# THE SECURITY ASSOCIATION OF INDIA & ANR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

- **Citation:** [2014] 9 S.C.R. 880
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2014-04-25
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 8814 of 2011
- **Bench:** Gyan Sudha Misra, Pinaki Chandra Ghose
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/the-security-association-of-india-anr-v-union-of-india-ors-30231
- **Pages:** 40

## Headnote

Constitution of India, 1950 - Arts. 246 and 254 and
C Seventh Schedule, List Ill - Issue pertaining to repugnancy
of the State Act in light of the Central Act - When arises -
Held: Only if it is found that the two enactments cover the same
matter substantially and there is a direct and irreconcilable
D
conflict between the two, the issue of repugnancy arises.
Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005 -
Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of
Employment & Welfare) Act, 1981 - Question of repugnancy
of the 1981 State Act in light of the 2005 Central Act -
E Whether after enactment of the 2005 Central Act by the
Parliament, the 1981 State Act is not applicable to the private
security agencies - Held: The subject matter of the two Acts
in question are substantially different - The two Acts operate
in different fields and there is only incidental connection
F between the two regarding the regulation of private security
agencies - The 2005 Central Act does not occupy the field
of labour welfare and thereby there cannot be any conflict
between the 1981 State Act and the 2005 Central Act - There
is no repugnancy between the 1981 State Act and the 2005
Central Act-in the given facts.
G
Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of
Employment & Welfare) Act, 1981 - Challenge to -
On
ground of being violative of Arts. 14 and 19 of the Constitution
- Held: Not tenable - Restrictions imposed by the Act are
H
880
SECURITY ASSOCIATION OF INDIA v. UNION OF
881
INDIA
reasonable restrictions envisioned by the Constitution and
A
protect the rights and ensure the welfare of private security
guards engaged by private security agencies by means of
s. 23 and relevant provisions of the Scheme of 2002 - The
Act does not violate Articles 14 and 19 or any other
Fundamental Rights contained in the Constitution -
B
Maharashtra Private Security (Regulation of Employment and
Welfare) Scheme of 2002.
Interpretation of Statutes -
Presumption towards
constitutionality of a Statute -Held: Courts should proceed to
construe a Statute with a view to uphold its constitutionality.
C
Dismissing the appeals and disposing of the
contempt petitions, the Court
HELD:1.1. Prior to determining whether there is any o
repugnancy or not, it has to be determined that the State
Act and the Central Act both relate to the same entry in
List-Ill and there is a 'direct' and irreconcilable' conflict
between the two. i.e. both the provisions cannot stand
together. Only if it is found that the two enactments cover
E
the same matter substantially and there is a direct and
irreconcilable conflict between the two, the issue of
repugnancy arises. [Paras 46, 47] [912-C, E-F]
1 ;2. In the case at hand, the subject matters of the
two Acts in question, viz. the Private Security Agencies
F
(Regulation) Act, 2005 (the Central Act) and the
Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of
Employment & Welfare) Act, 1981 (the State Act) are
substantially different and the conflict in the operation of
the two Acts is incidental. Both the Acts operate in
G
different fields and there is only incidental connection
between the two regarding the regulation of private
security agencies. The two statutes occupy distinct
fields. There is no repugnancy between the State Act and
the Central Act in the given facts. The Central Act does
H
882
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014] 9 S.C.R.
A
not occupy the field of labour welfare and thereby there
cannot be any conflict between the State Act and the
Central Act. The question of applicability of the Central
Act and the State Act apply concurrently. [Paras 50, 52
and 55] [913-F-G; 916-E-F; 918-G]
B
Welfare Association, A.R.P., Maharashtra & Anr. vs.
Ranjit P. Gohil & Ors. 2003 (2) SCR 139 = (2003) 9 SCC
358; State of Andhra Pradesh vs. K. Purushottam Reddy &
Ors. 2003 (2) SCR 832 = (2003) 9 SCC 564; State of Gujarat
C vs. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat & Ors. 2005 (4)
Suppl. SCR 582 = (2005) 8 SCC 534; State of MP vs .
. Rakesh Kohli & Anr. 20

## Text

_Characters 0–39,997 of 78,500. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39997 for what follows._

A
B
[2014] 9 S.C.R. 880
THE SECURITY ASSOCIATION OF INDIA & ANR.
