The Doctrine of Occupied field

The Doctrine of Occupied Field

Article 254 (1) says that if any provision of law created by the law-makers of the State is repulsive to any provision of a law created by Parliament that is competent to enact or to any provision of the present law with relation to one in all the matters enumerated within the Concurrent List, then the law created by Parliament, whether or not passed before or once the law created by the law-makers of such stage or, because the case is also, the present law shall prevail and therefore the law created by the law-makers of the State shall, to the extent of the repugnancy be void.

Article 254 (1) solely applies wherever there’s inconsistency between a Central Law and a State Law with reference to an issue mentioned within the Concurrent List. Article 254 of the Constitution is just applicable once the State law is in ‘pith Associate in Nursing substance’ a law with reference to an entry within the synchronous list on that the Parliament has legislated. The question is however the repugnancy is to be determined? In M. Karunanidhi v. Union of Republic of India, during this case, per Fazal Ali, J., the review concerning all the sooner choices and outline the repugnancy can rise between the 2 statutes within the following situation:

  1. It should be shown that there’s clear and direct inconsistency between the 2 enactments- Central Act and State Act, that is irreconcilable , so they can not stand alone or operate within the same field.
  2. There is often no repeal by implication unless the inconsistency seems on the face of the 2 statues.
  3. Where the 2 statues occupy a specific field, however there’s area or chance of each the statutes in operation within the same field while not coming back into collusion with one another, no repugnancy results.
  4. Where there’s no inconsistency however a sculpture occupying constant field seeks to make distinct and separate offences, no doubt of repugnancy arises and each the statutes still operate within the same field.

The on top rule of repugnancy is, however, subject to the exception provided in clause (2) of this text. per clause (2) if a State Law with reference to Associate in Nursing of the matters enumerated within the Concurrent List contains any provision repulsive to the provisions of an earlier law created by Parliament, or Associate in Nursing existing law with reference to that matter, then the State Law if has been reserved for the assent of the President and has received his assent, shall prevail however such repugnancy. however it’d still be attainable for the Parliament below the supply to clause (2) to override such a law by later creating a law on constant matter. If it makes such a law the State Law would be void to the extent of repugnancy with the Union Law.

The question of repugnancy between the Parliamentary Legislation and State legislation arises in 2 ways. First, the legislations are enacted with relevancy matters assigned in their fields however they overlap and conflict. Second, wherever the 2 legislations are with relevancy the matters within the coincident list and there’s conflict. In each of these things, the Parliamentary Legislations can predominate, within the 1st by virtue of the non- obstant clause in Article 246 (1) and within the second by reason of Article 254 (1).

In Deep Chand v. State of U.P., the validity relating to the U.P Transport Service Development Act was concerned. By this Act the regime was authorised to create the theme for nationalisation of Motor Transport within the State. The Law was necessitated as a result of the motorcars Act, 1939 didn’t contain any provision for the nationalisation of Motor Transport Services. Later on, in 1956 the Parliament with the read to introduce a homogenous law amended the motorcars Act, 1939, and value-added a replacement provision enabling the regime to border rules of nationalisation of Motor Transport. The Court ordered that since each the Union Law and also the State Law occupied a similar field, the State Law was void to the extent of repugnancy to the Union Law.

In Zaverbhai v. State of Bombay, The Essential Supplies Act, 1946 was enacted by the Parliament for control production, offer and distribution of essential commodities. a violation of any provision of the higher than Act was punishable with imprisonment upto three years or fine or each. In 1947, considering the social control inadequate, the metropolis law-makers passed the associate degree Act enhancing the social control provided underneath the Central Law. The Bombay Act received the assent of the President and therefore prevailed over the Central Law and became operative in Bombay. Therefore, in 1950 Parliament amended its Act of 1946 and increased social control. it had been controlled that as each occupied a similar field (enhanced punishment) the State Law became void as being detestable to the Central Law.

In State of Kerala v. M/s Mar Appraem Kuri Co.Ltd., the question concerned was whether or not the Kerala Chitties Act,1975 became detestable to the Central check Funds Act, 1984 upon the enactment of Central Act i.e., once the President assented to the Bill or once a notification was issued underneath the Act transferral the Act effective within the State of Orissa. The Supreme Court controls that the repugnancy arises on creation of the law and not on its social control. The explanation given by the Court is that the verb “made” in tense finds an area within the HeadNote of Article 245. The verb “make” within the present exists in Article 245 (2) and therefore the verb “made” finds place in Article 246. The word “made” has additionally been utilised in Article 250 (2). The word “make” and not “commencement” encompasses a specific legal connotation which means thereby “to legislate”.

Validation Act :- The Legislature has the exclusive power to validate an invalid law or to legislate an illegal action. It is not an encroachment on the judicial power of the Court.

Author: Shaheera Sultana,
NBM Law College, 2nd year

Leave a Comment