Back
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.H. Kapadia, C.J.I., D.K. Jain, Surinder Singh Nijjar, Ranjana Prakash Desai and Jagdish Singh Khehar, JJ.
State of Kerala and Ors.
Vs.
Mar Appraem Kuri Company Ltd. and Anr.
Civil Appeal No. 6660 of 2005 with Civil Appeal Nos. 6661/2005, 6662/2005, 6663/2005, 6664/2005, 6665/2005, 6666/2005, 6667/2005, 6668/2005, 6669/2005, 6670/2005, 6671/2005, 6672/2005, 6673/2005, 6674/2005, 6675/2005, 6676/2005, 6677/2005, 6678/2005, 6679/2005, 6680/2005, 6681/2005, 7204/2008, 7329/2008, 7330/2008, 7333/2008, 7334/2008, SLP(C) Nos. 25822 and 25823/2009, Civil Appeal Nos. 7008/2005, 7009/2005, 7010/2005, 7011/2005, 7012/2005, 7013/2005, 7014/2005, 7164/2005, 7165/2005, 7166/2005, 7167/2005, 7537/2005, 7538/2005, 494/2006, 495/2006, 5031/2006, 7332/2008, 7572/2008 and 5032/2006
Decided On: 08.05.2012
AIR 1941 F.C. 47 – Referred
(b) Constitution of India – Article 246(1) – Non-obstante clause – Principle of federal supremacy – Union powers to prevail in case of "irreconcilable" conflict – Conflict Has to be real – To make law is to legislate – Therefore, principle of supremacy of the Parliament, distribution of legislative powers, principle of exhaustive enumeration of matters in the three Lists – To be seen in context of making of laws and not commencement of the laws. (Para 16)
(1970) 1 SCR 443; (1969) 1 SCR 430 – Relied upon
(c) Constitution of India – Articles 107 and 111 – A Bill becomes an Act and comes on the Statute Book immediately on receiving the assent of the President or the Governor – Irrespective of the date of enforcement – Thus Central Chit Funds Act, 1982 and Kerala Chitties Act, 1975 came on the statute book on 19.08.1982 and 18.07.1975 respectively. (Para 17)
AIR 1956 SC 246 – Relied upon
(d) Central Chit Funds Act, 1982 – Section 3 r/w statement of Objects and Reasons and Article 254(2), Constitution of India – Intention of Parliament – To provide comprehensive law on the subject and to override State laws – Parliament can repeal, amend, or vary such State law no sooner it is assented to by the President – Parliament need not wait till such assented to State law is brought into force. (Para 17, 19)
(1993) Supp 4 SCC 226; (1983) 1 SCC 177; 1985 Supp. SCC 476; (1979) 3 SCC 431; 1956 SCR 393; (1964) 4 SCR 461; (1964) 4 SCR 461; AIR 1955 SC 25 – Relied upon
(e) Constitution of India – Article 254(1) – Repugnancy – Time of – Relevant Date – Date of enactment, not the date of commencement – Hence Kerala Chitties Act, 1975 became void on the making of the Chit Funds Act, 1982 on 19.08.1982 (Para 19)
(1995) 4 SCC 718 – Approved
1979 All. L.J. 401 – Referred
(f) General Clauses Act, 1897 – Section 6 – When a State law is repealed expressly or by implication by a Union law, Section 6 applies as to things done under the State law – The transactions under the State law before the repeal are saved as also any rights and liabilities arising under the State Act, prior to the enactment of the Central Act – Previous operation of the Kerala Chitties Act, 1975 is not affected nor any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired or incurred under the said Kerala repealed Act (Para 24, 25)
(1964) 4 SCR 461; (1955) 2 SCR 1196; 1969 3 SCR 65; 1955 1 SCR 893 – Relied upon
(g) Central Chit Funds Act, 1982 – Section 1(3) – Commencement of Act not notified for Kerala – State Act, 1975 stood repealed on enactment of Central Act on 19.08.1982 – Hence transactions between 19.08.1982 and commencement of Central Act will stand protected. (Para 26)
(1955) 2 SCR 1196 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
The core issue arising for determination in this reference is:
When does repugnancy arise under Article 254(1) of the Constitution?
Whether the Kerala Chitties Act 23 of 1975 became repugnant to the Central Chit Funds Act 40 of 1982 under Article 254(1) upon making of the Central Chit Funds Act 40 of 1982 (i.e. on 19.08.1982 when the President gave his assent) or whether the Kerala Chitties Act 23 of 1975 would become repugnant to the Central Chit Funds Act 40 of 1982 as and when notification under Section 1(3) of the Central Chit Funds Act 40 of 1982 bringing the Central Act into force in the State of Kerala is issued?
The following questions are required to be answered:
7. (i) Whether making of the law or its commencement brings about repugnancy or inconsistency as envisaged in Article 254(1) of the Constitution?
(ii) The effect in law of a repeal.
Finding of the Court:
State Act stands repealed on enactment of the Central Act.
Result: Reference answered.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:
The relevant date for determining repugnancy under Article 254(1) of the Constitution is the date of enactment of the law, not its commencement (!) (!) .
When a Union law expressly or implicitly repeals a State law, the transactions and rights accrued under the State law prior to the repeal are preserved under the provisions of the General Clauses Act, Section 6 (!) (!) .