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
· (Civil Appeal No. 8814 of 2011)
APRIL 25, 2014
[GYAN SUDHA MISRA AND
PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, JJ.]
Constitution of India, 1950 - Arts. 246 and 254 and
C Seventh Schedule, List Ill - Issue pertaining to repugnancy
of the State Act in light of the Central Act - When arises -
Held: Only if it is found that the two enactments cover the same
matter substantially and there is a direct and irreconcilable
D
conflict between the two, the issue of repugnancy arises.
Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005 -
Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of
Employment & Welfare) Act, 1981 - Question of repugnancy
of the 1981 State Act in light of the 2005 Central Act -
E Whether after enactment of the 2005 Central Act by the
Parliament, the 1981 State Act is not applicable to the private
security agencies - Held: The subject matter of the two Acts
in question are substantially different - The two Acts operate
in different fields and there is only incidental connection
F between the two regarding the regulation of private security
agencies - The 2005 Central Act does not occupy the field
of labour welfare and thereby there cannot be any conflict
between the 1981 State Act and the 2005 Central Act - There
is no repugnancy between the 1981 State Act and the 2005
Central Act-in the given facts.
G
Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of
Employment & Welfare) Act, 1981 - Challenge to -
On
ground of being violative of Arts. 14 and 19 of the Constitution
- Held: Not tenable - Restrictions imposed by the Act are
H
880
SECURITY ASSOCIATION OF INDIA v. UNION OF
881
INDIA
reasonable restrictions envisioned by the Constitution and
A
protect the rights and ensure the welfare of private security
guards engaged by private security agencies by means of
s. 23 and relevant provisions of the Scheme of 2002 - The
Act does not violate Articles 14 and 19 or any other
Fundamental Rights contained in the Constitution -
B
Maharashtra Private Security (Regulation of Employment and
Welfare) Scheme of 2002.
Interpretation of Statutes -
Presumption towards
constitutionality of a Statute -Held: Courts should proceed to
construe a Statute with a view to uphold its constitutionality.
C
Dismissing the appeals and disposing of the
contempt petitions, the Court
HELD:1.1. Prior to determining whether there is any o
repugnancy or not, it has to be determined that the State
Act and the Central Act both relate to the same entry in
List-Ill and there is a 'direct' and irreconcilable' conflict
between the two. i.e. both the provisions cannot stand
together. Only if it is found that the two enactments cover
E
the same matter substantially and there is a direct and
irreconcilable conflict between the two, the issue of
repugnancy arises. [Paras 46, 47] [912-C, E-F]
1 ;2. In the case at hand, the subject matters of the
two Acts in question, viz. the Private Security Agencies
F
(Regulation) Act, 2005 (the Central Act) and the
Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of
Employment & Welfare) Act, 1981 (the State Act) are
substantially different and the conflict in the operation of
the two Acts is incidental. Both the Acts operate in
G
different fields and there is only incidental connection
between the two regarding the regulation of private
security agencies. The two statutes occupy distinct
fields. There is no repugnancy between the State Act and
the Central Act in the given facts. The Central Act does
H
882
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014] 9 S.C.R.
A
not occupy the field of labour welfare and thereby there
cannot be any conflict between the State Act and the
Central Act. The question of applicability of the Central
Act and the State Act apply concurrently. [Paras 50, 52
and 55] [913-F-G; 916-E-F; 918-G]
B
Welfare Association, A.R.P., Maharashtra & Anr. vs.
Ranjit P. Gohil & Ors. 2003 (2) SCR 139 = (2003) 9 SCC
358; State of Andhra Pradesh vs. K. Purushottam Reddy &
Ors. 2003 (2) SCR 832 = (2003) 9 SCC 564; State of Gujarat
C vs. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat & Ors. 2005 (4)
Suppl. SCR 582 = (2005) 8 SCC 534; State of MP vs .
. Rakesh Kohli & Anr. 2012 (6) SCR 661 = (2012) 6 SCC 312;
Offshore Holding Pvt. Ltd vs. Bangalore Development
Authority & Ors. 2011 ~1) SCR 453 = (2011) 3 SCC 139;
State of West Bengal vs. Kesoram Industries & Ors. 2004 (1)
D
SCR 564 = (2004) 10 SCC 201; Deep Chand vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh & Ors .. 1959 Suppl. SCR 8 =AIR 1959 SC
648; Hoechst Pharamaceuticals Ltd & Ors. vs. State· of Bihar
& Ors. 1983 (3) SCR 130: (1983) 4 SCC 45; M. Karunanidhi
vs. Union of India & Anr. 1979 (3) SCR 254 = (1979) 3 SCC
E
431; Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors vs. J.B.
