Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Amendment made in P.Hemamalini vs K.Palani Malai on 3 August, 2021Matching Fragments
“15. Clause (2) of Article 254 is an exception to Clause (1). If law made by the State Legislature is reserved for consideration and receives assent of the President though the State law is inconsistent with the Central Act, the law made by the Legislature of the State prevails over the Central Law and operates in that State as valid law. If Parliament amends the law, after the amendment made by the State Legislature has received the assent of the President, the earlier amendment made by the State legislature, if found inconsistent with the Central amended Law, both Central law and the State law cannot coexist without colliding with each other. Repugnancy thereby arises and to the extent of the repugnancy the State law becomes void under Article 254(1) unless the State Legislature again makes law reserved for the consideration of the President and received the assent of the President....”
40. If we apply the above principle in the present case, after Section 6 of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 was brought in, since the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ State has not re-enacted the law and has not once again obtained the Presidential assent for the re-enacted law, Section 6 of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 would alone prevail.
41. Very interestingly, after going into various provisions of the Constitution of India, the Hon'ble Apex Court, in a seminal judgment in G.Mohan Rao and others v. State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2021 SCC Online SC 440, has laid down the law that if the Parliament amends the law, after the amendment made by the State Legislature has received the assent of the President, the earlier amendment made by the State Legislature, if found inconsistent with the Central amended law, both the Central law and the State Law cannot coexist without colliding with each other. Repugnancy thereby arises and to the extent of the repugnancy, the State law becomes void under Article 254(1), unless the State Legislature again makes law reserved for the consideration of the President and receives the assent of the President. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment read thus:-
50. This understanding of Article 254(2) is well settled and reference can be usefully made to the following paragraph of Pt.Rishikesh 40:
“15. Clause (2) of Article 254 is an exception to clause (1). If law made by the State Legislature is reserved for consideration and receives assent of the President though the State law is inconsistent with the Central Act, the law made by the Legislature of the State prevails over the Central law and operates in that State as valid law. If Parliament amends the law, after the amendment made by the State Legislature has received the assent of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ the President, the earlier amendment made by the State Legislature, if found inconsistent with the Central amended law, both Central law and the State Law cannot coexist without colliding with each other. Repugnancy thereby arises and to the extent of the repugnancy the State law becomes void under Article 254(1) unless the State Legislature again makes law reserved for the consideration of the President and receives the assent of the President. Full Bench of the High Court held that since U.P. Act 57 of 1976 received the assent of the President on 30-12-1976, while the Central Act was assented on 9-9-1976, the U.P. Act made by the State Legislature, later in point of time it is a valid law.” (emphasis supplied) By virtue of the above ruling of the Apex Court, in the present case, after the Parliament had brought in the amended Section 6, which goes https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ inconsistent with Section 29-A of the State amendment, the State Legislature have not made the law reserved for the consideration of the President and not received the assent of the President until now, therefore, this is not in compliance of Article 254(2). In similar circumstances, a Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao and others v. State of A.P. & others, 2020 SCC Online SC 383, while dealing with the repugnancy between the notification issued by the President and the order passed by the Governor, has held that the Presidential order will prevail over the order issued by the Governor.