The enactment of a Central law covering the entire field of a subject in the Concurrent List results in the implied repeal of conflicting or inconsistent State laws from the date of the Central law’s enactment (!) (!) .
The date of assent by the President or Governor signifies the law’s enactment and makes it a part of the statute book, regardless of whether it has been brought into force or not (!) (!) .
The law’s making is complete once the assent is given; the actual commencement or enforcement date does not affect the law’s status as enacted (!) .
In cases of conflict, the law enacted by Parliament prevails over State laws, especially when the Central law is intended to occupy the entire legislative field in a particular subject matter (!) (!) .
The process of repealing or overriding a State law can occur both explicitly and by implication, particularly when the Central law explicitly states its intention to occupy the entire field (!) (!) .
The application of a law, even if not yet enforced or notified in a particular State, can be considered effective from the date of its enactment if it covers the entire field of regulation (!) (!) .
The insertion of new provisions into a State law after the enactment of a Central law does not automatically render those provisions valid if they conflict with the Central law, especially without proper Presidential assent under Article 254(2) (!) (!) .
The law’s status as "in force" depends on the law’s enactment and not solely on its enforcement or notification in a particular jurisdiction (!) (!) .
The repeal of a State law by the enactment of a Central law is effective from the date of the Central law’s enactment, unless the Central law explicitly states otherwise (!) (!) .
The law’s effect in law, including rights and liabilities, is preserved under the General Clauses Act, Section 6, even after implied or express repeal (!) (!) .
The legislative process, including assent and publication, signifies the completion of law-making, and the law becomes operative from the date of assent or as specified in the law, independent of its enforcement (!) .
The determination of repugnancy and the effect of repeal are based on the intention of the Legislature, as evidenced by the language of the law and constitutional provisions (!) (!) .
The application of the law is prospective unless explicitly made retrospective; the timing of enforcement or notification does not alter the law’s validity from the date of enactment (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further elaboration or specific legal interpretations.
JUDGMENT
S.H. Kapadia, C.J.I.
Introduction
1. By order dated 18.02.2009 in Civil Appeal No. 6660 of 2005 in the case of State of Kerala v. Mar Appraem Kuri Company Ltd., the referring Bench of 3-judges of this Court doubted the correctness of the view taken by a 3-judges Bench of this Court in Pt. Rishikesh and Anr. v. Salma Begum (Smt) (1995) 4 SCC 718. Accordingly, the matter has come to the Constitution Bench to decide with certitude the following core issues of constitutional importance under Article 254(1) of the Constitution.
Scope of the Reference - when does repugnancy arise?
2. In the present case, the question to be answered is - whether the Kerala Chitties Act 23 of 1975 became repugnant to the Central Chit Funds Act 40 of 1982 under Article 254(1) upon making of the Central Chit Funds Act 40 of 1982 (i.e. on 19.08.1982 when the President gave his assent) or whether the Kerala Chitties Act 23 of 1975 would become repugnant to the Central Chit Funds Act 40 of 1982 as and when notification under Section 1(3) of the Central Chit Funds Act 40 of 1982 bringing the Central Act into force in the State of Kerala is issued?
3. The question arose before the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Smt. Chandra Rani and Ors. v. Vikram Singh and Ors. 1979 All. L.J. 401 in the following circumstances: The U.P. Civil Laws (Reforms and Amendment) Act 57 of 1976 being the State Act stood enacted on 13.12.1976; it received the assent of the President on 30.12.1976; it was published in the Gazette on 31.12.1976 and brought into force w.e.f. 1.01.1977 whereas the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act 104 of 1976, being the Central Act, was enacted on 9.09.1976; it received the assent of the President on the same day; it got published in the Central Gazette on 10.09.1976; and brought into force w.e.f. 1.02.1977 (i.e. after the State Act came into force). The Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Chandra Rani (supra) held that the U.P. Act No. 57 of 1976 was a later Act than the Central Act No. 104 of 1976. The crucial date in the case of the said two enactments would be the dates when they received the assent of the President, which in the case of the Central Act was 9.09.1976 while in the case of the U.P. Act was 30.12.1976. This decision of the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Chandra Rani (supra) came for consideration before this Court in Pt. Rishikesh (supra).
4. The statement of law laid down in Pt. Rishikesh (supra) was as under:
17... As soon as assent is given by the President to the law passed by the Parliament it becomes law. Commencement of the Act may be expressed in the Act itself, namely, from the moment the assent was given by the President and published in the Gazette, it becomes operative. The operation may be postponed giving power to the executive or delegated legislation to bring the Act into force at a particular time unless otherwise provided. The Central Act came into operation on the date it received the assent of the president and shall be published in the Gazette and immediately on the expiration of the day preceding its commencement it became operative. Therefore, from the mid-night on the day on which the Central Act was published in the Gazette of India, it became the law. Admittedly, the Central Act was assented to by the President on 9-9-1976 and was published in the Gazette of India on 10-9-1976. This would be clear when we see the legislative procedure envisaged in Articles 107 to 109 and assent of the President under Article 111 which says that when a Bill has been passed by the House of the People, it shall be presented to the President and the President shall either give his assent to the Bill or withhold his assent therefrom. The proviso is not material for the purpose of this case. Once the President gives assent it becomes law and becomes effective when it is published in the Gazette. The making of the law is thus complete unless it is amended in accordance with th
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
