This article has been written by Shruti Kulshreshta and Prithviraj Dutta. The difference between Ultra Vires and the Doctrine of Repugnancy has been discussed, following which a comparison in the Constitutional context between inconsistency and repugnancy has been made. Emphasis has been put on delineating the sources of concurrent jurisdiction in India. Next, the constraining factors related to Presidential assent under Article 254(2) of the Constitution have been discussed. Also, focus has been put on understanding the Doctrine of Repugnancy in the political context with reference to the farm laws. After this, the reason for the Central authority being given superior power and authority over the state legislatures has been discussed in detail. Finally, the Doctrine of Pith and Substance in relation to the Doctrine of Repugnancy has been laid emphasis on. Reference to important case laws has been made throughout the entire article to understand the practical application of the Doctrine of Repugnancy. 

Introduction 

The Constitution of India, the supreme law of the nation, has empowered the Central and the State Government to enact laws by virtue of various Articles read with Schedule VII. Black’s Law Dictionary defines repugnancy as inconsistency or contradiction between two or more parts of a legal instrument. In a system that divides its law-making power between the Centre and the States, an inconsistency can arise between the laws made by the Centre and those made by the State. The Doctrine of Repugnancy was introduced in the Constitution to resolve such situations.

The word ‘repugnancy’ is commonly taken to mean inconsistent or incompatible. A situation of repugnancy between two laws arises when there is an inconsistency or an opposition present between them or when there is the presence of such inconsistency between two or more clauses of the same deed, statute, or contract. 

The Indian Constitution is an amalgamation of unitary and federal characteristics. Due to its federal nature, conflicts can often arise between the centre and the ctates regarding the scope, extent, and distribution of their powers. Article 254 of the Indian Constitution comes into application at this time as it helps to resolve the conflict arising between the central legislative authority i.e., the Parliament and the state legislative authorities. This is with respect to law-making powers under List III of the Constitution, i.e., the Concurrent List. The Doctrine of Repugnancy aims to resolve these conflicts.

Meaning of doctrine of repugnancy 

Article 254 of the Indian Constitution establishes the doctrine of repugnancy in India. Before getting to this doctrine, it is quintessential to understand the legislative scheme and the Centre-State relations set out by the Constitution. 

Article 245 empowers the Parliament to make laws for the whole or any part of India and the State legislature to make laws for the whole or any part of the State. It also states that a law made by the Parliament shall not be deemed invalid due to its extraterritorial application. Further, Article 246 provides the subject-matter of laws that can be made by the Parliament and Legislature of the States. 

• The Parliament has exclusive powers to make laws for all matters given in the Union List or List I of the Schedule VII of the Indian Constitution.
• The Legislature of the State has powers to make laws for such State for all matters given in the State List or List II of Schedule VII.
• Both the Parliament and the State Legislature have powers to make laws for all matters listed in the Concurrent List or List III of the Seventh Schedule.
• The Parliament is empowered to make laws relating to any matter for any part of the territory of India, not included in a State, notwithstanding if it is enumerated in the State List.

Repugnancy means a contradiction between two laws which when applied to the same set of facts produce different results. It is used to describe inconsistency and incompatibility between the Central laws and State laws when applied in the concurrent field. The situation of repugnancy arises when two laws are so inconsistent with each other that the application of any one of them would imply the violation of another. 

The doctrine of repugnancy, in accordance to Article 254, states that if any part of State law is repugnant or conflicting to any part of a Central law which the Parliament is competent to enact, or to any part of a law of the matter of List III, then the Central law made by the Parliament shall prevail and the law made by the State legislature shall become void, to the extent of its repugnancy. While considering this doctrine, whether the central law is passed before or after the State law is immaterial. Hence, this is a principle to ascertain that when a state law becomes repugnant to the Central law. 

Repugnancy means a contradiction between two laws that, when applied to the same set of facts, produce different results. It is used to describe inconsistency and incompatibility between the central and state laws when applied in the concurrent field. The situation of repugnancy arises when two laws are so inconsistent with each other that the application of any one of them would imply the violation of another. 

The doctrine of repugnancy, in accordance with Article 254, states that if any part of state law is repugnant or conflicting with any part of a central law that the Parliament is competent to enact or with any part of a law in the matter of List III, then the central law made by the Parliament shall prevail and the law made by the state legislature shall become void, to the extent of its repugnancy. While considering this doctrine, whether the central law is passed before or after the state law is immaterial. Hence, this is a principle to ascertain when a state law becomes repugnant to the central law. 

Judicial interpretation of doctrine of repugnancy

One of the landmark judgments concerning this doctrine is M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India (1979). In this case, a constitutional bench of the Apex Court considered the question of repugnancy between a law made by the Parliament and a law made by the State legislature. It was observed that the following conditions should be satisfied for the application of the doctrine of repugnancy:

1. A direct inconsistency between the Central Act and the State Act.
2. The inconsistency must be irreconcilable. 
3. The inconsistency between the provisions of the two Acts should be of such nature as to bring the two Acts into direct collision with each other and a situation should be reached where it is impossible to obey one without disobeying the other. 

The Hon’ble Court also laid down some propositions in this respect. For the application of the doctrine of repugnancy, two enactments must contain provisions that are so inconsistent that they cannot stand together in the same field. Repeal by implication cannot be done unless there is a prima facie repugnancy in the enactments. If two enactments exist in the same field and there is a possibility for both of them to operate without colluding with each other, then this doctrine is not attracted. When there is an absence of inconsistency but enactment in the same field creates distinct offences, the question of repugnancy does not arise. 

Another landmark judgement is Government of Andhra Pradesh v. J.B. Educational Society (2005), where the Court observed that the 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. However, if such a conflict between laws is unavoidable, then the Parliamentary law shall prevail. Since List III gives equal competence to both the Parliament and the State Legislatures to enact laws, the highest scope of a conflict exists here. Again, the Court should interpret laws to avoid the conflict or else follow the manner of resolution iterated in Article 245. Clause (2) of Article 254 deals with a situation where the State legislation, having been reserved and having obtained the President’s assent, prevails in that State; this is again subject to the proviso that Parliament can again bring a legislation to override even such State legislation.  

The case of Hoechst Pharma Ltd. v. State of Bihar (1983) discusses the effect of Clause (2) of Article 254. It was observed that the assent of the President for a state law that is repugnant to a Central law for a matter related to a concurrent subject is important as it results in the prevailing of the State law in that particular State, thereby overriding the application of the Central law in that state only. 

