THE SECURITY ASSOCIATION OF INDIA & ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2014] 9 S.C.R. 880 · Decided: 25-04-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: GYAN SUDHA MISRA · Disposal: Disposed off
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2014] 9 S.C.R. 880 
THE SECURITY ASSOCIATION OF INDIA & ANR. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
· (Civil Appeal No. 8814 of 2011) 
APRIL 25, 2014 
[GYAN SUDHA MISRA AND 
PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950 - Arts. 246 and 254 and 
C Seventh Schedule, List Ill - Issue pertaining to repugnancy 
of the State Act in light of the Central Act - When arises -
Held: Only if it is found that the two enactments cover the same 
matter substantially and there is a direct and irreconcilable 
D 
conflict between the two, the issue of repugnancy arises. 
Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005 -
Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of 
Employment & Welfare) Act, 1981 - Question of repugnancy 
of the 1981 State Act in light of the 2005 Central Act -
E Whether after enactment of the 2005 Central Act by the 
Parliament, the 1981 State Act is not applicable to the private 
security agencies - Held: The subject matter of the two Acts 
in question are substantially different - The two Acts operate 
in different fields and there is only incidental connection 
F between the two regarding the regulation of private security 
agencies - The 2005 Central Act does not occupy the field 
of labour welfare and thereby there cannot be any conflict 
between the 1981 State Act and the 2005 Central Act - There 
is no repugnancy between the 1981 State Act and the 2005 
Central Act-in the given facts. 
G 
Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of 
Employment & Welfare) Act, 1981 - Challenge to -
On 
ground of being violative of Arts. 14 and 19 of the Constitution 
- Held: Not tenable - Restrictions imposed by the Act are 
H 
880 
SECURITY ASSOCIATION OF INDIA v. UNION OF 
881 
INDIA 
reasonable restrictions envisioned by the Constitution and 
A 
protect the rights and ensure the welfare of private security 
guards engaged by private security agencies by means of 
s. 23 and relevant provisions of the Scheme of 2002 - The 
Act does not violate Articles 14 and 19 or any other 
Fundamental Rights contained in the Constitution -
B 
Maharashtra Private Security (Regulation of Employment and 
Welfare) Scheme of 2002. 
Interpretation of Statutes -
Presumption towards 
constitutionality of a Statute -Held: Courts should proceed to 
construe a Statute with a view to uphold its constitutionality. 
C 
Dismissing the appeals and disposing of the 
contempt petitions, the Court 
HELD:1.1. Prior to determining whether there is any o 
repugnancy or not, it has to be determined that the State 
Act and the Central Act both relate to the same entry in 
List-Ill and there is a 'direct' and irreconcilable' conflict 
between the two. i.e. both the provisions cannot stand 
together. Only if it is found that the two enactments cover 
E 
the same matter substantially and there is a direct and 
irreconcilable conflict between the two, the issue of 
repugnancy arises. [Paras 46, 47] [912-C, E-F] 
1 ;2. In the case at hand, the subject matters of the 
two Acts in question, viz. the Private Security Agencies 
F 
(Regulation) Act, 2005 (the Central Act) and the 
Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of 
Employment & Welfare) Act, 1981 (the State Act) are 
substantially different and the conflict in the operation of 
the two Acts is incidental. Both the Acts operate in 
G 
different fields and there is only incidental connection 
between the two regarding the regulation of private 
security agencies. The two statutes occupy distinct 
fields. There is no repugnancy between the State Act and 
the Central Act in the given facts. The Central Act does 
H 
882 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 9 S.C.R. 
A 
not occupy the field of labour welfare and thereby there 
cannot be any conflict between the State Act and the 
Central Act. The question of applicability of the Central 
Act and the State Act apply concurrently. [Paras 50, 52 
and 55] [913-F-G; 916-E-F; 918-G] 
B 
Welfare Association, A.R.P., Maharashtra & Anr. vs. 
Ranjit P. Gohil & Ors. 2003 (2) SCR 139 = (2003) 9 SCC 
358; State of Andhra Pradesh vs. K. Purushottam Reddy & 
Ors. 2003 (2) SCR 832 = (2003) 9 SCC 564; State of Gujarat 
C vs. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat & Ors. 2005 (4) 
Suppl. SCR 582 = (2005) 8 SCC 534; State of MP vs . 
. Rakesh Kohli & Anr. 2012 (6) SCR 661 = (2012) 6 SCC 312; 
Offshore Holding Pvt. Ltd vs. Bangalore Development 
Authority & Ors. 2011 ~1) SCR 453 = (2011) 3 SCC 139; 
State of West Bengal vs. Kesoram Industries & Ors. 2004 (1) 
D 
SCR 564 =
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.