One statute for two different legislative entries is possible, read the judgment

April 05, 2019: One statute can contain provisions referable to different legislative fields provided in the seventh schedule of the Constitution. If the Statute is on Money Lending which is the subject matter of State List also covers some provision related to transfer of property which is subject matter of concurrent list, there cannot be a case of legislative incompetence of the state and the issue has to be resolved on the strength of repugnancy test given in Article-254.

Justice Joseph speaking for a two judges bench of the Supreme Court has passed the judgment titled as ATUL CHANDRA DAS vs RABINDRA NATH BHATTACHARYA on 04.04.2019 and talked about a state money lending act containing provision related to transfer of property in contradiction with the central law.

The contention taken in the instant appeal is that Section 37(a) of the Bengal Money-Lenders Act, 1940 is repugnant to Section 58(c) of the Central Act namely, the Transfer of Property Act. The contention runs as follows:- Money lending falls as entry (30) in the State List. Transfer of Property other than agricultural land falls in Entry 6 in the concurrent list. The State legislature in enacting Section 37(a) of the State Act, a law relating to money lending has made a law which is inconsistent and therefore, repugnant to the law made by the Parliament in Section 58(c) of the Transfer of Property Act.

Though this contention was taken for the first time in the Supreme Court, the Court dealt with the same and found not merit as Section 37(A) is traceable to the Entry ‘Transfer of Property’ which is found in the concurrent list.

In this case proceeding on the basis that there is an inconsistency between Section 58(c) of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 37(A) of the State Act, in view of the assent given by the President, the matter falls under Article 254(2). Therefore, despite the inconsistency, Section 37(A) of the State Act will prevail in the State.

The Court observed “The argument that being part of State Act which is the Money Lending Act and Money lending is in the state list and therefore, it is a case of legislative, incompetence, does not appeal to us. We have found that the provisions of 37(A) is traceable to the Entry ‘Transfer of Property’ in the Concurrent List and that Article 254(2) saves the provision”.

Read the judgment here:

Picture Source :