A normal reading of Article 254 would suggest that it has been phased in such a way as to make it applicable to all cases of repugnancy between the Central Law and the law of the State Legislature. This law does not specifically state that the conflicting laws of the Centre and State Legislatures should only belong to the Concurrent List. 

The Supreme Court however was different in its interpretation of its decisions in its cases of Bar Council Of Uttar Pradesh v. State Of U.P. & Another, (1972) and in Kerala State Electricity Board v. Indian Aluminium Co, (1975). These decisions have repeatedly laid emphasis on the fact that the doctrine of repugnancy would arise only if the law made by the Centre and of the State Legislatures are concerning the subjects in the Concurrent List. 

Whether a statute falls under one of the entries of the concurrent list or not is not the main issue regarding Article 254(1). The main issue always is whether the Central Law comes in conflict with the State Law. In Kanaka Gruha Nirmana Sahakara v. Smt. Narayanamma, (2002), the Supreme Court clarified that for the application of Article 254(1), it is essential that there is repugnancy between the central and state laws. If there is a void found, then the State law would only be void to the extent of repugnancy. 

When repugnancy has to be ascertained, whether the Parliament intended to lay down an exhaustive code regarding the subject that would replace the State law. It has to be ensured by the Court that the laws of the Centre and the State are so inconsistent that it would not be possible for them to stand together, and therefore they must be repealed by implication. 

Tests for determining repugnancy

The principles of repugnancy have been applied under the Australian Constitution and have been borrowed by analogy for their application in India. Following Australian precedents, the Court in the case of Deep Chand v. State of Uttar Pradesh observed that repugnancy between two enactments can be identified with the help of the following three tests:

1. Whether there is a direct conflict between the two conflicting provisions;
2. Whether the Parliament intended to lay down an exhaustive enactment on the subject-matter and to replace the law made by the State legislature; and
3. Whether the law made by the Parliament and that made by the State legislature occupies the same field.

Occupying the same field

This test is in close relation to the exhaustive code test for identifying repugnancy between two enactments. If the Central government has enacted a law with the intention of occupying the whole field, then it would not be fit for the State law to legislate in the same field. 

In Zaverbhai Amaidas v. the State of Bombay (1954), a convict pleaded that he was convicted by a court having no jurisdiction. According to the state law, the offence committed by him—that is, transporting food grains without a permit—attracted imprisonment for a term of 7 years. On the other hand, the Central law prescribed the punishment of imprisonment for a term of 3 years for the offence committed by him. An additional provision in the Central law was that the punishment could be increased to 7 years if the person was found possessing double the permitted quantity of food grains. The convict argued that he should have been governed by the provisions of the Bombay Act and not the Central Act, which would render the decision of the court a faulty one, and without jurisdiction, as the Magistrate who punished him could sentence him to imprisonment of only up to 3 years. The occupation of the field of both laws was observed, as seen whether they occupy the same field or not. The Supreme Court held that both laws occupied the same field and could not be split up. Hence, the State laws were held to be void and the Central law prevailed as per the doctrine of repugnancy.

All about Article 254 of the Indian Constitution

The clauses of Article 254 of the Indian Constitution are as follows-

(i) The first clause of Article 254 states that if any part of any law made by the legislatures of the State is in conflict with any part of the law made by the Parliament in relation to the powers of the Parliament in the Concurrent List, then, unless stated by Clause (ii), the law made by the Parliament prevails irrespective of whether it was passed before or after the State law.

(ii) The second clause of Article 254 of the Indian Constitution states that if a law made by the State Legislature contradicts an earlier law made by the Parliament, then the state law takes precedence as long as it has been sent for review and followed by the approval of the President. Precedence only takes to the extent of repugnancy that the law creates

Legislative relations between Centre and State

Article 254 of the Indian Constitution establishes the doctrine of repugnancy in India. Before getting to this doctrine, it is essential to understand the legislative scheme and the Centre-State relations set out by the Constitution. 

Article 245 empowers the Parliament to make laws for the whole or any part of India and the state legislature to make laws for the whole or any part of the state. It also states that a law made by Parliament shall not be deemed invalid due to its extraterritorial application. Further, Article 246 provides the subject-matter of laws that can be made by the Parliament and Legislature of the States. 

• The Parliament has exclusive powers to make laws for all matters given in the Union List or List I of the Schedule VII of the Indian Constitution.
• The Legislature of the State has powers to make laws for such a state for all matters given in the State List or List II of Schedule VII.
• Both the Parliament and the state legislatures have powers to make laws for all matters listed in the Concurrent List or List III of the Seventh Schedule.
• The Parliament is empowered to make laws relating to any matter for any part of the territory of India not included in a state, notwithstanding if it is enumerated in the State List.

Power of Parliament to make laws on state-subject

In National interest 

Article 249 of the Indian Constitution has provisions in relation to the authority that the Parliament has to make laws for issues on the subject matter mentioned in the State List (List II). These laws are related to issues that concern the entire nation. 

If a resolution is passed by the Council of States, or the Rajya Sabha, and is supported by at least 2/3rds majority of its members or more that are present and voting in such a scenario, the Council of States can declare the resolution to be extremely crucial, that it is of national interest, and that it needs addressing, and thereafter, the Parliament is allowed to legislate on matters that are under the powers of the State Government in the State List. 

If a resolution has been issued, then such a resolution would stay in effect for a duration that would not exceed one year. If any continuation of such a resolution is made, it will continue for one more year; otherwise, it will cease to be in force. The resolution cannot be extended for more than one year unless another resolution has been passed for that purpose. Otherwise the resolution would become inapplicable.

If the Parliament passes a resolution on a provision that it would normally have been incompetent to do so, then such a resolution would cease to exist after a period of six months after the validity of the resolution has reached its limit. This provision, however, does not apply to certain things. This provision will remain ineffective for things done before the defined expiration date. 

In emergency 

Article 250 states that if there is a proclamation of an emergency in effect, the Parliament becomes a competent authority to make laws for the whole or any part of the state. Further, a law made in response to the declaration of an emergency will continue to stay in force for a period of six months after the end of the emergency. 

State’s power to legislate after emergency situation ceases to exist

The legislature of the state have been granted certain authority and special powers to make laws for that particular state under the Indian Constitution. In line with this, Article 251 states that the powers mentioned in Article 249 and Article 250 of the Constitution cannot restrict the power of the state legislatures.

Article 249 and Article 250 give power to the Parliament to make laws for the state in certain exceptional situations. During this time, the law that is made by the state legislature during that time will remain invalid until the law of the Parliament is in effect. The moment the law of the Parliament reaches its expiration period after the exceptional situation ceases to exist, the law made by the State Legislature becomes effective. 

