Adv. Naveen Saju, LLM in Constitutional and Administrative Law, School of Law, CHRIST (Deemed to be University), Bangalore, India
“Every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle – Thomas Jefferson”
ABSTRACT
India is the largest democratic nation in the world. Unlike many other countries who adopted democracy as the creed of their Constitution, India is still able to continue as a democratic nation even after its 75th year of Independence. India is considered to be a nation which follows the principles of federalism as well. Being a federalist nation, the important function of the government lies within the separation of powers or the distribution of the same within different tiers and levels of the government. Even though there is distribution of powers between the various tiers of government, sometimes one may encroach the powers of another which leads to a further conflict. There is also a high chance for having conflict between the central laws and state laws which are being passed by the parliament and concerned state legislatures and it may not go hand in hand. Since India is not a pure federalist nation like that of the United States but only a quasi – federal state having a strong centralizing tendency at the union level, there may arise certain conflicts between the laws at the state and union level.1 Here comes the importance of the Doctrine of Repugnancy. When there is conflict or inconsistency between the state laws and the union law, there arises the question for having the implication of doctrine of repugnancy. Thus, repugnancy clause plays an important role in the federal setup of Indian democracy. Through the interpretation of the same, the law which is repugnant to the principles of the Constitution will be deemed to be invalid in the eyes of law.
Keywords: Federalism, Doctrine of Repugnancy, Inconsistency between laws, Interpretation of Lists, Parliamentary Legislation and State Legislation
