Can certain provisions of a state encated act prevail over a central act.
Aman
(Querist) 29 September 2012
This query is : Resolved
If a State has enacted an Act with respect to one of the matters in the Concurrent List (with due assent from the President) after the enactment of a Central act and if certain provision of the State Act are more stringent than those provided in the Central Act. Then can the State Act prevail over the Central Act? (owing to the bare provision of Article 254(2) )
And please do provide some case laws substantiating the same.
Guest
(Expert) 30 September 2012
In their own interest to attain expertise in law, classroom academic questions should be resolved by personal efforts of the students or with the help of their class teacher. Mind it, at the time of exam. you won't have any scope to get help of any expert. So, if you really want to be a good lawyer, don't try to ride on artificial crutches.
Dr V. Nageswara Rao
(Expert) 30 September 2012
This is outsourcing legal research by students. Unfortunate.Stand on your own feet and work hard.
Hemant Agarwal
(Expert) 30 September 2012
1. Under normal circumstances the Central Act will supercede all State Acts, unless and until local rules to the said Acts are specific to the State.
eg. RTI Act is a Central Act, BUT states have their own rules as far as payment of copies of public documents. A Local law of Maharahstra, the BMC Act has its own rules for payment of copies of public document and the static Rs. 2/- per page is not applicable.
Note: read the following link for some better understanding : http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1986213/
2. Following is reproduced from : http://www.sci.nic.in/constitution.htm
==== quote
ENACTMENT OF LAWS
The Indian Parliament is competent to make laws on matters enumerated in the Union List. State Legislatures are competent to make laws on matters enumerated in the State List. While both the Union and the States have power to legislate on matters enumerated in the Concurrent List, only Parliament has power to make laws on matters not included in the State List or the Concurrent List. In the event of repugnancy, laws made by Parliament shall prevail over law made by State Legislatures, to the extent of the repugnancy. The State law shall be void unless it has received the assent of the President, and in such case, shall prevail in that State.
==== unquote
Keep Smiling .... Hemant Agarwal
Hemant Agarwal
(Expert) 04 October 2012
IN CONTEXT TO THE ORIGINAL QUERIEST (Mr. Aman)
Please refer to the Supreme Court Judgement dated 27-09-2012 in matter of "New Horizon Sugar Mills Ltd vs Govt. of Pondicharry (civil appeal no. 6673-6674 of 2009)
The Supreme Court (SC) has upheld a law passed by Pondicherry assembly to .... A bench of justices Altamas Kabir and J Chelameshar also ruled that even if the state enacts a law which is in conflict with a legislation passed by Parliament, it would still have validity if the statute has obtained Presidential assent.
The bench said similar legislations passed by the Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu to protect their people were also valid.
The apex court rejected the argument of the company that the state was not competent to enact the statute as the power was vested with Parliament under the Constitution.
"Even if it is to be accepted that the Pondicherry Act is relatable to Entries 43, 44 and 45 of List I, (Union) it can be equally said that the said enactment is also relatable to Entries 1, 30 and 32 of List II,(state) thereby leaving the field of legislation open, both to the central legislature as well as the state legislature," the bench said.
The bench further said the provisions of the Pondicherry Act are also saved by virtue of Article 254(2)of the Constitution.
"As will be evident from the above, clause (1) of Article 254 provides that when there are two laws enacted by Parliament and the state legislature in which certains inconsistencies occur, then subject to the provisions of clause (2), the law made by Parliament would prevail and the law made by the state legislature, to the extent it is repugnant to the central law, shall be void.
"Clause (2), however, also provides that in a given situation where a law of a state is in conflict with the law made by Parliament, the law so made by the state legislature shall, if it has received the assent of the President, prevail in that state," the bench said.
The court said that in the instant case, the Pondicherry Act had received the assent of the President attracting the provisions of Article 254(2) of the Constitution.
I can email the above judgement, should anyone require the same.
Keep Smiling .... Hemant Agarwal
email : ha21@rediffmail.com