Power of the Parliament to repeal State laws

There are some conditions under which the Parliament may repeal a law made by the State Legislature by enacting a subsequent law. The conditions are- 

• There should have already been a Central law on that matter in the Concurrent List 
• The state legislature came up with a law that was repugnant to the central law, after which it received the assent of the centre. 

The Supreme Court made this point in the case of Ch. Tika Ramji & Others, Etc. v. The State Of Uttar Pradesh & Others (1956). The Parliament, in this case, has enacted a law after a state law in Uttar Pradesh that regulated the purchase of sugarcane. The Supreme Court stated in its decision that the Parliament could not repeal a state law if it was not repugnant to an earlier law made by the Parliament on the same matter in the Concurrent List. 

In the case of Kannan Devan Hills Produce v. The State Of Kerala And Another, (1972), the Supreme Court gave its stance on the possibility of a dispute between a Parliamentary law and a law made by the State Legislature. The Court stated that the State was competent enough to legislate on Entry 18 of the State List (rights in or over land, land tenures, relation of the landlord with that of the tenant, land improvement and agricultural loans, etc.), and the power could not be denied on the reasoning that it had some effect on an industry controlled under Entry 42 of List III (Acquisition and Requisitioning of Property). 

Exceptions to the doctrine of repugnancy 

The purpose of Article 254(2) of the Constitution was to save those state laws that fell under the Concurrent List. In the case of T. Barai v. Henry Ah Hoe and Another (1982), the Court in its decision that Article 254(2) was an exception to the rule laid down in Article 254(1). 

Article 254(2) provides a way for the state law to stand repugnant and void due to the presence of a central law on a matter related to the Concurrent List. It relaxes the rule of repugnancy as laid down under Article 254(1).

Under usual circumstances, the central law would always reign supreme over the state law. The state law becomes void in such a case. There might, however, arise some extraordinary circumstances where the state law might hold more importance than the central law. Article 254(2) gives an element of flexibility so that, under suitable circumstances, the State Law could be given precedence over the Central Law. 

This clause states that if a law passed by the State is enacted on a matter enacted in the Concurrent List, and it contains provisions that are repugnant to the Central Law in a particular manner, then the law of the State prevails in the State concerned only if it has obtained presidential assent. The concerned state law has to be kept reserved for consideration by the President, and it is essential that his assent is given. After the assent of the President, the State law becomes superior to the Central law only for that particular state and continues to operate in that state. It is also a requisite that both matters be on a subject in the Concurrent List.

The Supreme Court explained the effect of Article 254(2) in the case of Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd. And v. State Of Bihar And Others, (1983) that the result of obtaining the consent of the President regarding a law made by the State Legislature on a matter related to the Concurrent List would be that the law of the state would prevail over the law made by the Parliament in that particular state only. However, the centre would always have the final say on whether the state Law would hold precedence over the state laws. The state law would prevail over the central law only to the extent of the inconsistency with the law of the centre. The State Law would not override the entire of the central Law. This was held by the court in the decision of Pandit Ukha Kolhe v. The State Of Maharashtra, (1963). 

Importance of presidential assent 

The assent of the President is not just a mere formality. It is limited only to the specific purpose for which it has been sought and given. The State Law becomes void with respect to the Central law unless that particular conflict was brought before the President for his assent. Thus, the assent of the President does not confer irrevocable immunity upon the law of the State Legislature from the operation of the doctrine of repugnancy. This was stated by the Supreme Court in the case of Grand Kakatiya Sheraton v. Srinivasa Resorts Ltd. & Ors, (2009).

Application of Article 254(2)

The operation of the sub-clause is applicable under two particular conditions:

• There has to be a valid central law on the same subject as that of the state law and in the same field in the concurrent list to which the central law relates.
• The State Law has to be repugnant to the law made by the Centre.

In the case of Krishna District Co-Operative  v. N.V. Purnachandra Rao & Ors (1987), it was stated by the Supreme Court that the state law that had been enacted after the Central law and had received the assent of the President would hold precedence over the law made by the Parliament, in case there was a repugnancy between the two laws. In a scenario where the laws are not repugnant to each other, they would continue to co-exist.

In the case of M.P. Shikshak Congress & Ors v. R.P.F. Commissioner, Jabalpur (1998), the Supreme Court in its judgment stated that  Article 254(2)  would be applicable only in cases where the Central law was enacted before the law of the State Legislature. Even in a scenario where the State law receives the assent of the President, the state law would not become applicable because the law of the Parliament was enacted after the law by the State Legislature. This sub-clause would not be applicable in a scenario where the state law becomes repugnant to the parliamentary law that has been enacted after the law of the State Legislature. 

When Article 254(2) would not be applied

It is also essential to understand that Article 254(2) would not be applicable if the Central Law and the acts of the State Legislature operate in different fields. This can be understood through the case of Official Assignee, Madras v. Inspector-General, (1983). The Central Act in this case concerned insolvency under Entry 9 of List III, and the act of the State Legislature was related to Stamp Duties under Entry 44 of List III. It was decided that no stamp fees would be payable on the sale deed that was executed by the Official Assignee. 

Another important Supreme Court judgment was Zaverbhai Amaidas v. The State Of Bombay, (1963) where the Court stated that the important thing to take note of was whether the legislation enacted by the State and the Centre were of the same matter. In a scenario where the later legislation is distinct from the subject of the earlier legislation but is of cognate and allied character, then Article 254(2) would have no application.

Constraining factors for validation through presidential assent

Recent times have seen the frequent use of Article 254(2) of the Indian Constitution. This is because the States try to bypass the central legislative authority, i.e., the Parliament. Under a situation where the State uses Article 254(2) to pass any law that is in conflict with the Central Law, there is some procedure that has to be followed. This is divided into two stages:

• First comes the prior approval stage, where the State sends the Bill to the Central Government for approval. This is not mandated by the Constitution. 
• Second is the after-approval stage, whereby the State sends the Bill for the assent of the President, which is mandated by the Constitution. There are a few requisites by the State to be followed, although this is not uniformly followed by all the States. 

These include providing five copies of the Bill and providing extracts from proceedings of the State Legislature on the Bill. The extent of repugnancy of the State Law with that of the Central Law has to be explained in the forwarding letter. This has always been a matter of debate between the Centre and the State.

