M Karunanidhi v. Union of India (1979)
Author: Gulzar Hashmi India PUBLISHED: 13-Jan-2025
Quick Summary
This case explains the repugnancy test under Article 254. The Supreme Court said: a State law and a Central law are repugnant only when they are in direct, clear conflict on the same subject and cannot work together.
The Court also held that a Chief Minister is a public servant under Section 21(12) IPC. The Tamil Nadu Act did not wipe out Central anti-corruption laws; it worked alongside them.
Issues
- Is the Tamil Nadu Public Men (Criminal Misconduct) Act, 1973 repugnant to Central laws on the same field?
- Is a Chief Minister a public servant under Section 21(12) IPC?
Rules
Article 254(1)
If a Central and a State law are inconsistent on a Concurrent List subject, the Central law prevails.
Article 254(2)
A State law with Presidential assent prevails within the State, unless Parliament later overrides it.
Pith & Substance
If a State law mainly fits the State List, incidental overlap on Union/Concurrent fields does not make it void.
Separate Offences
No repugnancy if the laws create distinct offences/procedures that can run side by side.
Facts (Timeline)
- Dec 1973: Tamil Nadu passes the Public Men (Criminal Misconduct) Act, 1973 with Presidential assent.
- Apr 10, 1974: Amending Act 16 of 1974 receives Presidential assent.
- May 8, 1974: The State Act comes into force; investigations to be done by a Commissioner/Additional Commissioner.
- Jun 15, 1976: Tamil Nadu Chief Secretary asks the CBI to probe alleged abuse of office in wheat purchases.
- Post-sanction: Charges filed for offences under IPC §§161, 468, 471 and PC Act §5(2) r/w §5(1)(d).
- 1977: The State Act is repealed (repealing Act receives Presidential assent in 1977).
- Trial Stage: Discharge plea under CrPC §239 fails before Special Judge; High Court refuses to quash.
- Supreme Court: Appeal raises repugnancy and public servant questions.
Arguments
Appellant
- State Act, with assent, became the dominant law; Central laws stood displaced unless re-enacted.
- Chief Minister not a public servant under IPC §21(12).
- Procedural mismatch: State Act used Commissioner and avoided CrPC §197 sanction.
Respondent (Union/State)
- No direct conflict; State Act supplemented Central statutes (IPC, PC Act).
- Chief Minister falls within IPC §21(12)—paid from public funds for public duties.
- CBI investigation and sanctions could proceed consistently with the framework.
Judgment
The Supreme Court rejected the plea of repugnancy. It found no direct, irreconcilable conflict between the Tamil Nadu Act and the Central statutes. Section 29 of the State Act showed it was meant to coexist with the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The Court also held that the Chief Minister is a public servant under IPC §21(12) because the office carries public duties and is funded by the State.
Ratio
Repugnancy exists only when the two laws are so inconsistent that they cannot both be obeyed. Overlap or different methods is not enough. A Chief Minister is within IPC §21(12) because the role is public service paid by public funds.
Why It Matters
- Sets a workable test for Article 254 conflicts.
- Confirms that anti-corruption laws at State and Union levels can run together.
- Clarifies the public servant status of top constitutional functionaries for IPC purposes.
Key Takeaways
Repugnancy needs direct conflict, not mere overlap.
Presidential assent protects a State law until Parliament overrides.
Section 29 of the State Act showed intent to supplement, not supersede.
Chief Minister is a public servant under IPC §21(12).
Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook
Mnemonic: “COEXIST” — Concurrent field, Overlap allowed, Express conflict needed, X override by Parliament, IPC/PC Act stay, State assent limited, Top post = public servant.
- Check Conflict: Same subject + cannot both work?
- See Safeguards: Presidential assent & Parliament’s power.
- Tag Status: Chief Minister = public servant (IPC §21(12)).
IRAC Outline
Issue
Whether the State Act is repugnant to Central laws; whether CM is a public servant.
Rule
Article 254 test; IPC §21(12) definition of public servant; coexistence if no direct clash.
Application
Section 29 shows supplement, not repeal; CM’s paid public duties fit §21(12).
Conclusion
No repugnancy; CM is a public servant; proceedings could continue.
Glossary
- Repugnancy
- A direct, unavoidable clash where both laws cannot operate together.
- Presidential Assent
- Approval under Article 254(2) that lets a State law prevail in the State unless Parliament overrides it.
- Public Servant
- A person performing public duties and paid from public funds; includes a Chief Minister under IPC §21(12).
FAQs
Popular & Recent Post
Comment
Nothing for now