Educational Society & Anr. 2005 (2) SCR 302 = (2005) 3
SCC 212; Vijay Kumar Sharma & Ors. vs. State of Kamataka
& Ors. 1990 (1) SCR 614 = (1990) 2 SCC 562; State of Uttar
Pradesh & Anr. vs. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. & Anr.
F
(1991) 4 SCC 139 and State of Bihar & Ors. vs. Shree
Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan (P.) Ltd. & Ors. 2005 (1)
SCR 334 = (2005) 2 sec 762 - relied on.
Mis Tradesvel Security Services vs. State of Maharashtra
G 1982 Born LR Vol. LXXXIV 608 - appr.oved.
In re Special Reference No. 1 of 2000, 2004 (3)
SCR 534 = (2004) 4 SCC 489; Security Guards Board for
GreaterBombay and Thane District vs. Security & Personnel
Services Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. 1987 (3) SCR 19 : (1987) 3 SCC
H 413; Maharashtra Suraksha Rakshak Aghadi vs. State of
SECURITY ASSOCIATION OF INDIA v. UNION OF
883
INDIA
A
Maharashtra; State of Punjab vs. Labour Court, Jallundhar &
Ors.1980 (1) SCR 953 : (1980) 1 SCC 4; Premier
Automobiles Ltd. vs. Kamlekar Shantaram Wadke of Bombay
& Ors.1976 (1) SCR 427 :(1976) 1 SCC 496; Krantikari
Suraksha Rakshak Sanghatana vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam
Limited & Ors. 2008 (1.2) SCR 649 : (2008) 10 SCC 166;
B
Bharathidasan University & Anr. vs. All India Council for
Technical Education & Ors. 2001 (3) Suppl. SCR 253 :
(2001) 8 SCC 676; State of West Bengal & Ors. vs.
Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights of West Bengal
& Ors. 201 o (2) SCR 979 = (201 O) 3 ·sec 571; State of C
Maharashtra vs. Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra
Mahavidya/aya & Ors. 2006 (3) SCR 638 = (2006) 9 SCC
1; Thirumuruga Kirupananda Variyar Thavathiru Sundara
Swamiga/ Medical Educational & Charitable Trust vs. State
of Tamil Nadu & Ors. 1996 (2) SCR, 422 = (1996) 3. SCC D
15; H.S. Srinivasa Raghavachar & Ors vs. State of Karnataka
& Ors. 1987 (2) SCR 1189 =
(1987) 2 SCC 692; State of
Kera/a & Ors. vs. Mar Appraem Kuri Company Limited & Anr.
2012 (4) SCR 448 = (2012) 7 SCC 106; P. V. Hemlatha v.
Kattamkandi Puthiya Maliacka/ Saheeda, 2002 (3) E
SCR 1098 = (2002) 5 SCC 548; Ashoka Marketing Ltd. &
Anr vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors. 1990 (3) SCR 649 =
(1990) 4 SCC 406; Zaverbhai Amaidas vs. State of Bombay
(1955] 1 SCR 799; State of Orissa vs. M.A. Tulloch and Co.
(1964] 4 SCR 461; K.P. Varghese vs. Income Tax Officer F
1982 (1) SCR 629 = (1981) 4 SCC 173; State of Tamil Nadu
vs. Mahi Traders & Ors. 1989 (1) SCR 445 = (1989) 1 SCC
724; Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing Company vs. Mis Bharat
Coking Coal Ltd. & Anr. 1983 (1) SCR 1000 = (1983) 1 SCC
147; NDMC Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. 1996 (10) Suppl. G
' SCR 472 = (f997) 7 SCC 339; Pathumma & Ors vs. State
of Kera/a & Ors. 1978 (2) SCR 537 = (1978) 2 SCC 1; Rajiv
Sarin & Anr. vs. State of Uttarakhand & Ors. 2011 (9)
SCR1012= (2011) 8 SCC 708; Gram Panchayat vs.
H
884
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014] 9 S.C.R.