The frequent use of Article 254(2) by the state law to override the Central Law to meet its political ends is always a matter of controversy. In  Kaiser-I-Hind Pvt. Ltd. And Ors v. National Textile Corporation (2002), the Supreme Court analysed this. The issue that was raised before the Court was whether the Bombay Act No. LVII of 1947 had received the assent of the President under Article 254(2) of the Constitution for all the Central laws that it was repugnant to, or only those laws of the Centre for which the assent was specifically sought from the President. 

The Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court held that there are two essentials for obtaining the assent of the President under Article 254(2). The first step is that the law has to be received for consideration by the President and second, it has to receive the assent of the President. The Court emphasised that consideration for the reservation of the President means that the President has actively applied his mind to the repugnancy that has been pointed out by the Legislature of the State and the reasons for enacting a law that was repugnant. This could either mean that all the Central Laws that were repugnant to the State Laws were brought to the attention of the President or that the conflicting provisions present in the State Law were specified in such a way that the President could make an informed decision regarding the operation of the State Law that was repugnant. In this case, since the State Legislature had only mentioned certain Central laws that were repugnant to the Bombay Rent Act, 1947, the Court held that the Act would be void to the extent of repugnancy with the Central Laws that had not received the assent of the President.

Although this particular judgment stated that pointed attention had to be drawn towards the President between the Central Law and the law of the State Legislature, Article 254(2) does not make it a requisite for specific provisions to be brought to the President’s attention. Contrary to this, it is only essential that the State Legislature indicate specific laws made by the Parliament that are repugnant to the laws made by the State Legislatures. This would give the President room to consider all relevant information before granting his final assent. As paragraph 27 of the judgment clarified, it would not be important if the assent was rightly or wrongfully given, but if the President considered the nature and extent of the repugnancy, then it would mean that it could be applicable to that state. 

In Rajiv Sarin & Anr v. State Of Uttarakhand & Ors, (2011), the Supreme Court clarified, relying on Kaiser-I-Hind (supra) judgment. The Supreme Court emphasised that if the assent of the President is sought for specific provisions, the assent would apply only to those provisions, even if a general assent was given by the President.

However, in the case of Yogendra Kumar Jaiswal Etc. v. State Of Bihar, (2015), the Supreme Court in its decision, upheld the validity of  The Orissa Special Courts Act, 2006, although the assent was requested for specific provisions only. The reason for this is that the Bill was sent for consideration by the President, and he gave general assent to the entire Bill. Therefore, we can conclude from this that if the complete State Law and Central Law are placed before the President for his approval, the presumption is made that the President apply his mind to the repugnancy between the provisions of both the Parliament and the State Legislature before giving his assent. 

A contrary decision was given by the Delhi High Court in the decision of Delhi High Court Bar Association & v. Govt of NCT of Delhiv, (2013). The Court stated that merely forwarding copies of the Bill cannot lead to fulfilment under Article 254(2). The Court in this case stated that the State must meet the criteria of active application of the mind of the President by the placement of specific provisions of the State Law that are repugnant to that of the Central Law. In the process, the Court reviews the assent that has been granted by the President, and the Court also has to make sure that the President considers all the information and the materials before giving his assent. This had been explicitly restricted in Kaiser-I-Hind, as the courts are not in a position to adjudicate in a manner whether assent was given or if it was correctly given after proper examination of the repugnant laws and the reasons for repugnancy.

In the case of G. Mohan Rao v. The State Of Tamil Nadu, (2021), the contention that specific provisions of the State Legislatures were raised before the Supreme Court. The Court, in its decision, stated that only the conflicting laws had to be brought before Parliament and the reasons for the enactment of the repugnant law. The Court held that the scope for the assent of the President is limited. As a result, the courts could only determine if the necessary materials that are essential for the President to make an informed decision were provided by the State Legislature.

To understand and analyse if the power of the President given for assent under Article 254(2) is justified or not and if this power is subject to judicial review, and if so then to what extent, then the decision laid down by the Court in the case of Gram Panchayat Of Village v. Malwinder Singh & Ors, (1985) has to be looked into. The Court in its judgment gave the decision that the assent that the President gives is not just “an empty formality”. The President has to give his assent after considering the reasons for putting the State Law before him above the Central Law. Contrary to this, it was stated in the case of Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd. And v. State Of Bihar And Others, (1983) and Kaiser-I-Hind, the Court held that the assent of the President was not justiciable and could not be made subject to the power of judicial review by the Courts.

Thus, it can be concluded that two requirements have to be fulfilled for a State Law to get a valid assent from the President. The first is that the entirety of the State Law for which the assent is requested has to be placed before the President. Secondly, the reasons for the introduction of a repugnant state law have to be made clear to the President. If the court examines the power of the President beyond these two requirements, it would result in judicial review of the powers of assent granted to the President which have not been permitted by the Constitution. As per the decisions given in Kaiser-I-Hind and the more recent decision of G. Mohan Rao, the Supreme Court has clarified that the President’s assent to a law made by the State Legislature would not be invalidated only because the specific provisions that are repugnant to the Central Law were not brought before the President. The reason for this is that it would entail a judicial review of the assent given to the President.

Tests for determining repugnancy 

It is essential to prove that repugnancy should exist in fact. It is important to prove that the State Laws are repugnant to each other. In the decision given by the Court in the case of State Of Maharashtra v. Bharat Shanti Lal Shah & Ors, (2008), no repugnancy was proved between Sections 13 -16 of the Maharashtra Act of 1999 and Section 5(2) of The Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, which was the Central Act.

Direct conflict

The application of the doctrine of Repugnancy comes into use when there is a direct conflict between the statutes that have been enacted by the Parliament and the State Legislatures on matters contained in the Concurrent List, and thus there arises repugnancy between them. A scenario of repugnancy arises when the two laws occupying the same field are inconsistent in all ways and have totally irreconcilable provisions. This was stated in the case of Deep Chand v. State of Uttar Pradesh.

Occupied field

In the case of Bharat Hydro Power Corp. Ltd. & Ors v. State Of Assam & Anr, (2004), and also in the case of Central Bank Of India v. State Of Kerala & Ors, (2009), the Supreme Court stated that every possible effort has to be made to reconcile the central and state statues and to construe them in a manner so that they are no longer repugnant to each other. If the two statutes are not operating in the same fields without any encroachment, then there would not be any repugnancy between the two provisions. 

