What was the main constitutional issue in this case?

Whether Article 254 repugnancy applied and if the pith and substance test should be used when Union and State laws appear to clash.

How did the Supreme Court apply the pith and substance test?

It looked at the dominant purpose of each Act. One aimed at nationalisation; the other regulated permits. Different subjects meant no repugnancy.

Did the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 override the State Act?

No. The Court held both could operate together because their core purposes were different.

Why did Presidential assent matter?

The State Act had Presidential assent, strengthening its validity even in the presence of a Central law.

Vijay Kumar Sharma v. State of Karnataka

Vijay Kumar Sharma v. State of Karnataka AIR 1990 SC 2072

Supreme Court of India 1990 Bench: Not specified Constitution • Federalism 8 min read India

Author: Gulzar Hashmi • Published: 25 Oct 2025 • Primary: pith and substance, Article 254, repugnancy • Secondary: MV Act 1988, Karnataka Carriages Act 1976, nationalisation, permits

Quick Summary

The Supreme Court said: look at the pith and substance. If Union and State laws chase different main goals, there is no clash under Article 254. Here, Karnataka’s law aimed to nationalise contract carriages. The Central MV Act aimed to regulate motor vehicles. Different aims, so both can work together. Citation: AIR 1990 SC 2072.

Issues

Does the pith and substance test apply to repugnancy under Article 254 when entries differ?
Are Sections 14 and 20 of the Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Act, 1976 repugnant to Sections 73, 74, 80 of the MV Act, 1988?

Rules

Use pith and substance to test repugnancy under Article 254.
If the dominant purpose of both laws differs, there is no repugnancy even if they touch allied subjects.

Article 254, Constitution of India MV Act, 1988 (Ss. 73, 74, 80) Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Act, 1976

Facts (Timeline)

Karnataka’s 1976 Carriages Act gave KSRTC exclusive rights over contract carriages and blocked private permit applications/renewals.

The Central MV Act, 1988 allowed Regional Transport Authorities to grant contract carriage permits (Ss. 73, 74, 80).

Private operators challenged Ss. 14 & 20 of the Carriages Act as repugnant to the MV Act, invoking Article 254.

The State argued the Carriages Act had Presidential assent and pursued nationalisation to curb abuse.

Question: Do the two laws collide, or can they stand together given their different aims?

Arguments

Petitioners (Private Operators)

MV Act, 1988 is later Union law; it overrides the State Act.
Permit scheme under MV Act conflicts with State monopoly.

State of Karnataka

State Act has Presidential assent and aims at nationalisation.
Subjects differ: nationalisation vs regulation—so no repugnancy.

Judgment (Held)

The Supreme Court upheld the Karnataka Carriages Act, 1976. There was no repugnancy. The State law’s core purpose was nationalisation and prevention of abuse. The MV Act’s purpose was regulation of motor vehicles. Different cores mean both laws can coexist. Petition dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi

Pith and substance governs repugnancy checks under Article 254.
Different dominant subjects → no conflict, even with surface overlap.
State monopoly (nationalisation) can stand with Union regulation.

Why It Matters

The case maps the federal balance. It tells students how to separate a law’s core aim from its side effects when testing repugnancy.

Key Takeaways

Start with the law’s dominant purpose.
Overlap on allied topics does not equal repugnancy.
Presidential assent strengthens a State Act’s position.
Nationalisation and regulation can function together.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “PITH WINS, CLASH THINS”

PITH – Find the core aim of each law.
WINS – If cores differ, each law stands.
CLASH THINS – Surface overlap is not real conflict.

3-Step Hook: (1) State core aim. (2) Compare cores. (3) If different, say “no repugnancy.”

IRAC Outline

Issue

Does Article 254 repugnancy arise between the Carriages Act, 1976 and MV Act, 1988?

Rule

Apply pith and substance: different dominant aims → no repugnancy, even with overlap.

Application

State law nationalises service; Central law regulates permits. Different cores.

Conclusion

No repugnancy; State Act upheld; petition dismissed.

Glossary

Pith and Substance: The true nature or dominant purpose of a law.
Repugnancy: Direct conflict between valid Union and State laws on the same subject.
Nationalisation: State takeover of a service to run it exclusively.