A Ma/winder Singh & Ors. (1985) 3 SCC 661; Gimar Traders
vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2011 (3 ) SCR 1. = (2011) 3
SCC 1, State of Rajasthan vs. Vatan Medical &,General Store
& ors. 2001 (2) SCR 729 = (2001) 4 sec 642; K. K.
Bhaskaran vs. State 2011 (3) SCR 527 = (2011) 3 SCC
B 793; H. C. Narayanappa & Ors. vs. State of Mysore & Ors.
1960 SCR 742 =AIR 1960 SC 1073; Khoday Distilleries Ltd
& Ors. vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. 1994 (4) Suppl. SCR
477 = (1995) 1 sec 574 - referred to.
C
Maharashtra ({ajya Suraksha Rakshak and General
Kamgar Union and Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
(1994) lllLLJ 946 Born; and Krantikari Suraksha Rakshak
Sanghatana vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2006 (6) ALL
MR 401 - referred to.
D
Canadian Western Bank vs. Alberta [2007] Canadian
S.C.R. 3 - referred to.
Case Law Reference:
1982· Born LR Vol. LXXXIV 608 approved Para 3
E
1987 (3) SCR 19
referred to
Para 5
1980 (1) SCR 953
referred to
Para 14
1976 (1) SCR 427
referred to
Para 14
F
2008 (12) SCR 649
referred to
Para 14
2001 (3) Suppl. SCR 253
referred to
Para 15
1983 (3) SCR 130
relied on
Para 17
G
2005 (2) SCR 302
relied on
Para 17
2010 (2) SCR 979
referred to
Para 17
2006 (3) SCR 638
referred to
Para 17
H
1996 (2) SCR 422
referred to
Para 18
SECURITY ASSOCIATION OF INDIA v. UNION OF
885
INDIA
1987 (2) SCR 1189
referred to
Para 22
A
2012 (4) SCR448
referred to
Para 23
2002 (3) SCR 1098
referred to
Para 24
1990 (3) SCR 649
referred to
Para 24
B
•
[1955] 1 SCR 799
referred to
Para 24
1959 Suppl. SCR 8
relied on
Para 24
[1964] 4 SCR 461
referred to
Para 24
1982 (1) SCR 629
referred to
c
Para 24
1989 (1) SCR 445
referred to
Para 24
1983 (1) SCR 1000
referred to
Para 30
1996 (10) Suppl. SCR 472 referred to
Para 30
D
2005 (4) Suppl. SCR 582
relied on
Para 31
1978 (2) SCR 537
referred to
Para 31
2011 (9) SCR 1012
referred to
Para 31
E
(1985) 3 sec 661
referred to
Para 31
2011 (1) SCR 453
relied on
Para 32
2011 (3)_ SCR 1
referred to
Para 32
F
c2011) 3 sec 1
referred to
Para 32
2001 (2) SCR 729
referred to
Para 32
2005 (1) SCR 334
relied on
Para 32
2011 (3) SCR 527
referred to
Para 33
G
1979 (3) SCR 254
relied on
Para 33
1990 (1) SCR 614
relied on
Para 33
H
A
B
c
D
E
886
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014] 9 S.C.R. _
1960 SCR 742
referred to
Para 35
1994 (4) Suppl. SCR 477
referred to
Para 35
[2007] Canadian S.C.R. 3
referred to
Para 39
2003 (2) SCR 139
relied on
Para 44
2003 (2) SCR 832
relied on
Para 45
2012 (6) SCR 661
relied on
Para 45
2004 (1) SCR 564
relied on
Para 47
2004 (3) SCR 534
referred to
Para 48
(1991) 4 sec 139
relied on
Para 55
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
8814 of 2011.
From the Judgment & Order dated 14.08.2009 in WP No.
1804/2007 of the High Court of Bombay.
WITH
C.A. No. 8670, 8671, 8673, 8709/2011.
Contempt. Pet. (C) No. 268 of 2010 in Contempt Petition
(C) No. 68 of 2010.
F
Contempt Pet. (C) No. 68 of 2010 in C.A. No. 8814 of
2011, C.A. No. 4889 of 2014.
J.P. Cama, C.U. Singh, J.S. Attri, Krishnan Venugopal,
Anand Grover, Sumit Goel, Shashank, Aditya Sharma, R.D.