Centralization and the political rationale for union precedence under Article 254 

There are many reasons proving that the legislative authority in India is highly centralised. These are-

• Single Citizenship – In India, there is no concept of state citizenship. Every citizen living in India is considered to be a citizen of India, irrespective of the State in which he resides.
• Changing the names and the boundaries of States – Article 3 of the Indian Constitution gives the Central authority the power to change the name as well as the boundaries of the States.
• Single Unified Judiciary – The Supreme Court, High Court, and Subordinate Courts of India together form a single integrated and unified judiciary. To make sure that there is uniformity of laws, they have been placed in the Concurrent List.
• Power of the Centre in case of Emergencies – The President of India has been given more powers in the case of an emergency arising in India. The powers of the President during an emergency have been covered under Article 352, Article 356, and Article 360 of the Indian Constitution. 
• Common All-India Services – To ensure the uniformity of administrative standards, the Constitution provides special provisions. These services include the IAS, IFS, IPS, IES, and many others.
• Inequality of Representation when it comes to the Council of States – The states of India have not been given equal representation, although India has bicameralism. States with a larger population are given more seats than the States with a smaller population.
• Appointment of Governors – The President appoints the Governor for all the states in India. In this way, the Union Government exercises control over the state legislative authorities.
• Comptroller and Auditor General of India – Although the office of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India comes under the central government, his concerns not only include the auditing and accounting of the Central Government but also those of the states as well.
• Centralised Electoral Machinery – The body of the Election Commission is appointed by the President. He is in charge of conducting elections for the Parliament as well as the Legislatures of the States.
• Financial Dependency of the States on the Centre – When it comes to a federation, the states have to be self-sufficient. This is to ensure maximum autonomy.  But in India, the states have to depend on the Centre for all developments. This is because the Centre provides grants to the States. 

India is a federal state with unitary features. This is why India is known as a Quasi-Federal State. The Supreme Court, in the case of Kuldip Nayar v. Union Of India & Ors (2006), held that Federalism is a basic feature of the Indian Constitution of India. However, it is unique in India and has been tailored according to the needs of the citizens of India. A bit of a tilt has been made towards the Centre to ensure unity and integrity, as well as to serve the specific needs of the Country. Articles 245-255 of the Indian Constitution explain the legislative relations between the Centre and the States. These Articles analyse the scope and extent of the legislative powers of the Centre as well as the States. The Central authority, i.e., the Parliament has superseding powers when it comes over the State Legislatures. 

The same concept is applicable when it comes to the preference provided to the Centre when it relates to the Doctrine of Repugnancy. As discussed before, India has the features of both a federal as well as a unitary state. However, it has been consistently observed that both the Centre and the State face conflict while making laws on matters related to the Concurrent List. In such a scenario, the union is always given more powers than the State in case a conflict arises or when the Doctrine of Repugnancy becomes applicable. The reason behind this is that the Centre is considered to be more powerful than the State Legislatures in formulating laws in a situation where repugnancy arises because the Centre is considered to be more competent with respect to the needs of all the citizens. Therefore, in most cases, the Central Law always prevails over the State law except for the exception stated under Article 254(2) of the Constitution, whereby, with the assent of the President, the State Legislatures can enact laws that would hold superiority over the central law in case repugnancy arises for that particular state only. 

Inconsistency and repugnancy in comparative constitutional contexts 

Delineating the sources of concurrent jurisdiction

The Concurrent List forms an essential part of the Constitution of India. This feature has been borrowed from the Australian Constitution. The purpose of the Concurrent List is to ensure that both the Centre and the State are in a position to legislate in matters of common interest. The concurrent list also helps ensure that there is no conflict between the laws that are made by the Union and State governments on these particular subjects. 

The Australian Constitution, adopted in 1901, provides for three lists –

• Commonwealth List – This list consists of subjects that are exclusively under the control of the federal government.
• State List – This list consists of subjects that are exclusively under the control of the State Governments.
• Concurrent List – This list consists of subjects that are shared by both the Central and State Governments.

The features of the Concurrent List that have been borrowed from the Australian Constitution are as follows –

• Residuary Powers – The residuary powers in Australia are neither assigned to the Central nor the State Governments. These powers are in the hands of the federal government. In a similar way, the residuary powers of the Constitution rest with the Union and form a part of the Union List. 
• Division of powers – The powers between the central and state governments are divided according to the Constitution of Australia. Similarly, the Constitution of India divides powers between the central and the state governments. The Concurrent List includes those powers that both the Central and the State governments can legislate.
• Uniformity – Uniformity in laws between the State and Central Governments is made by the Australian Constitution. The Indian Constitution also provides for uniformity of laws between the central and the state governments. Laws made by the Central Government prevail over laws made by the state if there is a conflict.
• Joint Control: Joint Control over both the central and state governments is provided by the Australian Constitution. The Indian Constitution similarly provides for joint control over certain subjects by the Central and State Governments.
• Amendment: The Concurrent List of the Australian Constitution can be amended through a special procedure, and this process of amendment is similar to that of India. 

Therefore, the feature of the Concurrent List has been borrowed from the Australian Constitution. The Concurrent List came into force through the Government of India Act of 1935. The Government of India Act forms the basis of the Indian Constitution. The purpose of the Concurrent List was the distribution of powers between the Centre and the State. 

Ultra Vires and repugnancy 

Ultra Vires is a Latin term. It is a situation where the State exceeds its legislative powers. Ultra Vires envisages that any authority can exercise only as much power as is inferred from it by the Constitution of India. Intra vires is when the act of the authority falls within the ambit of its authority; ultra vires is when it falls outside of it. 

Ultra Vires results in the invalidation of a law in a scenario where the power of the legislation exceeds that of the law. This law would no longer be able to affect the rights of any people in India. However, until the law is invalidated, it continues to remain effective and valid. There are two aspects of the doctrine of ultra vires: substantive and procedural. If there is a law that contains some valid and invalid parts that can clearly be demarcated, then the invalidated parts are left out and the valid parts continue to remain effective. However, if no such demarcation can be made, in such a scenario, the entire law has to go. Any person whose rights have been adversely affected by a piece of delegated legislation can directly challenge its validity in Court. 

Ultra Vires operates to invalidate a law made by any legislature if the legislature goes beyond the powers assigned to it by the Constitution. In the case of Repugnancy, however, both legislatures are competent to make laws. If these laws are found to be inconsistent, then the laws that have been made by the State are void. The question of repugnancy arises only in a situation where the legislatures are competent to legislate with respect to the powers given in the Concurrent List. Ultra Vires holds a more fundamental position than repugnancy.

Doctrine of pith and substance in relation to the doctrine of repugnancy 

Before getting into the relation of the doctrine of pith and substance with the doctrine of repugnancy, it is first essential that we understand the doctrine of pith and substance.

