Vijay Kumar Sharma vs State of Karnataka (1990)

This case is about a clash between a State transport law and a later Central motor vehicles law. The Karnataka government passed the Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Act, 1976. Under this Act, private contract carriage buses, their permits, and registration certificates were taken over by the State. Only the State Road Transport Corporation could run these contract carriages.

Later, the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, a Central law, came into force. The petitioners argued that the State Act and the Central Act were talking about the same area – permits and control of buses – and that there was a conflict, called repugnancy, under Article 254 of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court finally held that the Karnataka Act of 1976 was not repugnant to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Because the State Act had the President’s assent under Article 254(2) and its main purpose was to acquire and regulate contract carriages in public interest, it continued to be valid in Karnataka.

• Whether the Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Act, 1976 was repugnant to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, a later Central law, on the same broad subject of contract carriages and permits.
• If there was any conflict, whether under Article 254 the Central law should prevail and the State law should become void in Karnataka.
• What is the effect of President’s assent under Article 254(2) on the validity of a State law which overlaps with a Central law on a concurrent subject.

• Article 254 – Repugnancy
  When both Parliament and a State legislature make laws on a matter in the Concurrent List and there is a direct conflict, the Central law normally prevails and the conflicting part of the State law becomes void.
• Article 254(2) – President’s Assent
  If a State law on a concurrent subject, which is inconsistent with a Central law, has been reserved for and has received the President’s assent, that State law will prevail in that State, even though the Central law exists.
• Concurrent List – Entry 42
  Deals with acquisition and requisitioning of property. The Karnataka Act was linked to this entry because it acquired contract carriage buses and related rights.
• Directive Principles – Articles 31 and 39(b)
  These provisions support laws which aim to distribute material resources of the community to serve the common good. The State argued that the Act was in line with these principles by bringing the transport system under public control.
• Doctrine of Pith and Substance
  To decide whether two laws truly clash, the Court looks at the real nature and main purpose of each law. If the dominant purpose is different, they may not be repugnant, even if there is some overlap.