G Suvarna (Parekh & Co.), Meenakshi Chattarji, Ashish Jha
("Coac"), Ashok Mathur, R. Sudhinder, Sunita Sharma, Manita
Verma, B.K. Prasad, S.N. Terdal, Priyanka Bharihoke, Aparna
Bhat, Parul Kumari, Gopal Singh, Devvrat, Vimal Chandra S.
Dave, 'Amardev J. U11Jiyal, Udai V.S. Rathore, A. Ragbunath,
H Ramesh K. Mishra, Krishna Kr. Singh, Rohit Kumar Singh,
SECURITY ASSOCIATION OF INDIA v. UNION OF
887
INDIA [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.]
Uday B. Dube, Mihir Samson, Asha Gopalan Nair, Jayesh
A
Kanaksinh Ashar for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J. 1. Leave granted in
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.8979 cif 2013.
B
2. The present batch of appeals has arisen from the
common judgment and order dated 14th August, 2009 passed
by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in a batch of writ
petitions being Writ Petition Nos. 1804 of 2007, 64 of 2004, c
2316 of 2008 and 200 of 2008.
3. The High Court by means of the common impugned
judgment disposed of the writ petitions filed by various security
agencies which claimed that after enactment of the Private
Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred
D
to as the "Central Act") by the Parliament, the Maharashtra
Private Security Guards (Regulation of Employment & Welfare)
Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the "State Act") is nol
applicable to the private security agencies and if the State Act
remains in operation with respect to private security agencies
E
then the State Government be directed to expeditiously pass
orders on the pending applications for exemption under the
provisions of the State Act as allowed under Section 23 of the
State Act. The High Court found the State Act to be in
consonance with the Central Act and directed the State
F
Government to pass orders on the applications for exemption
or applications for renewal o1 exemption filed by the security
agencies.
4. As the present appeals challenge the validity of a State
G
Act in light of a Central Act, the legislative history of the same
has to be examined in the light of the current facts. The State
Act which came into force on June 29, 1981 received the
Presidential assent envisaged under Article 200 of the
Constitution of India on September 24, 1981. Under the said
H
888
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2014] 9 S.C.R.
A
Act, the Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of
Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1981 (hereinafter referred
to as 'Scheme of 1981 ') was put into place. The constitutional
validity of the State Act was challenged before the Bombay
High Court in Mis Tradesve/ Security Services vs. State of
B
Maharashtra 1 and the High Court vide its order dated
November 2, 1982 upheld the Act on the ground of it being a
complete Code and allowed exemptions under Section 23 at
initial stage only. The matters came before this Court as special
leave petitions which were dismissed in 1983 and the Scheme
c
of 1981 was stayed with a direction to the State Government
to dispose of all the applications for exemptions and the same
order was subsequently modified directing that the scheme be
brought into force.
D
E
F
5. The State Government duly considered and rejected all
the applications and twenty five writ petitions were filed before
the High Court challenging the rejection by the State
Government. These writs were dismissed and the Division
Bench while disposing of the appeals arising therefrom, vide
order dated July 11, 1985 stated that the applications were
rejected as a result of a policy decision not to grant exemption
and the same is incorrect, therefore it was directed that the
exemption applications be considered afresh on a case by
case basis. Against the same, the Security Guards Board
constituted under Section 6 of the State Act, filed special leave
petitions before this Court. The said special leave petitions
were disposed of in term of the order passed by this Court on
April 28, 1987 in Security Guards Board for Greater Bombay
and Thane District vs. Security & Personnel Services Pvt. Ltd.
& Ors. 2, holding that the State Act being a welfare statute is
G
enacted to prevent exploitation, that exemption is not for any
security guard but security guards working in factories or
establishments and the like and that agencies can also apply
for the same.
1.
1982 Born LR Vol. LXXXXIV 608.
H 2.
(1987) 3 sec 413.
SECURITY ASSOCIATION OF INDIA v. UNION OF
889
INDIA [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.]
6. The State Government vide Notification dated March 28,
A
1990 under Section 23 of the State Act granted exemption to
security guards supplied by private security agencies without
any reference to a class or classes of factories. The said
Notification was challenged by the Trade Unions before the
High Court in Maharashtra Rajya Suraksha Rakshak and
B
General Kamgar Union and Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra and
Ors. 3. The High Court relying on the judgment of this Court in
Security Guards Board for Greater Bombay and Thane District
vs. Security & Personnel Services Pvt. Ltd & Ors. (supra) and
struck down the said Notification on the ground that exemption c
under Section 23 of the State Act can only be granted to security
guards in relation to a class or classes of factories and
establishments which were not mentioned in the Notification.