Doctrine of Pith and Substance

The Doctrine of Pith and Substance is concerned with determining the true nature of any law. This Doctrine refers to the fundamental nature of law. The doctrine of pith and substance focuses on the actual subject matter rather than its implications for other fields of legislation.

This doctrine is to identify and find out under which authority a piece of legislation belongs. This doctrine comes in handy and becomes applicable when a specific law is challenged on the grounds that one level of government has superseded its jurisdiction and has infringed on the exclusive jurisdiction of another government. The Doctrine of Pith and Substance found its origin in Canada in the case of Cushing v. Dupuy, (1880). 

Article 246 and the Seventh Schedule of the Indian Constitution

• Although not directly mentioned in the Constitution, the doctrine of pith and substance is covered under Article 246 of the Indian Constitution as well as the Seventh Schedule comprising the Union, State, and Concurrent Lists. 
• In a scenario where the competency of an enactment that has been made under the three lists has been questioned, this Article can be used. 
• Article 246 discusses the subject matter of the laws that have been enacted by the Central authority, i.e., the Parliament or the State Legislatures. 

In cases where the subject matter of one list impacts the subject matter of another list, then the Court applies the doctrine of pith and substance. The Court uses this doctrine to assert whether some specific law relates to some specific issue that has been mentioned in one of the Lists or the other. 

Importance of the Doctrine of Pith And Substance

The Doctrine of Pith and Substance becomes important because, while evaluating whether a certain law applies to a specific issue, the court considers the essence of the case. If the material fits into one of the Lists then the accidental encroachment of the law in such a scenario does not render the law invalid. This particular point was justified in the case of the State Of Bombay And Another v. F.N. Balsara, (1951). The Supreme Court in this case gave its support for the Doctrine of Pith and Substance. They stated that it is critical to determine the real essence as well as the character of the legislation so as to determine which List it belongs to. In this particular case, the  Bombay Prohibition Act (1949) was challenged on the grounds that the Act had accidentally interfered with the import of liquor across customs borders, which was a central issue. The Court stated that the Act, in its essence, was a state issue despite the fact that it had encroached on a core, central topic. The Court upheld the law and stated that it was not null and void. 

When it comes to the Indian context, the doctrine of pith and substance is important because of the following reasoning –

• The Doctrine of Pith and Substance provides flexibility in the distribution of powers between the Centre and the States. The distribution of power is very rigid in nature. This doctrine was adopted because if every law encroached because the body creating it encroached upon the exclusive jurisdiction of another body and its law-making powers, in such a scenario,  the law-making powers of the legislature would be severely limited.
• This doctrine states that the entire legislation has to be reviewed in order to identify its real nature and character and determine which List it falls into. If the actual essence of the legislation and its character are justifiably and significantly within the powers of the body that enacted it, then the legislation would not be rendered invalid  because it accidentally trespassed on the subject matter that has been assigned to another government body. 

Doctrine of repugnancy and doctrine of pith and substance

Now, it can be observed that, based on the rule of pith and substance, if the Centre makes a law upon a subject in the Central or Concurrent List and the State makes a law on a matter in the State List, then in such a scenario, the question of Repugnancy does not arise. In the cases of A. S. Krishna v. State Of Madras (With Connected, (1956) and State Of Madras v. Gannon Dunkerley & Co, (1958), it was held by the court that the State law would not be held null and void if the law is enacted with respect to a matter in the State List. However, it would be void if it is enacted with respect to a matter on the Union List. 

The Doctrine of Pith and Substance is utilised to settle concerns that originated from repugnancies that are caused by the legislation that has been enacted by the Parliament and the State Legislatures under Article 254 of the Constitution. In cases like this, if the encroachment is incidental or ancillary, then the legislation is considered valid. Otherwise, if it is found to be considerable, then the legislation would be found invalid. 

In Vijay Kumar Sharma & Ors. Etc v. State Of Karnataka & Ors. Etc, (1990), the State of Karnataka enacted the Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Act, 1976, under Entry 42 of the Concurrent List (Acquistiton and Recquisitioning of Property). According to this Act, the law nationalised contract carriage in the state. No licences could be issued to private carriers. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, was enacted under Entry 35 of the Concurrent List (Mechanically Propelled Vehicles, including those principles on which taxes on such vehicles are to be levied). According to this Act, the grant of licences could not be refused unless required. 

The Supreme Court stated that if the doctrine of pith and substance could be applied to resolve a conflict between the Union and the State List, then there wasn’t any reason why the doctrine could not be applied to solve issues between the Central and State Legislatures on the Concurrent List. Sawant. J. stated that one must apply the Doctrine of Pith and Substance to resolve an issue that involves repugnancy under Article 254 of the Constitution. In a scenario where the pith and substance of the legislation are different, it means that they cover different subject areas.  

The Supreme Court, in this judgment, stated that the Contract Carriages Acquistion Act is not repugnant to the Central Law, i.e., the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The validity of the Act was upheld by the Court. The court had, importantly, discussed the Doctrine of Pith and Substance and how to apply it to find repugnancy under Article 254 of the Constitution between laws that have been enacted by the Parliament and the laws that have been enacted by the State Legislatures.

The case of State Of Kerala & Ors v. M/S. Mar Appraem Kuri Co.Ltd. & Anr, (2012), was heard by a Constitutional Bench of five judges. The Bench stated that the question of repugnancy arises between the legislation of the Parliament and the State Legislatures when they are enacted with matters allotted in different fields in the Concurrent List. This is followed by an overlap, as a result of which conflict arises. In such a scenario, the legislation made by the central authority always dominates under Article 246(1) and Article 254(1) of the Constitution. 

In cases where the Courts apply the doctrine of pith and substance, regard for the entire enactment has to be made. This would include the scope of its effects as well as the effect of its provisions. First, it has to be determined whether the legislature was competent enough to enact such a law. If the entire law is found to be ultra-vires then it has to be struck down, but if the question of repugnancy is related to one provision then the entire law is not declared void. The Parliament always holds domination over the State Legislature when it comes to legislation on matters in the Concurrent List, however, both Central and the State Legislatures would be allowed to enact on matters in the Concurrent List. 

Political issues involving Article 254 with reference to the farm laws 

The Supreme Court of India on the validity of the new Farm Laws

Rakesh Vaishnav v. Union of India

In Rakesh Vaishnav v. Union Of India (2021), a writ petition was filed in the Supreme Court by more than 85 farmers. They challenged the new farm laws that were enacted by the Central Government in September 2020. These were the Farmer’s Produce Trade and Commerce Act of 2020, the Farmers Agreement of Price Assurance, the Farm Services Act, of 2020, and the Essential Commodities Act, of 2020.

