Facts in the Case
- Section 3 of X Act is found to be inconsistent with Section 4 of Y Act.
- Both Acts are in force and conflict arises regarding the validity and applicability of these inconsistent sections.
- The question arises about the validity of both Acts and how the conflict between the inconsistent sections is to be resolved.
Issues in the Case
- Whether both Acts can remain valid despite the inconsistency between their provisions.
- How to interpret and apply the inconsistent sections of the two Acts.
- Which provision should prevail in case of conflict.
Principles Applied
1. Doctrine of Repugnancy and Conflict Resolution
- When two statutes conflict or are inconsistent, courts try to harmoniously interpret both to give effect to each.
- If conflict is irreconcilable, the later Act or provision prevails over the earlier (doctrine of implied repeal).
2. Doctrine of Implied Repeal
- The Act enacted later in time repeals the earlier conflicting provision to the extent of inconsistency.
- The earlier law remains valid to the extent it is not inconsistent.
3. Constitutional Validity and Parliamentary Competence
- Both Acts are presumed to be valid unless declared unconstitutional.
- If both Acts are within the legislative competence of the legislature, courts uphold both subject to conflict rules.
4. Judicial Precedents
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 898
- The Court held that when two laws conflict, courts try to give effect to both if possible.
K.K. Verma v. Union of India, AIR 1963 SC 1117
- The later enactment will prevail over an earlier inconsistent statute or provision.
Judgment / Legal Position
- Both Acts remain valid unless expressly repealed or declared unconstitutional.
- The conflict between Section 3 of X Act and Section 4 of Y Act must be resolved by:
- Attempting harmonious construction to give effect to both.
- If irreconcilable, the later Act or provision will prevail to the extent of inconsistency.
- Courts will apply the provision which aligns with the legislative intent and subsequent law.