A Special Leave Petition was filed against the aforementioned
decision of the High Court and this Court issued directions that D
State Government should make certain clarifications by way of
amendments in the State Act
7. Subsequently, the State Act was amended by the
Maharashtra Private Security (Regulation of Employment and
Welfare) Amendment Act, 1996 and the amending Act explicitly
E
stated that the amendments are clarificatory in nature. It must
be noted that the amendments to the State Act were challenged
in Krantikari Suraksha Rakshak Sanghatana vs. State of
Maharashtra & Ors4• and the Division Bench upheld the
amendments vide order dated October 10, 2006, and stated
F
that the amendments only removed the ambiguities in the State
Act. In these backdrop facts arise Civil Appeal No. 8814 of
2011.
8. Appellant No.1 in this appeal is an Association of private G
security agencies (hereinafter referred to as the "Appellant
Association") whose members are engaged in the business of
employing training, outfitting and equipping security guards and
3.
(rn94) lllLLJ 946 Born.
4.
2006 (6) ALL MR 401.
H
-890
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014] 9 S.C.R.
A thereafter providing and/or supplying exempted security guards
to their clients/principal employers. Appellant No.2 is a member
of the Appellant Association.
9. Prior to January, 1997, some members of the Appellant
8
Association on application had obtained an exemption under
Section 23 of the State Act read with the Scheme of 1981 vide
a common Notification dated January 22, 1997 and amended
by Notification dated March 1, 1999. It has been claimed that
the agencies named in the Notification had sought renewal of
C exmeptions and that respondent No.6 being the State of
Maharashtra (hereinafter referred to as "respondent State")
failed and neglected to renew the said Notification, which led
to the filing of several writ petitions. Pursuant to the orders of
the High Court, tha members of the Appellant Association
continued to carry out their business.
D
10. In November 2002 the respondent State framed the
Maharshtra Private Security (Regulation of Employment and
Welfare) Scheme, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'Scheme of
2002'), replacing the Scheme of 1981. The Scheme of 2002
E was challenged in Maharashtra Suraksha Rakshak Aghadi vs.
State of Maharashtra in W.P. No.1085/2003 and upheld by the
Bombay High Court in the same writ by an order dated June
23, 2003. Subsequently, some of the members of the Appellant
Association, on application, obtained exemptions in respect of
F the security guards employed by them and deployed at the
establishments of tneir client/principal employers for a period
of three years each. Some of the notifications were to expire
in July, 2006 and some in 2007. Though all the concerned
agencies duly applied for renewal of exemption notifications,
G it has been alleged that the State Government wilfully and
deliberately delayed the consideration and decision on all such
applications for exemption.
11. The Parliament enacted the 'The Private Security
Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005' (hereinafter referred to as tne ·
H
SECURITY ASSOCIATION OF INDIA v. UNION OF
891
INDIA [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.]
"Central Act") which came into force on March 14, 2006. Under A
the provisions of the Central Act, the State of Maharashtra along
with other States were required to appoint the Controlling
Authority as contemplated under Section 3 thereof and frame
rules as contemplated under Section 25 of the Central Act.
However, it has been stated that the respondent State failed
B
to appoint any Controlling Authority or frame rules, as a result
of which the members of the Appellant Association could not
obtain the requisite licences under the Central Act. Some of
the members of the Appellant Association, therefore, filed a writ
petition before the High Court in September, 2006, inter alia,
C
praying for a direction to the respondent State for appointing
forthwith the Controlling Authority and framing the rules. Writ
Petition No.2633 of 2006 along with some other writ petitions
were disposed by the High Court as the writ petitioners did not
press the same when they learnt that the respondent State was
D
in the process of complying with the Central Act.
