M Karunanidhi v Union of India

Facts

• The State of Tamil Nadu had enacted legislation providing for a commission of inquiry to investigate allegations against public men, including Ministers and former Ministers.
• The appellant, a former Chief Minister, was prosecuted under central legislation, including the corruption legislation and provisions of the general criminal law.
• He contended that the State Act constituted a complete and self-contained code for dealing with the conduct of public men in the State.
• On that footing he argued that the State Act was repugnant to the central enactments, or alternatively that it prevailed, so that a prosecution under the central laws could not proceed against him.
• The State Act had received the assent of the President, which was relied on to attract the saving in Art.254(2).
• The Union contended that the State Act operated in a wholly different field, being concerned with inquiry rather than with the creation or prosecution of offences.

Issue

1. In what circumstances does repugnancy arise between a Union law and a State law, and was the State Act repugnant to the central enactments so as to bar a prosecution under them?

Held

• No repugnancy was made out and the prosecution could proceed. The Court set out the governing tests. There must be a direct and irreconcilable conflict between the two provisions, so that they cannot stand together and compliance with one entails breach of the other. Repugnancy equally arises where Parliament has manifested an intention to cover the entire field by an exhaustive code, in which case there is no room left for State legislation even in the absence of express contradiction. But where the two laws deal with different subject matters, or the State law creates additional machinery or safeguards which are consistent with the central law, both operate together. The burden of establishing repugnancy rests on the party asserting it, and a court will not lightly infer that Parliament intended to exclude State legislation. On the facts, the State Act provided a machinery of inquiry and did not purport to displace the central offences or the power to prosecute.

Ratio Decidendi

Article 254 is a rule of priority, not a rule of exclusion, and it operates only where there is something to prioritise between. The presumption is in favour of the validity of both enactments, since the Constitution contemplates concurrent legislation and expects the two levels to operate in the same field without collision. A conflict must therefore be shown to be real and unavoidable on the terms of the provisions, and not merely a difference of approach or an overlap of subject matter.