Doctrine of Occupied Field - Indian Laws - General

PRABHAKAR DATTATRAYA GUNE VERSUS VISHNUKANT BAPURAO URANKAR- [ 2013 (8) TMI 1046 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY] 40. Articles 246 and 254 of the Constitution of India enact the doctrine of occupied field. That doctrine envisages that the State Legislation must giveway or yield to the Parliamentary/ Central Legislation. Both cannot stand together. 62. Doctrine of Occupied Field has been explained in a Constitution Bench Decision of the Fatehchand Himmatlal Others Versus State Of Maharashtra Etc. - 1977 (1) TMI 162 - Supreme Court in the following words: 62. In the Canadian Constitution, the question of conflict and coincidence in the domain in which provincial and Dominion legislation overlap has been considered. If both may overlap and coexist without conflict, neither legislation is ultra vires. But if there is confrontation and conflict the question of paramountcy and occupied field may crop up. It has been held that the rule as to predominance of Dominion legislation can only be invoked in case of absolutely conflicting legislation in pari materia when it will be an impossibility to give effect to both the Dominion and provincial enactments. There must be a real conflict between the two Acts i.e. the two enactments must come into collision. The doctrine of Dominion paramountcy does not operate merely because the Dominion has legislated on the same subject matter. The doctrine of 'occupied field' applies only where there is a clash between Dominion Legislation and Provincial Legislation within an area common to both. Where both can coexist peacefully, both reap their respective harvests (Please see: Canadian Constitutional Law by Laskin pp. 52 54, 1951 Edn). 63. We may sum up the legal position to the extent necessary for our case. Where Parliament has made a law under Entry 52 of List I and in the course of it framed incidental provisions affecting gold loans and moneylending business involving gold ornaments, the State, making a law on a different topic but covering in part the same area of 'gold loans', must not go into irreconcilable conflicts. Of course, if Article 254(2) can be invoked - we will presently examine it - then the State law may still prevail since the assent of the President has been obtained for the Debt Act. Thirdly, the doctrine of 'occupied field' does not totally deprive the State Legislature from making any law incidentally referrable to gold. In the event of a plain conflict, the State law must step down unless, as pointed out earlier in the previous passage, Article 254(2) comes to the rescue.