Zaverbhai Amaidas v. State of Bombay
Supreme Court of India, 8 October 1954, 4 judges, 1954 AIR 752, 1955 SCR 799
Central Act LII of 1950, which recast section 7 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, was a law on the same matter as Bombay Act XXXVI of 1947, so under Article 254(2) the Bombay enhanced penalty could not prevail.
Facts
The appellant was convicted by the Resident First Class Magistrate, Bardoli, for transporting 15 maunds of juwar without a permit on 6 April 1951, contrary to the Bombay Food Grains (Regulation of Movement and Sale) Order, 1949, and fined Rs. 500. In revision he argued that under section 2 of Bombay Act XXXVI of 1947, which raised the punishment under the Central Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946 to seven years and had received the Governor-General's assent, only the Sessions Court could try the offence. The State replied that Central Act LII of 1950, which recast section 7 of the Central Act with a three year maximum for this offence, had made the Bombay Act inoperative. The High Court judges differed; Chagla C.J., on reference, held that the Central Act prevailed under Article 254(2). The appellant appealed on a certificate under Article 132(1).
Questions before the Court
- Whether section 7 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946, as substituted by Act LII of 1950, was a law "with respect to the same matter" as section 2 of Bombay Act XXXVI of 1947 within Article 254(2), so that the Bombay provision no longer prevailed.
- Whether the appellant could contend that the Bombay Act fell exclusively in the Provincial List.
What the Court held
- Article 254(2) is in substance a reproduction of section 107(2) of the Government of India Act, 1935, and its proviso enlarges Parliament's power to repeal a State law on a Concurrent List matter. Even without express repeal, the State law is void if it conflicts with a later Parliamentary law with respect to the same matter.
- The test is whether the later law covers the same ground. If it deals with other and distinct matters, though cognate and allied, Article 254(2) does not apply.
- Section 7 as substituted by Act LII of 1950 was a comprehensive code on punishment for offences under the Act. Punishment for contravention of orders under both Acts was a single subject which could not be split into enhanced and ordinary punishment, so the Central law covered the same matter.
- The principle of implied repeal, that a later law on an identical subject which cannot stand with the earlier one supersedes it, applies to the question under Article 254(2). Section 2 of the Bombay Act could not prevail against section 7, and the Magistrate had jurisdiction.
- The Provincial List point was not allowed, as the only question raised in the certificate application was repugnancy under Article 254. The appeal was dismissed.
Why it matters
The judgment explains how Article 254(2) works when Parliament later legislates on a Concurrent List matter on which a State law prevails because it received assent: the State law yields, even without express repeal, if the later Parliamentary law covers the same ground. It applies the rule of implied repeal to decide whether the two laws deal with the same matter, and holds that a subject such as punishment cannot be split into parts to avoid repugnancy.
In the Court's words
Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.
“The position then is that under the Constitution Parliament can, acting under the proviso to article 254(2), repeal a State law. But where it does not expressly do so, even then, the State law will be void under that provision if it conflicts with a later "law with respect to the same matter" that may be enacted by Parliament.”
“If the later legislation deals not with the matters which formed the subject of the earlier legislation but with other and distinct matters though of a cognate and allied character, then article 254(2) will have no application. The principle embodied in section 107(2) and article 254(2) is that when there is legislation covering the same ground both by the Centre and by the Province, both of them being competent to enact the same, the law of the Centre should prevail over that of the State.”
“but the principle on which the rule of implied repeal rests, namely, that if the subject-matter of the later legislation is identical with that of the earlier, so that they cannot both stand together, then the earlier is repealed by the later enactment, will be equally applicable to a question under article 254(2) whether the further legislation by Parliament is in respect of the same matter as that of the State law.”
“Section 7 is thus a comprehensive code covering the entire field of punishment for offences under the Act, graded according to the commodities and to the character of the offence. The subject of enhanced punishment that is dealt with in Act No. XXXVI of 1947 is also comprised in Act No. LII of 1950, the same being limited to the case of hoarding of foodgrains.”
Provisions interpreted
- Article 254, Constitution
- Section 107(2), Government of India Act, 1935
- Section 7, Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946 (as substituted by Act LII of 1950)
- Section 2, Bombay Act XXXVI of 1947
Case and bench
- Parties
- Zaverbhai Amaidas v. The State of Bombay
- Case
- Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 1953
- Decided
- 8 October 1954
- Bench
- Mehar Chand Mahajan (CJ), B.K. Mukherjea, B. Jagannadhadas, T.L. Venkatarama Ayyar
- Opinions
- Unanimous. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Venkatarama Ayyar, J.
Questions on this case
1 question in live Law Maker papers mentions this case. Practise them with the landmark judgments questions.