Deep Chand vs State of UP (1959)
🏛️ Deep Chand v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1959 AIR 648, 1959 SCR Supl. (2) 8)
This is a landmark case by the Supreme Court of India that clarified the concept of repugnancy between Central and State laws under Article 254 of the Indian Constitution.
đź“Ś Background:
The State of Uttar Pradesh enacted the UP Transport Services Development Act, 1955.
This law aimed to regulate motor transport services in UP.
However, the Central Government had already enacted the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, covering similar areas.
The petitioner, Deep Chand, challenged the validity of the UP law, arguing that it was repugnant to the Central law and thus void under Article 254.
⚖️ Main Legal Issue:
Whether the UP Transport Services Development Act, 1955, was repugnant to the Central Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, and therefore void under Article 254 of the Constitution?
đź“ś Relevant Constitutional Provision:
Article 254 – Inconsistency between laws made by Parliament and laws made by State Legislatures:
If a State law is repugnant to a Central law on a Concurrent List subject, the Central law prevails, and the State law is void to the extent of the repugnancy—unless the State law has received the President’s assent.
⚖️ Supreme Court's Ruling:
The Court struck down the UP Act and held it invalid because:
Both laws were on a Concurrent List subject – “Motor vehicles” is in Entry 35 of the Concurrent List.
The UP Act was repugnant to the Central Motor Vehicles Act.
The UP Act did not receive the President’s assent, so it was void under Article 254(1).
🧠Key Legal Principles from the Case:
Repugnancy Test:
Repugnancy arises when:
Both the Central and State laws deal with the same subject matter.
They are inconsistent with each other.
It is impossible to obey both laws at the same time.
Article 254(1):
In case of a conflict on Concurrent List subjects, Central law prevails, and State law becomes void to the extent of the conflict.
Presidential Assent (Article 254(2)):
If a State law conflicting with a Central law on a Concurrent List subject receives the President’s assent, it will prevail in that state.
âś… Significance of the Case:
Deep Chand case is a leading precedent on Centre-State legislative relations and the doctrine of repugnancy.
It clarified when and how State laws become void if they clash with Union laws.
Reinforced the supremacy of Parliamentary legislation on Concurrent List subjects, unless a State law has Presidential assent.
RELATED Blog
0 comments