Eleanor Finch
The phrase repugnant to the Constitution has been invoked in several significant legal cases, notably in the United States and India. In the US, the concept was notably applied in the landmark Supreme Court case of Marbury v. Madison in 1803, which established the principle of judicial review and the power of the judiciary to invalidate laws deemed unconstitutional. This case created a precedent for the interpretation and enforcement of constitutional limits on government powers. In India, the Doctrine of Repugnancy, outlined in Article 254 of the Constitution, addresses conflicts between laws made by Parliament and State Legislatures, with a focus on maintaining the quasi-federal structure of the government.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Country | United States |
| Case | Marbury v. Madison |
| Year | 1803 |
| Decision | Established the right of the courts to determine the constitutionality of the actions of the other two branches of government |
| Doctrine | Judicial Review |
| Court | Supreme Court |
| Chief Justice | John Marshall |
| Law declared void | Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 |
| Other | The Doctrine of Repugnancy is contained in the Constitution of India |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
Marbury v. Madison
The case of Marbury v. Madison in 1801 was a significant event in American legal history, with far-reaching implications for the role of the judiciary and the interpretation of the US Constitution.
The case arose from a political dispute between outgoing President John Adams and incoming President Thomas Jefferson. In the final days of his presidency, Adams appointed several dozen Federalist Party supporters to judicial positions, including William Marbury as a judge in Maryland. Adams' secretary of state, John Marshall, prepared the commissions but was unable to deliver them all before Jefferson took office. Jefferson, a Democratic-Republican, believed these undelivered commissions were void and instructed his new secretary of state, James Madison, not to deliver them.
Marbury, who had strongly supported Adams, filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court in December 1801, asking the Court to issue a writ of mandamus forcing Madison to deliver his commission. The Court, now led by Chief Justice John Marshall, faced a difficult dilemma. On one hand, ruling in Marbury's favour might make the Court appear weak and highlight the judiciary's lack of power. On the other hand, ruling against Marbury would hand a clear political victory to Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans.
In its decision on February 24, 1803, the Supreme Court, in an opinion written by Chief Justice Marshall, held that Madison's refusal to deliver Marbury's commission was illegal. The Court acknowledged that Marbury had a legal right to his commission as it had been properly signed and sealed. However, the Court did not order Madison to comply. Instead, it examined the law defining its jurisdiction in such cases, Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, and found that it expanded the Court's jurisdiction beyond what was set out in the US Constitution. The Court then struck down Section 13, asserting the power of judicial review, which allows courts to invalidate laws that violate the Constitution.
In his opinion, Marshall emphasised the role of the judiciary in interpreting the law, famously writing, "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." He argued that the Constitution places limits on the government's powers, and these limits are meaningless without judicial review and enforcement. The Court's decision in Marbury v. Madison established the principle that laws repugnant to the Constitution are void, and it confirmed the power of the judiciary in interpreting and upholding the Constitution.
Texas Annexation: Constitution of 1845's Catalyst
You may want to see also
Doctrine of Repugnancy
The Doctrine of Repugnancy, as outlined in Article 254 of the Indian Constitution, addresses conflicts between laws enacted by the Central Government and those made by State Governments. It is invoked when there is an inconsistency or contradiction between two or more parts of a legal instrument, leading to different outcomes when applied to the same set of facts. This doctrine was established to resolve disputes regarding the scope, extent, and distribution of powers between the Centre and the States.
The doctrine states that if a State law contradicts or conflicts with a Central law within the Parliament's authority or a matter listed in List III (the Concurrent List), the Central law prevails, and the State law becomes void to the extent of its repugnancy. The timing of the laws' enactment is irrelevant. For instance, in Deep Chand v. State of U.P. (1959), the Supreme Court ruled that the Central law would prevail, and the State law would be void where both occupied the same field.
However, if a State law conflicts with a Central law on an entry in the Concurrent List, the State Act can prevail if it adheres to clause (2) of Article 254. Additionally, the constitutionality of a State law that encroaches on the Central List can be upheld by invoking the doctrine of "pith and substance" if it primarily falls within the State List and any encroachment is incidental.
The doctrine has been further clarified by the Supreme Court in cases like I.T.C Ltd. V. Agricultural Produce Market Committee and M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India, emphasising the prevalence of Central laws in cases of irreconcilable differences. The doctrine reflects the quasi-federal structure of the Constitution, delineating the powers of the Parliament and State legislatures to prevent inconsistencies and conflicts.
The concept of repugnancy is not unique to India, as similar principles exist in other democracies like the United States and Australia. In Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court of the United States established that laws repugnant to the Constitution are void, and courts have the power to invalidate such laws.
