to all past KSLU questions, in one printable PDF. Get the bundle · 10 Solved Problems · All Interpretation of Statutes topics