Question

Doctrine of occupied field is related to the interpretation of

• A. Article 14
• B. Article 21
• C. Article 254
• D. None of the above

Answer 1

Answer:

C. Article 254

• Article 254 deals with the inconsistency (repugnancy) between laws made by the Parliament (Union) and laws made by the Legislatures of States, particularly with respect to matters enumerated in the Concurrent List (List III of the Seventh Schedule).

The "Doctrine of Occupied Field" is a principle used by the Supreme Court of India in the context of Article 254 to determine repugnancy.

1. Repugnancy: Article 254 states that if a State law on a matter in the Concurrent List is repugnant (inconsistent) to a Parliamentary law, the Parliamentary law shall prevail, and the State law shall be void to the extent of the repugnancy.

2. The 'Occupied Field' Test: Repugnancy is not limited to a direct conflict (where one law says 'do' and the other says 'don't'). It also arises if the Parliamentary law is intended to be a complete and exhaustive code on that particular subject matter, thereby showing an intention to 'occupy the entire legislative field.'

3. Consequence: If Parliament is deemed to have 'occupied the field' by enacting a comprehensive law, any State law on the same subject (even if it does not directly contradict the Central law) will be considered void because the Central law has completely taken over that legislative domain.