Vijay Kumar Sharma & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors., (1990) 2 SCC 562
Bench:
- Justice Ranganath Misra
- Justice P.B. Sawant
- Justice K. Ramaswamy
Facts:
The Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Karnataka Act’) was enacted by the State Legislature to acquire contract carriages and their permits, effectively nationalizing the contract carriage transport sector in the state. Sections 14 and 20 of the Karnataka Act prohibited the issuance or renewal of permits for contract carriages to private operators, reserving this right exclusively for the State Transport Undertaking (STU). Subsequently, the Central Government enacted the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘MV Act’), which liberalized the grant of permits for contract carriages, allowing private operators to apply for and obtain such permits. This legislative change led to a conflict between the provisions of the Karnataka Act and the MV Act.
Issues:
- Whether Sections 14 and 20 of the Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Act, 1976, are repugnant to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, particularly Sections 73, 74, and 80.
- Whether the State Legislature had the competence to enact the Karnataka Act in light of the provisions of the MV Act.
Arguments:
Petitioners (Vijay Kumar Sharma & Others): The petitioners argued that the Karnataka Act’s provisions, specifically Sections 14 and 20, were in direct conflict with the MV Act, 1988. They contended that while the MV Act permitted private operators to apply for and obtain contract carriage permits, the Karnataka Act prohibited such applications and grants, thereby creating a repugnancy between the state and central legislation. They further asserted that, as per Article 254(1) of the Constitution, in cases of inconsistency between central and state laws on subjects in the Concurrent List, the central law would prevail, rendering the conflicting state law provisions void.
Respondents (State of Karnataka & Others): The respondents contended that the Karnataka Act was enacted under Entry 42 of the Concurrent List, dealing with the acquisition of property, while the MV Act was enacted under Entry 35, concerning mechanically propelled vehicles. They argued that since the two Acts were enacted under different entries of the Concurrent List, there was no question of repugnancy. Additionally, they maintained that the Karnataka Act had received the President’s assent, thereby protecting it under Article 254(2) of the Constitution.
Decision:
The Supreme Court, in a majority decision, held that Sections 14 and 20 of the Karnataka Act were repugnant to Sections 73, 74, and 80 of the MV Act, 1988. The Court observed that the MV Act aimed to liberalize the grant of permits for contract carriages, allowing private operators to apply for and obtain such permits. In contrast, the Karnataka Act restricted this right exclusively to the STU, thereby creating a direct conflict between the two legislations.
The Court further noted that both Acts were enacted under the Concurrent List, and in cases of inconsistency between central and state laws on subjects in this list, the central law would prevail as per Article 254(1) of the Constitution. Although the Karnataka Act had received the President’s assent, the subsequent enactment of the MV Act, 1988, without any provision saving the Karnataka Act, implied that the central legislation would prevail over the state law.
Consequently, the Court declared Sections 14 and 20 of the Karnataka Act void to the extent of their repugnancy with the MV Act, 1988, thereby allowing private operators to apply for and obtain contract carriage permits in the state.
Important Terms:
- Doctrine of Repugnancy: A constitutional principle that addresses conflicts between central and state laws on subjects in the Concurrent List, stipulating that central laws prevail in cases of inconsistency.
- Concurrent List: One of the three lists in the Seventh Schedule of the Indian Constitution, enumerating subjects on which both the central and state governments can legislate.
- Article 254 of the Constitution: A provision that deals with inconsistencies between laws made by Parliament and laws made by state legislatures concerning subjects in the Concurrent List.
- Contract Carriage: A motor vehicle that carries passengers under a contract for hire or reward, either for a fixed period or journey.
- State Transport Undertaking (STU): A government-owned corporation or entity engaged in the business of providing road transport services.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Vijay Kumar Sharma & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. underscores the supremacy of central legislation over state laws in matters listed in the Concurrent List when inconsistencies arise. The judgment clarifies that state laws conflicting with central laws on the same subject matter are rendered void to the extent of the repugnancy, thereby ensuring uniformity and coherence in the legal framework governing such matters.
