Quick answer
No. In Vijay Kumar Sharma v. State of Karnataka (27 February 1990), the Supreme Court held by a 2:1 majority that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 did not make the Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Act, 1976 void. Repugnancy (a real legal conflict) under Article 254 arises only when the two laws deal with the same matter in the Concurrent List and directly conflict. The State law was about acquisition of property (Entry 42, List III), while the Central law regulated motor vehicles (Entry 35, List III), so their dominant purposes were different and there was no repugnancy.
The case
Vijay Kumar Sharma v. State of Karnataka, (1990) 2 SCC 562, AIR 1990 SC 2072, Supreme Court of India, 27 February 1990. Bench: Ranganath Misra, P.B. Sawant and K. Ramaswamy, JJ. Private contract carriage operators were refused permits under Sections 73, 74 and 80 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, because Sections 14 and 20 of the Karnataka Act barred fresh applications and reserved contract carriage permits for the State transport corporation. Misra and Sawant, JJ. held that there was no repugnancy and the petitions were dismissed. Ramaswamy, J. dissented.
Article 254 in brief
- Article 254(1): if a State law is repugnant to a law made by Parliament on a matter in the Concurrent List, the Parliamentary law prevails and the State law is void to the extent of the repugnancy.
- Article 254(2): a State law on a Concurrent List matter that is repugnant to an earlier Parliamentary law can prevail in that State if it was reserved for the President and received assent. The Karnataka Act had received assent on 11 March 1976.
- Proviso to Article 254(2): Parliament can still later make a law on the same matter, including one that amends or repeals the State law.
What the majority held
- First ask whether the two laws are on the same subject matter. This is judged by their dominant purpose (pith and substance, meaning the true nature of the law).
- If the dominant purposes differ, the laws cover different fields, even if some provisions touch allied subjects.
- Repugnancy needs a direct conflict between laws that occupy the same field.
- The Karnataka Act aimed to nationalise contract carriage services and prevent concentration of wealth, linked to Articles 39(b) and (c). The 1988 Act made no provision on acquiring contract carriage permits.
The two laws compared
| Point | Karnataka Act, 1976 | Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 |
|---|---|---|
| Made by | State Legislature | Parliament |
| Concurrent List entry | Entry 42 (acquisition of property) | Entry 35 (mechanically propelled vehicles) |
| Dominant purpose | Acquire contract carriages and create a State monopoly | Regulate the operation of motor vehicles |
Example
Aadil owns a tourist bus in a State whose acquisition law transferred all private contract carriages to the State corporation and barred new permits. A later Central motor vehicles law says permits should ordinarily be granted. Aadil argues the Central law impliedly repealed the State law. Applying Vijay Kumar Sharma, a court would first compare the dominant purpose of each law; if the State law is really about acquisition and the Central law is about regulation, there is no repugnancy and the State bar can stand.
Current law note
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 remains in force. The case is still cited for the rule that Article 254 is triggered only when both laws are on the same Concurrent List matter and truly conflict. For a fuller summary, see the Vijay Kumar Sharma v. State of Karnataka case summary.
Exam point
Vijay Kumar Sharma (1990): before applying Article 254, identify the dominant purpose of each law; laws under different Concurrent List entries with different purposes are not repugnant merely because they touch the same activity.
