Supreme Court Upholds States’ Right to Repeal Laws Without Centre’s Approval
- ByAdmin --
- 06 Jun 2025 --
- 0 Comments
In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of India has clarified that State Legislatures possess the constitutional authority to repeal laws enacted by them without requiring prior approval from the Central Government. This ruling reaffirms the legislative competence of states within India’s federal structure, as enshrined in the Constitution.
Background of the Case
The issue came before the Court when a state repealed a law that had earlier received Presidential assent under Article 254(2) of the Constitution. Petitioners questioned whether repealing such a law also required fresh Presidential assent. They argued that since the original enactment was repugnant to a central law and only survived due to Presidential assent, its repeal must similarly go through the Centre. The Court, however, upheld the autonomy of the State Legislature, stating that the power to repeal resides with the same authority that enacted the law.
Key Constitutional Provisions
- Article 245: Empowers Parliament and State Legislatures to make laws for the whole or part of India, subject to constitutional limitations.
- Article 246: Lays out the distribution of legislative powers between the Union and the States through three lists — Union List, State List, and Concurrent List.
- Article 254(2): Provides that a state law repugnant to a central law on a Concurrent List subject can still prevail within that state if it receives Presidential assent.
- Seventh Schedule: Categorizes subjects into Union, State, and Concurrent Lists, defining the limits of legislative powers.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Reasoning
The Court emphasized that repealing a law is as much a legislative function as enacting one. Therefore, the power to repeal a state law lies with the same legislature that created it, unless expressly limited by the Constitution.
Key observations made by the Court include:
- Repeal is not repugnancy: Repealing a law does not introduce any new inconsistency with a central law; it merely removes a state law that was once inconsistent. Therefore, it does not trigger Article 254(2).
- Presidential assent is not perpetual: Article 254(2) operates at the stage of enactment when a state law is repugnant to an existing central law. Once a law is enacted with Presidential assent, the power to repeal it lies entirely with the State Legislature, without the need for a second assent.
- Legislative competence includes repeal: The competence to make laws inherently includes the power to amend or repeal those laws, unless a specific constitutional provision states otherwise.
- No obligation to retain obsolete laws: Imposing a requirement to seek Presidential assent for repeal would effectively force states to retain outdated or unnecessary laws, leading to legislative inefficiency.
Relevant Precedents
The judgment is consistent with past decisions such as:
- Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of Bihar (1983)
- Kaiser-I-Hind Pvt. Ltd. v. National Textile Corporation (2002)
In both cases, the Court clarified that Article 254(2) applies at the time of enactment, not repeal, and reinforced the principle that the legislative competence of the state remains intact unless constitutionally restricted.
Implications of the Judgment
- Strengthening Federalism: The judgment affirms the constitutional vision of a federal India where states are not administrative units of the Centre but independent legislative bodies within their own domain.
- Simplifying Legislative Process: States can now repeal outdated, redundant, or impractical laws without procedural hurdles involving the Centre, thus improving legislative efficiency.
- Clarifying Article 254(2): The Court has provided crucial interpretive clarity, preventing future misapplications or overreach in cases involving repugnancy and Presidential assent.
- Empowering States: Recognizing that the competence to legislate includes the competence to repeal enhances the practical autonomy of State Legislatures and respects the separation of powers between the Union and the States.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision upholding a state’s right to repeal its own laws without needing Centre’s approval reinforces constitutional federalism and legislative clarity. It ensures that states are not bound to maintain laws solely because they were once protected by Presidential assent. As long as the repeal does not introduce new conflict with central legislation, the decision empowers states to govern their affairs efficiently and constitutionally, staying true to the framework envisioned by the framers of the Constitution.
RELATED Blog
0 comments