Repugnancy Laws and Its Effect on Indian Federalism

Abstract

The Doctrine of Repugnancy is a pivotal concept within the Indian constitutional framework, aimed at resolving conflicts between central and state laws in a federal system. This review explores the historical evolution, judicial interpretations, and contemporary relevance of the Doctrine of Repugnancy within the context of Indian federalism. The Indian Constitution is often described as "quasi-federal" due to its combination of federal and unitary features. The Doctrine of Repugnancy, enshrined in Article 254, plays a critical role in maintaining the balance between these elements. It delineates a hierarchy in which central laws prevail over state laws in cases of inconsistency, reflecting a unitary characteristic. This hierarchy, while essential for legislative coherence and uniformity, can potentially centralize power and hinder state autonomy. The judicial interpretation of the Doctrine of Repugnancy is central to its application. Courts distinguish between direct and implied repugnancy, ensuring that state laws do not undermine the purpose of central laws. They also determine the field of legislation, deciding whether specific subjects fall under the purview of the center, states, or the concurrent list. Precedents established by the Supreme Court guide the consistent application of this doctrine. Furthermore, the Doctrine of Repugnancy is indispensable for resolving conflicts between central and state laws in the Concurrent List. When central and state laws clash on the same subject, the central law prevails. If a state law receives the President's assent, it coexists with the central law, emphasizing the delicate balance within Indian federalism. This research has discussed the effect of repugnant laws through judicial decisions and how impactful has been towards federalism in India.