Parliamentary Legislation in State Field
India is a federal state which has clear unitary characteristics. The federal country’s progress depends on the sharing of powers between the central governments and the states. The federal government’s pre-requirements are the division of powers among governments. The Indian Constitution’s 7 schedule says of the separation of forces. The Government of the Union shall have exclusive powers to make law in matters which come under the Union List. The State Government has exclusive jurisdiction to make the legislation come under the State List in matters of concern. The Concurrent list contains both governments with equal authority to legislate on the subjects.
In normal times, the scheme for the allocation of legislative powers between the Centre and states shall be retained. Yet, the distribution system is either changed or suspended in an anomalous time. In other words, under the following five unusual conditions, the Constitution empowers Parliament to legislate on any matter enumerated in the State List:
- When Rajya Sabha Passes a Resolution
- During a national emergency
- When state makes a request
- Some examples of a law passed
- To implement International Agreements
- Centre’s control over State Legislation
- In this context, the Sarkaria Commission on Centre– State Relations (1983–87)
Unless any provision of a state law is repugnant to the provision in a law enacted by the Parliament which it is qualified to pass or to any existing law with respect to one of the matters in the concurrent list, then the Parliamentary or the existing law must prevail over the State law. In the point of repugnancy the State law is void
In K. T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd v. State of Karnataka The Supreme Court of India opined that, the repugnancy between two statutes arises if there is direct conflict with each other. These laws are fully inconsistent and have absolutely irreconcilable provisions and if the laws made by Parliament and the State legislature occupy the same field. Therefore every effort should be made to reconcile the two enactments and construe both to avoid repugnancy.
In another case the court held that, “the repugnancy has to exist in fact it must be shown clearly and sufficiently. The court further said that, there was no such repugnancy between sections 13 to 16 of the State Act i.e. the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 and the provisions of the Central Act i.e. the Telegraph Act, 1885, section 5(2) read with Telegraph Rules, 1951.”
In Srinivasa Raghavachar v. State of Karnataka “The Advocates Act enacted under entries 77 and 78 of list-I. Section 48(8) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 prohibited legal practitioners from appearing before land tribunal. Therefore the State law was held invalid as repugnant to the Central law.”
Parliament passed the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, under List-III entry no. 26. Section-27 of the Act provides that any person enrolled in the Indian Medical Register as a medical practitioner shall be entitled to practice in any part of the country according to his or her qualifications. A West Bengal Act prohibited members of the State Health Service from carrying on any private practice. The State act was enacted under entry number 41 of list-II. Therefore there is no conflict between two enactments.
 AIR 2011 SC 3430
AIR 1987 SC 1518