Introduction 

• This is a landmark judgment relating to the rules of repugnancy under the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI).  
• This bench delivering the judgment comprised of Justice Syed Murtaza Fazalali, Justice YV Chandrachud, Justice PN Bhagwati, Justice NL Untwalia and Justice RS Pathak. 

Facts 

• The Madras Legislature passed the Tamil Nadu Public Men (Criminal Misconduct) Act, 1973, (State Act, 1973) in December 1973, after receiving the President's assent. 
  • The Act was amended by Act 16 of 1974, with the President's assent obtained on April 10, 1974. 
  • The provisions of the Act were brought into force on May 8, 1974. 
• The State Act, 1973 provided for investigations into allegations of criminal misconduct against "public men," as defined in Section 2(c), which explicitly excluded government servants. 
• Investigations were to be conducted by a Commissioner or Additional Commissioner of Inquiries. 
• The State Act, 1973 was repealed in 1977, with the President's assent to the repealing Act given on 6th , 1977. 
• The case against the appellant who was former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu is as follows: 
  • The appellant was alleged to have abused his official position in the purchase of wheat from Punjab, resulting in a pecuniary advantage of Rs. 4–5 lakhs. 
  • The Chief Secretary to the Tamil Nadu Government requested the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on 15th June, 1976, to investigate these allegations. 
  • Following the Governor's sanction, a charge sheet was filed against the appellant under Sections 161, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 
• The appellant applied for discharge under Section 239 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), citing legal and constitutional infirmities in the prosecution. 
• The Special Judge rejected the application, and the High Court also dismissed the appellant’s request to quash the proceedings. 
• Contentions raised by the Appellant in the Supreme Court are as follows: 
  • The appellant argued that the Central Acts could not apply after being repealed protanto by the State Act, unless re-enacted by the legislature. 
  • He contended that as a Chief Minister, he was a constitutional functionary and not a "public servant" under Section 21(12) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). 
  • The appellant claimed procedural discrepancies between the State and Central Acts: 
    • The State Act replaced investigation by a Central agency with a commissioner. 
    • The State Act bypassed the requirement for sanction under Section 197 of the CrPC. 
  • He argued that the State Act, having received the President’s assent, was the dominant legislation overriding the Central Acts. 

Issues Involved  

• Whether the State Act, 1973 is repugnant with the Central Act in the present case? 
• Whether Chief Minister is a public servant under Section 21 (12) of IPC? 

Observation  

• The Court observed the circumstances of repugnancy are as follows: 
  • When a Central Act and State Act on any subject in the Concurrent List are fully inconsistent, the Central Act prevails. (Article 254 (1) of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI))  
  • A State Act inconsistent with a Central Act may prevail in the State if it has the President's assent, until overridden by Parliament. (Article 254 (2) of the COI) 
  • Pith and Substance Doctrine: If a State Act primarily falls under the State List, incidental encroachments on the Union List do not render it invalid. 
  • When State and Central Acts create separate offenses, no repugnancy arises. 
• It was observed that following are the requirements for repugnancy: 
  • Repugnancy arises only if provisions of Central and State Acts are directly inconsistent and irreconcilable. 
  •  Both Acts can coexist if they cover the same field but operate independently without direct conflict. 
• Further, Section 29 of the State Act clarifies that the State Act supplements existing Central Acts like the Indian Penal Code, Prevention of Corruption Act, and Criminal Law (Amendment) Act. 
• Thus, Section 29 ensures that the State Act does not exempt public officials from investigations under Central Acts, avoiding conflicts. 
• Regarding the status of the Chief Minister as ‘public servant’ it was held: 
  • The Chief Minister, though a constitutional functionary, receives a salary from the government for performing public duties, fulfilling the definition under Section 21(12) of the IPC. 
  • As per Articles 167 and related provisions, the Chief Minister’s salary originates from government funds, linking the role to public service. 
• Thus, following conclusions were made by the Court on repugnancy and the status of the Chief Minister: 
  • The State Act and Central Acts do not conflict; they coexist to address criminal misconduct effectively. 
  • The Chief Minister, by virtue of receiving government salary and performing public duties, qualifies as a public servant. 

Conclusion 

• This is a landmark judgment which lays down what would constitute repugnancy under the COI. 
• The Court in this case importantly held that repugnancy occurs only if the provisions of the State and Central Act are inconsistent and irreconcilable.   
• The Court also held in this case that the Chief Minister is a public servant under Section 21 (12) of IPC.