Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

made by the Legislature of such State, as the case may be, the existing law, shall prevail and the law___ made by the Legislature of the State shall, to extent of repugnancy, be void. S V (2) Where a law made bymthe State with respect to one of enumerated in the Concurrent':Lis't__eontains" any provision repugnant to theprovisions of law made by Parliament iigaith respect to that nicitter, law so by the legislature of 'itihas been reserved forvthe consii'ieifq.tion."of ytéreslident and has received, assean-t,__p.revail in the State:
-as-sen't._of the'--Presiden't--ta- State-Act-is inc-0-nsistent -- _ with a previous Union law relating to a concurrent
-subject' would be that the State Act will prevail in that"«v...S"tate,j.v~and override the provisions of the . "'vCentr"al---Ala-t in their applicability to that State only. preaoniinance of the state law may however r':-evtaken away if Parliament legislates under the proviso to Clause (2). The proviso to Article 254(2) ., A' ' empowers the Union Parliament to repeal or arneno'. = ._ _a repugnant State law even though it has become valid by virtue of the Presidents assent. Parliament may repeal or amend the repugnant State law, either directly, or by itself enacting a law repugnant to the State law with respect to the 'same matter'. Even though the subsequent law '.5 made by Parliament does not expressly repeala-.,,_ State law, even then, the State law will void as soon as the subsequent law of --1- creating repugnancy is made. A State laLU«.wauldi' i be repugnant to the Union law when there' :d.irec,t conflict between the two laws." "Such rfepiignancy I may also arise where both lvaws,-.op}er'a.te ..;'n--. the'; same filed and the two cannot '--possible._ stand" V' together, the law made by parliament shallprevail ; over the State law under Article 25461).' That being S so, when Parliament stepped in and 'enacted}the Central Amendmen!"Act, igt---be.ing a-. later law. made by Parliament "with*:espect. to the 'same matter", the west Bengal Act stood implied repealed." " ._ vb ' ._

85. in :"ti;e5A:i,,¢ase 130:9 ..;f'r;a;r¢t;f2sctU:§tIVGA KIRUPANAIVDA VARMYA "" .V,gV'sUIvbAx*aA SWAMIGAL MEDICAL EDUCATIQNAL TRUST Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NAI5U,lrevpotted' 1996 SC 2384, the Apex Court "The fact that the State Act has received the '--..,ass'ent»--..of; "the President would be of no avail because; the repugnancy is with the Central Act "ivl'liz;'h.' was enacted by Parliament after the enactment of the State Act. In view of the proviso to " >._sub%Article {2} of Article 254 parliament could add x _ to, amend, vary or repeal the State act. In exercise it of this power Parliament could repeal the State Act either expressly or by implication Legislature of a State with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the concurrent list contains_ any provision repugnant to the provisions S earlier law made by Parliament. then the_,'law_soa_"' S"

proviso to Article 254(2) empowers the Unions .lP"arli'a.n1ent to repeal or amend a repugnant Statevvlaiteeven it has become Valid by Virtue t of th€tii.PreSildentidS Hésentiltt Ptarlialrnsnt may reveal '.'T__a_1'.1¢.n§_'h¢ t law, either directly, or by itself enacting a law repugnan't7t_o___th;e"VState law with respect to the 'same matter'. V St _ Even""tho:;1'gh»the subsequent law made by Parliament does not Vexpressllfrepeal a State law, even then, the State law will i' ,beco1ne void as soon as the subsequent law of parliament % creating repugnaney is made. A State law would be repugnant " to the Union law when there is direct conflict between the two IO] repugnant to the State law. As the amended law is.'pa'ssed_ by the Parliament it prevails over the State law by the State stands impliedly repeaied _--'to""th_efextcntxiof repugnancy. As such, the married daughter Vdiepfiived of her right to a share in the :_co._-ppareenary With the passing of the Amendrrient Apt 6-Nd} stands repealed. Married daughter _is'f._en;titpfledfftojl'equal share with the son in the Coparcenary properties,