Zaverbhai v. State of Bombay, AIR 1954 SC 752

Zaverbhai v. State of Bombay, AIR 1954 SC 752

Bench:

• Chief Justice Mehr Chand Mahajan
• Justice B.K. Mukherjea
• Justice Vivian Bose
• Justice N.H. Bhagwati
• Justice T.L. Venkatarama Aiyar

Facts:

The Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946, was enacted by the Union Legislature to control the distribution of essential commodities. The Bombay Legislature later passed the Bombay Essential Supplies Act, 1947, which included stricter punishments for hoarding and black marketing.

The petitioner, Zaverbhai, was convicted under the Bombay Act and challenged its validity, arguing that:

1. The Union law (Essential Supplies Act, 1946) occupied the entire field of essential commodity regulation.
2. The Bombay Act, 1947, being a State law, was repugnant to the Union law under Article 254(1) of the Constitution.

Issues:

1. Whether the Bombay Essential Supplies Act, 1947, was repugnant to the Union Essential Supplies Act, 1946.
2. Whether the Bombay Legislature had the competence to enact a law in the same field occupied by a Union law.

Arguments:

Petitioner (Zaverbhai): The Bombay Act created harsher penalties than the Union Act, leading to repugnancy under Article 254(1). Since the Union had legislated on essential supplies, the Bombay Legislature had no competence to enact a conflicting law.

Respondent (State of Bombay): The State had the power to impose stricter penalties as a matter of public interest. The Bombay Act did not directly contradict the Union Act but merely supplemented it.

Ratio Decidendi:

• Doctrine of Repugnancy (Article 254(1)): The Supreme Court held that if there is an inconsistency between a Union and a State law on a Concurrent List subject, the Union law prevails. Since the Union Act already occupied the field of essential supplies, the Bombay Act was repugnant.
• Stricter State Penalties Invalid: Even though the Bombay Legislature tried to increase penalties, it could not do so without Presidential assent as required under Article 254(2).
• Supremacy of Union Law in Concurrent List Matters: The judgment reinforced that once Parliament enacts a law on a Concurrent List subject, States cannot override it unless expressly authorized.

Observations:

• The case reaffirmed the principle that State laws cannot conflict with Union laws on Concurrent List subjects.
• The ruling clarified that harsher punishments imposed by a State law could still create repugnancy under Article 254(1).
• The Court emphasized that Article 254(2) provides a remedy—Presidential assent—for State laws seeking to override a Union law.

Decision:

The Supreme Court struck down the Bombay Act, holding it repugnant to the Essential Supplies Act, 1946 under Article 254(1).

Important Terms:

1. Article 254(1) (Doctrine of Repugnancy): When a State law conflicts with a Union law on a Concurrent List subject, the Union law prevails.
2. Article 254(2) (Presidential Assent): Allows a State law to override a Union law on the same Concurrent List subject, but only with Presidential approval.
3. Occupied Field Doctrine: If Parliament has legislated comprehensively on a subject, States cannot legislate further unless specifically allowed.