The Supreme Court was simultaneously hearing three sets of petitions-

• Those petitions opposed the farm laws.
• Those petitions were in favour of the farm laws.
• Petitions of the residents of Delhi and surrounding areas. They complained that the protestors were blocking the roads and were infringing on their rights.

On 11th January 2021, a  Committee was appointed by the Supreme Court. As stated by the website of the committee, the panel had held 12 rounds of consultations with various stakeholders. These included approximately 85 farmer groups, professionals, producers, organisations, academicians, and states, as well as private agriculture marketing boards. 

This Committee originally consisted of 4 members. These were – Anil Ghanwat, Ashok Gulati, Bhupider Singh Mann, and Pramod Joshi. Bhupinder Singh Mann removed himself from the committee after receiving heavy criticism from the protesting farmers.

The Supreme Court wanted the Committee to submit its recommendations within two months of its first sitting. The Supreme Court opined that –

• There was no power that could prevent the court from appointing a committee to resolve the dispute over the new farm laws.
• The Supreme Court had the power to suspend legislation in order to solve the problem.
• People who wanted a genuine resolution would go to the committee as constituted by the Court.
• The Judiciary was different from politics, and the farmers had to cooperate.

How Article 254(2) of the Indian Constitution provides States the opportunity to negate Central Acts in relation to the Farm laws?

Former Presidnet Ram Nath Kovind had given presidental assent to the three farm bills: 

• The Farmers Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Bill, 2020
• The Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement of Price Assurance and Farm Services Bill, 2020
• The Essential Commodities (Amendment) Bill, 2020

The Parliament had cleared the above mentioned Bills in the Monsoon Session. These particular laws were aimed at liberalising the agricultural sector while also allowing the farmers to sell whatever they produced anywhere in the country at a much better price. The Opposition that was led by the Congress was critical of the manner in which these Bills were passed and alleged that the Bills were passed unconstitutionally and in complete disregard for parliamentary norms.

Congress President Sonia Gandhi had advised the party-ruled states to explore the rarely used provision of Article 254(2) to negate the three Farm Bills of the Central Government that had received the assent of the President. This is because Article 254(2) allows a state law to prevail over a conflicting central law in some particular circumstances. However, the Congress led-state governments were in a highly unlikeable position of thwarting the implementation of the farm laws through Article 254(2), because getting Presidential Assent in this particular case was highly unlikely as needed by Article 254(2). This is because it is a rare circumstance where a State Bill is accepted by the President without the Centre’s approval of the same. In cases like this, where the Centre is opposed to the State made Bills, the President who works with the aid of the Council of Ministers, can refuse to give his assent. Therefore, it is the sole prerogative of the President whether to sign the State Bills or not.

Therefore, in a similar manner, the three Bills that were unanimously passed by the Punjab Government would to counter the three farm bills of the Centre would only be applicable if they got the assent of the President, which would be highly unlikely because of the above stated reasons.

The Prime Minister announced the takeback of the three farm laws in November 2021, due to widespread protests. Thus, in conclusion, it can be said that the central authority, i.e., the Parliament overrides the State Legislature in making any law in any of the subject matter of the Central and Concurrent Lists. In case of Presidential assent, the central law always holds precedence over the State Law. 

Forum for People’s Collective v. The State of West Bengal

Facts of the Case

In the case of Forum For Peoples Collective v. The State Of West Bengal (2021), the Supreme Court has ruled out the constitutional validity of the WB Housing Industry Regulation Act, 2017 (WB-HIRA). The Bench consisted of Justice DV Chandrachud and Justice MR Shah. They heard the challenges on the ground that the WB-HIRA was heavily overlapping with and, in many cases, included identical provisions from the parallel Central Legislation: Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. Since both of these Acts dealt with subjects from the Concurrent List, the petitioner claimed that the enactment of the State – the WB-HIRA was constitutionally not permissible. 

Issue

Was the Central and the State Law repugnant to each other?

Judgment

The rules of interpretation based on Article 254 were applied to determine repugnancy between Central and State Legislations. Any statute is considered repugnant if it contains contradictory provisions as another statute in the same subject area.

In its judgment, the court found that the enactment of the State was the same as that of the Central RERA. The WB-HIRA was ruled to be unconstitutional because both Acts covered the same subject matter, occupied the same field, and were without the assent of the President. 

The RERA had come up with an aim of bridging the gap in information between the real estate sector and the consumer. According to J. Chandrachud, the sector lacked professionalism and standardisation. As a result, more robust legislation was an essential requisite that would be built on efficiency and transparency to benefit all parties and incentivize further investment. And therefore,  it was opined that the vacuum that was left by the RERA due to its presence in the Concurrent List can be legislated by the State governments as long as it is in sync, incidental, and cognate to the authority of the Parliament. 

In this case, the Court gave emphasis to Professor Nicholas Aroney – “Three Tests of Repugnancy” because the Australian Constitution recognised repugnancy in similar terms to the Constitution of India. Professor Aroney’s three tests of repugnancy were adjusted in the Indian context in the case of Deep Chand v. The State Of Uttar Pradesh (1959) by Justice K. Subba Rao.

Repugnancy between statutes can be established based on the following three principles:

1. The presence of a conflict between two provisions.
2. If the Parliament had an intention to lay down an exhaustive code in respect of the subject matter that would replace the Act of the State Legislature. 
3. If the law that has been made by the Parliament and the State Legislature occupy the same field and are of the same subject area.

Conclusion 

The effect of the application of this doctrine will make the State law void to the extent of repugnancy. As long as the Central law occupies the field, the State law is eclipsed. If, in case, the Central law is repealed, then the State law shall revive. The doctrine of severability also comes into application since if a State law is repugnant for a matter in the concurrent list, then only the repugnant part will be held void and the rest shall function normally, thereby, giving rise to severability. Article 254 proves that the Indian Constitution is both unitary and federal. This doctrine is quintessential for the Centre-State relations in the country.

Article 254 provides a good example of how both unitary and federal features can exist in the Indian Constitution. There have been various cases, as discussed above, that have shown the evolution of the doctrine of repugnancy over time. The doctrine of repugnancy becomes effective as it helps in determining which particular statue or part of the statue should give way to another. When a court is deciding a case, first it proceeds with the basic assumption in favour of the law’s constitutionality, and the burden to prove repugnancy is on that authority or person who brings forward such a challenge. The Court first tries to reconcile the repugnancy between the two laws. They do so by resorting to the law of harmonious construction so that both laws can co-exist and their scope of operation lies in different spheres unless the laws are totally similar. Since both the Central authority and the State Legislatures have the power to make laws on the Concurrent List, conflict is bound to arise and is unavoidable. It has been proved, through the applicability of the doctrine of pith and substance, that mere or accidental overlapping of one authority on the jurisdiction of another authority cannot be concluded as repugnancy. Laws that are resembling or superficial cannot be claimed to be repugnant, and the doctrine is not applicable in such cases. 

