ABSTRACT

This writ petition has been filed to seek necessary guidelines and notification from court and
judiciary system on doctrine of repugnancy; which deals when there is any conflict between
the laws of Centre and State. According to black law dictionary repugnancy is the condition
when there is conflict between two pieces of legislation which when applied to the same facts
produce different results. Repugnancy arises when the provisions of two laws are so
inconsistent and irreconcilable that it is impossible to do one without disobeying the other.

In Indian law Doctrine of Repugnancy has been stated in Article 254 of the Indian
Constitution, under Part XI dealing with arena of research falling within the jurisdiction of
the relations between the Center and the States, as mentioned in the Constitution. This
particular document deals the landmark case on doctrine of repugnancy in detail. This case
study contrast Article 254 of Indian constitution which claims to stand for, along with the
articles and the exceptions listed.

Article attempts to describe the importance of the Article 254 under the context of Indian
centralism, as well as the highlights the importance of the Article 254 with respect to central
and state domain.
The methodology of research adopted for this paper is mainly the doctrinal method of
research.
The article is concluded with the judgement of the aforementioned case and is attempting to
critically scrutinize the issue.

Petitioner of the case, M Karunanidhi, a former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu & appellant in
this case brought a case on the table of the High Court by filing the application before the
high court. On 15 june, 1976 chief secretary to government of Tamil Nadu wrote a demi
official Letter to then D.I.G.P, CBI appealing the authority to formulate a comprehensive and
in-depth inspection into couple of issue raised against petitioner and others pleaders who
were purported to have misused their official authority in the case of purchase of wheat from
Punjab.

After the alleged contemplations, Resultantly F.I.R was lodged. After then investigation took
place and after inquiry prosecution was initiated against the petitioner on the grounds of
section of I.PC and Clauses of Prevention of corruption act.

FIR was lodged on 16 June, 1976 and after four months of F.I.R, then Governor of Tamil
Nadu, Kodaras Kalidas shah conceded the sanction under section 197 of the Tamil Nadu
Public Men (Criminal Misconduct) Act, 1973 herein referred as State Act. The sanction was
for the pursuit of the petitioner under sections 161(1), 468(2) and 471(3) of the IPC and Sec.
5(2) r/w Sec. 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as the
Corruption Act, 1988). After the detailed investigation, police put forward a charge sheet
against the petitioner for committing the abovementioned offences and purported that the
petitioner had procured monetary benefit of Rs. 4 to Rs. 5 lakh from Madenlal Gupta for
passing favourable judgement in some firm and the same was registered before special jury.
Then Mr Karunanidhi, petitioner filed an application for discharge in front of special judge,
but he rejected on the grounds of abovementioned FIR.

Later, when petitioner appealed to HC for quashing the FIR but then the high court also
rejected the appeal but under the favour granted a certificate for leave to appeal. While the
process in December, 1973 Madras Legislature passed an Act titled "the Tamil Nadu Public
Men (Criminal Misconduct) Act. 1973" later this act was generally vocalized the State Aot
and got final president assent on December 30, 1973.

Later the act was amended by Act 16 of 1974 and for the same President's assent was
conferred on April 10, 1974.

After high court rejected the plea, the matter went to the Supreme Court bench through an
appeal by accuse. But before the appeal was made the Tamil Nadu Public Men (Criminal
Misconduot) Act. 1973 was repealed by the Presidential assent in 1977.