Facts of the Case
The State Legislature enacted the Transport Service Act, 1955, empowering the state government to frame schemes for rationalization of motor transport within the state.
Subsequently, the Union Parliament amended the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 in 1956, introducing a scheme for nationalization of motor transport, occupying the same legislative field as the state law.
The conflict raises the question: Which law prevails where both Union and State laws cover the same subject matter?
Issues in the Case
- Whether there exists repugnancy between the State Transport Service Act, 1955 and the Union Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (as amended 1956).
- Which law prevails in case of conflict between State and Union legislation in the same field.
- Whether the state law to the extent of inconsistency is void under the Indian Constitution.
Legal Principles Covered
A. Constitutional Provisions
- Article 245 – Extent of Laws by Parliament and State Legislature
- Parliament can make laws for the whole or any part of India.
- State Legislature can make laws for the state.
- Subject to List I, II, III of the Seventh Schedule.
- Article 254 – Inconsistency between Union and State Laws
- If a State law is inconsistent with a Union law, the Union law prevails, and the state law shall be void to the extent of repugnancy.
- Exception: If a State law receives Presidential assent, it may prevail temporarily but can be overridden later by Parliament.
- Seventh Schedule – Union List, State List, Concurrent List
- Transport & Motor Vehicles fall under the Concurrent List.
- Both Parliament and State Legislature can legislate, but Union law prevails in case of conflict.
B. Judicial Principles / Precedents
- State of Rajasthan v. Union of India (1977) 3 SCC 592
- Union law prevails over state law in case of conflict in concurrent subjects.
- Bihar State Electricity Board v. Bihar State Electricity Regulatory Commission (2007) 11 SCC 1
- State law is valid only to the extent that it does not conflict with Union law.
- Union of India v. State of Kerala (1970) 2 SCC 84
- If two laws are capable of operating together, repugnancy is avoided. Otherwise, state law is void to the extent of inconsistency.
Possible Judgement / Legal Advice
- Existence of Repugnancy
- Both laws occupy the same field (Motor Transport), but the Union law provides for nationalization, which conflicts with the state’s rationalization scheme.
- Therefore, repugnancy exists.
- Validity under Article 254
- Under Article 254(1), the Union Act (Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 as amended 1956) prevails.
- The State Transport Service Act, 1955 is void to the extent of inconsistency with the Union law.
- Scope of State Law
- The state law is valid only in areas not inconsistent with the Union law.
- Any provisions contradicting nationalization or Union schemes are unenforceable.
- Advisory Conclusion
- Where two laws occupy the same field in the Concurrent List, the Union law prevails in case of repugnancy.
- The State Transport Service Act, 1955 is valid only to the extent it does not conflict with the amended Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.
About lawgnan
Confused about which law prevails when both the State and Union legislate on the same subject? Get clear legal insights on repugnancy under Article 254 and how conflicts in Concurrent List matters are resolved. At Lawgnan.in, our legal experts explain the principles governing legislative conflicts, constitutional supremacy, and the impact of Presidential assent. Whether you’re a student, legal practitioner, or policymaker, our platform provides accurate, simplified explanations of constitutional law and judicial precedents. Visit Lawgnan.in today to understand your legal rights and the hierarchy of laws in India.
