STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR versus M. S. FAROOQL AND OTHERS

Citation: [1972] 3 S.C.R. 881 · Decided: 17-03-1972 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

8 
STATE OF JAMMU AND XA.SJJMIR 
v. 
M. S. F ~ROOQl AND Ol'HERS 
March 17, 1972 
rs. M. SIKRI, c.r., A. N. GR.ovila, A. N. RAv, n. o. PALBKAR 
AND M. H. BEG, J.t.) 
Constitution of lrtdia, 1950, Art. 254 as applied to Jammu and Kashmir 
in 1962....:..Scope of. 
Jammu and Kashmir Government Servants' Prevention of Corruption 
C 
(Commission) Act, 1962-/f repugnooo to All India Services Act, 1951, 
and Rules made thereunder-Repugnahcy-Test$ for. 
The respondent, a member of the Indian Police Service, wu borne on 
the Jammu and Kashmir Cadre. The Cottunission 8et up under the 
Jammu and Kashmir Government Servants'' Prevention of Corruption 
(Commission) Act 1962, directed investigation into a complaint received 
by t~ Comminlon again&t the respondent. He cballenaed the jurisdic· 
D 
tion of the Commission, and the High Court allowed the petition, holdl.QJ 
tmot th.e members of an All In~a Service, serving in a State, are govern· 
ed by the All India Services Act, 1951 and the Rules made thereUndet, 
and the Commission Act was not applicable to them. 
c 
Dismilaing the ap~ to this Court, 
HELD : Asaumina that the Conunisaion Act is, in pith all.d substaooe, 
a law with respect. to cOrruption of Governm.ent servants, it ia repugnant 
to the provisions of the All India Se!rvi~s Act and the All Indn ServiefS 
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955_.....and hence, under Art. 2'4 as 
it existed when the Commiasion Act came into force (July, 16, 1962)j 
the Commission Act must give way to the All India ServJoea Act and tm 
Rules made ther~under. [883 C-D. 887 B-C; 897 FJ 
(a) The position when the Commission Act came into force was that 
F 
Parlia~nt could legislate on it~:m 70, List I, cteruin~ with 'UniCill Public 
Servicee, All India Services and Union Public Serv1ce Commission, .and 
Art. 254, as appliqable to Jammu. and Ka&hmir at that time provided 
that, if any provision of a law made by the Legislature of a StAte is 
. repugnant to any provision of a law made by Parliament which Parlia-
ment iJ compmnt to enact the law made by Parliament, whether ~d 
before or after the Jaw made by the Legislature of tbcl State, &hall prevail 
G . and 
the 
law made 
by the 
Legislature Of 
the 
Sta~ aha.ll, to 
the 
extent of repugnancy, 
be void. It therefore follows 
that if 
provision 
of the Commission Act is repugnant to a provision of the 
Discipline '3IId Appeal Rules, I9SS, then tl!e law made by the State of 
Jammu and Kashmir must give way. ,L884 H·S85 F] 
A. S, KrirhM v. State of MGJras,· [1957) S.C. a. ~99; ,Deep Charld. 
v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [19591 Supp. 2 S.C.R. 8 and Prem Nath 
H 
Kaul v. The State of Jammu and Kashmir, [1959] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 270, 
explained. 
(b) Repugnancy arises when (i) there is inoonsi$tency in the a~~ 
terms of the Act enacted· by Parliament and the impugned State ..Act, 
882 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1972] 3 S.C.R. 
or (ii) the law enacted by Parli-ament was intended to be a complete and 
A. 
exhaustive code, (or) (ih) the law enacted by Parliament was in~nded 
expressly or impliedly to cover the whole field. L887 FPH] 
, 
Ch. Tika Ram ji v. Stat.e of U.P., [1956] S.C. R. 393, f<>llowed. 
Deep Chand v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [1959) Supp. 2 S.C.R. 8; 
ref.erred to. 
(c) It could be said '3. law enacted by Parliament was intended to 
-cover the whole field, where by reason of the subject ma.tter dealt with, 
and the ~thod of dealing with it, and the nature and multiplicity of 
the regulations prescribed, Parliament had adopted a plan or scheme which 
would be hindered and obstructed if '3.0y additional regulations whatever 
are prescribed upon the subject by any other authority, that is, if 
the 
subject is either touched or trenched 
upon by the State authority. [888 
D-Fl 
O'Sullivan v. Noarlunga Meat Ltd .. , [1957] A. C. 1: Attornczy General, 
Canada v. Attorney-General, British Columbia, i1930] A.C. 1:t 1; Subrah-
manyan Chattiar v. Muthuswami Goundan, t1940] F.C.R. 188 and Ukha 
Kolha v. State of Madras, A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 1531, referred to. 
Megh Raj v: Allah Rakhia, [1947} F.C.R. 77; Prafulla Kumar 
Mukherjee v. Bank of Commerce; [1947] F.C.R. 28 and CalcuUa Gas 
Company v. S~te of West Bengal, [1962] Supp. 3 S.C. R. 1 ; explained 
Wynes, Legislative Executive and Judicial 
Power~ in 
Austral1'a~ 
4th ed. p. 101, referred to. 
(d) From the perusal of the provisions of the two statutory laws, 
namely, the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, 
and the Jammu and 
Kashmir 
Go
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.