The Doctrine of Repugnancy is extremely important for Centre-State relations when looked through the eyes of Centre-State relations. Article 254 of the Indian Constitution plays a determining role in deciding the laws between the central authority, i.e., the Parliament and the various State Legislatures. The Doctrine of Repugnancy puts emphasis on and brings out the federal aspect of the Constitution of India.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What happens in a scenario where a law made by the State Legislatures is inconsistent with the law made by the Parliament the Concurrent List of the Indian Constitution?

According to Article 254(1) of the Indian Constitution, if any law made by the State Legislatures that have enacted in the Concurrent List is found to be inconsistent with that of the Parliament, then the law of the State Legislatures would be declared null and void. Whether the law of the Parliament has been passed before the law of the State Legislatures would not make a difference. The existing law of the Parliament would always be given supremacy over the State law.

Can a law made by the state legislature hold supremacy over the parliamentary law under any circumstances?

According to Article 254(2) of the Indian Constitution, if the law made by the State Legislature has been received for the consideration of the President following which the assent of the President is received, then the State Law would hold supremacy over the central law only for that particular state. However, nothing would stop the Parliament from enacting a law at any time with respect to the same subject matter which could include adding to, amending, varying, or repealing the law that has been made by the concerned State Legislature. 

What are the essentials for repugnancy to arise between the law of the Parliament and the law of the State Legislatures?

Repugnancy between a law of the Central authority i.e. the Parliament and a law of the State Legislature can only arise when they are contradictory to each other. Also, there is an absence of any means to reconcile the provisions of both of the concerned laws. Repugnancy cannot just arise out of a mere possibility. It has to be clearly proved in the Court that the Central Law is contradictory to the law of the State Legislatures. Repealing by implication cannot be done in scenarios where there is an absence of prima facie repugnancy in the provisions. If the two provisions are of the same field but there exists a possibility of them existing without encroaching upon the existence of each other then Repugnancy does not arise. 

What is the need for the Doctrine of Repugnancy?

The Doctrine of Repugnancy plays a major role in maintaining the integrity of the country as well as in the prevention of two laws on the same matter in the Concurrent List to be present. The Indian Constitution has many doctrines. However, the Doctrine of Repugnancy is one of the most consequential ones. The doctrine helps to maintain unity in our country as well as for the prevention of conflicts between the Centre and the States. The Doctrine of Repugnancy gives power to the Centre in case of the rise of an emergency. It keeps the Centre as well as the States in constant check so that they are not in a position to formulate laws that go against the public interest. Since, India is a quasi-federal state, and there is a distribution of powers between the Centre and the State especially in matters in the Concurrent List, there is always a chance of conflict between the Centre and the State in matters related to the Concurrent List. Thus, the doctrine of repugnancy becomes extremely important to solve the issues arising out of conflict between the Central authorities and the State Legislatures.

How is Ultra Vires different from the Doctrine of Repugnancy?

Ultra Vires applies in a scenario where the State exceeds its legislative powers. The law becomes invalid as soon as the law is made by the State that has exceeded the powers under its jurisdiction. In a scenario of ultra vires, there is the absence of any competition between two legislatures. This is different from the application of the doctrine of repugnancy because a scenario of repugnancy arises when there is a conflict between the Centre and the State when they legislate on matters related to the Concurrent List. There is the presence of conflict between the Central and State Legislatures due to them legislating on laws in the same matter in the Concurrent List.

How is the Doctrine of Pith and Substance different from the Doctrine of Repugnancy?

It is essential to understand the difference between the Doctrine of Pith and Substance and the Doctrine of Repugnancy. The Doctrine of pIth and Substance deals with conflicts between the Centre and the States when they make laws that are not a part of their list. The Doctrine of Repugnancy however deals with conflict that arises when the Centre and the State make a law on the same matter that are inconsistent with each other. The Doctrine of Pith and Substance can come in handy and is helpful in establishing repugnancy between the Central Law and State Laws that are inconsistent. Thus, the meaning and applicability of the two doctrines i.e. the Doctrine of Pith and Substance and the Doctrine of Repugnancy are different.

What is the difference between the Doctrine of Occupied Field and the Doctrine of Repugnancy?

The Doctrine of Occupied Field and the Doctrine of Repugnancy can be easily confused to mean the same. However, there is a clear difference between the two. The easiest way to understand this is that while the Doctrine of Occupied Field is related to the existence of legislative power, the doctrine of repugnancy is related to the exercise of such power. The Doctrine of Occupied Field means that if an Act of the Parliament occupies a subject over which the State Legislature is also empowered to legislate and has legislated and the Legislatures of the State end up obstructing the Act of the central authority, i.e., the Parliament then the law of the State Legislature becomes inconsistent or repugnant with the Act of the Centre. The Doctrine of Occupied Field is not related to the conflict between the two laws but their existence. The Doctrine of Occupied Field is an important test that is important to understand repugnancy but is different from it. This Doctrine comes into existence even before the Union or the State Law has commenced.

What are the tests to determine Repugnancy between the law of the central authority and the law made by the State Legislature?

Direct Conflict – When the two concerned laws cannot be effected at the same time, it is known as Direct Conflict. This is because the application of one law makes it impossible for the other law to be affected at the same time.

Exhaustive Code – This test was designed to deal with more complicated cases. If the central authority intentionally comes up with a code to control state matters and to limit the power of the state in its law-making powers. In such a case, it would be difficult for state legislation to function at the same time. This is when the test of exhaustive code would come into use. 

Occupied Field – This test comes into application when the very existence of legislative power is in question. If an act of the state legislatures ends up obstructing any Act of the Parliament then the Doctrine of Occupied Field Comes into play.

References 

• https://www.livelaw.in/know-the-law/concept-of-repugnancy-under-article-254-173619 
• https://jcil.lsyndicate.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/8.-CONCEPTUAL-COMPREHENSION-OF-DOCTRINE-OF-REPUGNANCY.pdf
• https://ir.nbu.ac.in/bitstream/123456789/4989/1/06_Doctrine%20of%20Repugnancy%20the%20Constitutional.pdf