Qualities of a Representative: Constitutional Requirements
You may want to see also
Judicial review
The concept of "repugnant to the Constitution" has been invoked in various contexts, including in the United States and India. One notable example is the case of Marbury v. Madison in the United States in 1803, which established the principle of judicial review and the right of courts to determine the constitutionality of the actions of the other branches of government.
In Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote the famous words, "A Law repugnant to the Constitution is void," declaring a law passed by Congress and signed by the President unconstitutional for the first time. The case centred around William Marbury, who was issued a commission as a justice of the peace by outgoing President John Adams in 1801. However, the new Secretary of State, James Madison, refused to deliver the commission, leading Marbury to sue.
The Supreme Court held that Madison's refusal to deliver the commission was illegal and that Marbury had a legal right to it. The Court also examined the law defining its jurisdiction, finding that it expanded its jurisdiction beyond what was set forth in the US Constitution. As a result, the Court struck down the law, asserting its power to invalidate laws that violate the Constitution.
This case established the principle that the Constitution places limits on the government's powers, and those limits are meaningless unless subject to judicial review and enforcement. Marshall's opinion emphasised that the judiciary's role includes deciding the constitutionality of the laws it applies. This added an important check and balance to prevent any one branch of the US government from becoming too powerful.
In the context of India, the concept of "repugnancy" is addressed in the Constitution of India, 1950, specifically in Article 254 and related clauses. The Doctrine of Repugnancy deals with inconsistencies between laws made by Parliament and those made by State Legislatures. The doctrine outlines that when a State law comes into conflict with a Parliament law on the Concurrent List, the State Act prevails to the extent of the repugnancy, rendering the Central Act void if the State Act meets certain conditions. This mechanism maintains a balance between the powers of Parliament and State Legislatures.
Understanding Circular Motion: Proving the Circle's Path
You may want to see also
Explore related products
![A History of Violence (The Criterion Collection) [4K UHD]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/71lqpbUFtWL._AC_UY218_.jpg)
Judicial duty
The concept of a law being "repugnant to the constitution" has been invoked in various jurisdictions, including the United States and India.
United States
In the United States, the phrase "repugnant to the constitution" has been notably invoked in the landmark Supreme Court case of Marbury v. Madison in 1803. In this case, Chief Justice John Marshall established the principle of judicial review, declaring that:
> It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.
Marshall's opinion affirmed the power of the judiciary to review and invalidate laws that are found to be unconstitutional. This added an important check on the powers of the other branches of government, ensuring that no branch becomes too powerful. The case also established that Congress does not have the power to pass laws that override the Constitution.
India
In India, the concept of "repugnancy" is addressed in the country's constitution, specifically in Article 254 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI). This article deals with inconsistencies between laws made by Parliament and laws made by the Legislatures of States. The Doctrine of Repugnancy, as it is called, provides a mechanism to resolve conflicts between the powers of Parliament and State legislatures. It lays down the powers of each to avoid inconsistencies and conflicts, ensuring that a State law that is repugnant to a Central law on a matter in the Concurrent List will prevail if certain conditions are met.
James Madison: Father of the Constitution
You may want to see also
Checks and balances
The principle of checks and balances empowers separate branches of government to prevent actions by other branches, inducing a sharing of power. For example, in the US, Congress can appropriate funds, and each house serves as a check on possible abuses of power by the other. Congress can also initiate constitutional amendments to reverse Supreme Court decisions. The president appoints Supreme Court members, but only with the consent of the Senate, which also approves certain other executive appointments and treaties.
The importance of checks and balances is often cited in debates about the health of democracy, and their erosion is widely considered a sign of democratic backsliding. For example, in Hungary, Viktor Orbán's government enacted constitutional reforms that limited the power of the courts and increased state control over election and media regulators.
The concept of repugnancy, or the Doctrine of Repugnancy, is also related to checks and balances. This doctrine is contained in Article 254 of the Constitution of India, 1950, and deals with the inconsistency between laws made by Parliament and laws made by State Legislatures. It reflects the quasi-federal structure of the Constitution, clearly laying down the powers of Parliament and State Legislatures to avoid inconsistencies and conflicts.
Life Without the Constitution: A Chaotic Future
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The Doctrine of Repugnancy is contained in Article 254 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI). It deals with the inconsistency between laws made by Parliament and laws made by the Legislatures of States.
The Doctrine of Repugnancy has been invoked in the case of Atiabari Tea Co., Ltd v. State of Assam.
The Marbury v. Madison case established the right of the courts to determine the constitutionality of the actions of the other two branches of government. It also established the principle of judicial review, an important addition to the system of checks and balances.
The principle of judicial review states that the Constitution is a superior paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, and that a legislative act contrary to the Constitution is not law.
Marshall wrote that it is the duty of the judiciary to interpret the law and decide which of the conflicting rules governs the case. He said that the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature and must be followed in cases where there is a conflict.
