STATE OF KERALA & ORS. versus M/S. MAR APPRAEM KURI CO. LTD. & ANR.

Citation: [2012] 4 S.C.R. 448 · Decided: 08-05-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.H. KAPADIA · Disposal: Reference answered
Cited by 13 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2012] 4 S.C.R. 448 
A 
STATE OF KERALA & ORS. 
B 
v. 
M/S. MAR APPRAEM KURI CO. LTD. & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 6660 of 2005) 
MAY 08, 2012 
[S.H.KAPADIA, CJI., D.K. JAIN, SURINDER SINGH 
NIJJAR, RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI AND JAGDISH 
SINGH KHEHAR, JJ.) 
c 
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 254 (1) and Seventh 
Schedule List Ill, Entry 7 - Central Law and State Law -
Repugnancy of State Law - Whether from the date the Central 
Law was made i.e. assent given by the President of India or 
from the date the Central Act was enforced in that State - Held: 
0 
Repugnancy arises on the making of the law i.e. when the 
Central Act received the assent of the President and not on 
its commencement/enforcement -
The Central Law though 
not brought in force in that State, is still a law made, which is 
alive as an existing Law - In the present case the enactment 
E of Central Act covered the entire area of 'chits' under entry 7 
of List Ill of VII Schedule and hence the State Act on account 
of repugnancy became void and stood impliedly repeated -
On making of the Central Act, the State Act ceased to operate 
except to the extent of s. 6 of General Clauses Act, 1897 -
F State Legislature could not have amended the State Act after 
enactment of the Central Act save and except under Article 
254(2) - Central Chit Funds Act, 1988 - Kera/a Chitties Act, 
1975 - General Clauses Act, 1897 - s. 6. 
In order to bring the private chitty firms (who 
G remained out of the regulatory mechanism prescribed in 
Kerala Chitties Act, 1975, by registering themselves 
outside the State of Kerala but continued to operate in 
the State of Kerala) within the ambit of the 1975 Act, the 
H 
448 
STATE OF KERALA & ORS. v. MAR APPRAEM KURI 449 
CO. LTD. & ANR. 
Act was amended by inserting sub-section (1a) in Section 
A 
4. Thereby the chitties registered_ outside the State, 
having 20% or more of its subscribers normally residing 
in the State were brought within the ambit of the 1975 
Act. Aggrieved by the said amendment, the private chitty 
firms challenged the vires of s. 4(1a) of the 1975 Act as 
B 
repugnant, under Article 254(1) of the Constitution of India 
to the Central Chit Funds Act, 1982. Single Judge of the 
High Court held that as there was no notification u/s. 1 (3) 
of the Central Chit Funds Act, 1982, bringing the Central 
Act into force in the State and since no rules were framed c 
u/s. 89 of the Central Act, it cannot be said that the State 
Act stood repealed on the enactment of the Central Act. 
Division Bench of the High Court declared s. 4(1 a) of the 
State Act as extra-territorial and unconstitutional. 
In appeal to this Court, while deciding the question 
D 
whether making of the law or its commencement brings 
about repugnancy or inconsistency as envisaged in 
Article 254 (1) of the Constitution, the 3 Judges Bench 
doubted the correctness of the view taken by a 3-Judges 
Bench of Supreme Court in Pt. Rishikesh and Anr. v. Sa/ma 
E 
Begum (Smt.) (1995) 4 SCC 718, whereby it was held that 
as soon as the assent is given by the President to the law 
passed by the Parliament, it becomes law. The Court, 
therefore, referred the matter to the Constitution Bench. 
F 
The question to be answered by the Constitution 
Bench was whether the Kerala Chitties Act, 1975 became 
repugnant to the Central Chit Funds Act, 1982 u/Art. 
254(1) of the Constitution upon making of the Central Act 
(i.e. when the President gave his assent) or whether the 
G 
State Act would become repugnant to the Central Act as 
and when notification u/s. 1 (3) of the Central Act is issued 
bringing the Central Act into force in the State; and that 
what is the effect in law of a repeal. 
H 
450 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 4 S.C.R. 
A 
Answering the reference, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Repugnancy arises on the making and 
not commencement of the law. The Constitution framers 
have deliberately used the word "made" or "make" in 
8 Articles 245, 246, 250 and 251 of the Constitution. 
Constitution of India gives supremacy to the Parliament 
in the matter of making of the laws or legislating with 
respect to matters delineated in the three Lists of the 
Seventh Schedule. The principle of supremacy of the 
C Parliament, the distribution of legislative powers, the 
principle of exhaustive enumeration of matters in the 
three Lists are all to be seen in the context of making of 
laws and not in the context of commencement of the 
laws. [Paras 16 and 28) [488-A-B; 512-A; 51
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.