12. On February 23, 2007, the State of Maharashtra
designated the Principal Secretary (Special), Home
Department, Government of Maharashtra (respondent No.2
herein) as the Controlling Authority and his powers and
E
functions were delegated to respondent Nos.3 to 5. By
Notification dated 14th March, 2007, the State of Maharashtra
framed "The Maharashtra Private Security Agencies
(Regufation) Rules, 2007". Thereafter, the members of the
Appellant f.ssociation made applications for issue of licences
F
under Section 7 of the Central Act so as to enable them to carry
on their business of security agency but the same were not
issued by the authorities concerned. The Security Guards
Board for Greater Mumbai and Thane District (hereinafter
referred to as "the Board") started threatening the principal
G
employers with prosecution under the State Act unless the
principal employers get themselves registered with the Board
and engage security guards of the Board. The members of the
Appellant Association and their clients/principal employers
started receiving show cause notices for prosecuting them.
H
892
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014] 9 S.C.R.
A
13. Aggrieved by the aforementioned act of the Board, the
members of the Appellant Association filed writ petitions
before the Bombay High Court. Upon the statement made by
the learned Advocate General that all the applications filed by
the writ petitioners under Section 23 of the State Act would be
B
decided by the State Government within a period of three
months, the High Court directed the Board not to take coercive
action against the writ petitioners. The High Court by a common
judgment and order dated August 14, 2009 disposed of all the
writ petitions but directed the interim order to continue for a
c
period of eight weeks. The appellants are thus before us in
these appeals.
14. Mr. J. P. Gama, learned senior counsel, who was
leading the case of the appellants in the titled appeal, during
the course of hearings submitted a Note, comparing the State
D
Act, and the Central Act and on the basis of the same it has
been contended by him that the two enactments are in the
nature of a 'complete code' as they specify the rights, duties
and obligations of the parties governed and that there is no
provision in either of the enactments making the Central Act
E
subject to any pre-condition of the State Act. In support of the
same, he submitted this Court's decisions in State of Punjab
vs. Labour Court, Jallundhar & Ors. 5, Premier Automobiles
Ltd. vs. Kamlekar Shantaram Wadke of Bombay & Ors6. and
that in Krantikari Suraksha Rakshak Sanghatana vs. Bharat
F
Sanchar Nigam Limited & Ors7• In those cases, this Court
while dealing with the same State Act held that the State Act
is a self contained Code applying only to the pool guards i.e
the Board Guards. It has been contended that the High Court
erroneously concluded that there is nothing in common between
G the two acts under different entries of the Union List and
Concurrent List; because then it is ex-facie unsustainable for
the High Court to hold that the operation of the Central Act must
s.
(1980) 1 sec 4
6.
(1976) 1 sec 496
H
7.
(2008) 10 sec 166
SECURITY ASSOCIATION OF INDIA v. UNION OF
893
INDIA [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.]
be subject to the State Act. Mr. Cama has further contended A
that if both the Acts are to survive then they must be construed
in a manner wherein the security guards get to choose between
joining the respondent Board under the State Act or work under
the coverage of the State Act without going through the
exemption provisions of the State Act and that there is no B
warrant which restricts or interferes with the rights of licensed
security agencies to commence work with the guards who have
chosen to work under them. However, if such contention of the
respondents is to be accepted then a Security Guard who wants
to be covered by the Central Act would first have to compulsorily c
register and seek exemption under the State Act and then seek
employment under the Central Act. It has been submitted that
such a circuitous method to come under the Central Act has
not been contemplated and is absurd. That if such situation is
accepted by this Court then rights of the appellants are not 0
interfered with and the Acts operate separately, however, any
other position will lead to repugnancy.
15. Mr. Cama, learned senior counsel, without prejudice
to the above, has further submitted that the primary contention
between the two parties is that neither of the Acts prescribes E
that the rights of security agencies shall be subject to exemption
of security guards under Section 23 as concluded by the High
Court without any reasoning in support of the same. It has been
submitted that the language of the Acts is clear without intending
to bring any interdependence between the two Acts and that F
the holding in the impugned judgment is subjective ipse dixit
subject to their own inference on how the two statutes should
be read. The same amounts to judicial legislation which is not
permissible under the law as held by this Court in
Bharathida~an University & Anr. vs. All India Council for G
Technical Education & Ors8• It is submitted that in the impugned
judgment Section 9 of the Central Act has been incorrectly
interpreted ignoring the fact that though the Central Act does
a.
c2001) a sec 676.
H
894
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014] 9 S.C.R.
A
not cast an obligation on security agencies to carry on business
it certainly recognizes their fundamental right to do so. It has
also been submitted that the State of Maharashtra never
complied with their statement that they will grant exemption
within six months. That the contention of the State and the Board
B
before the High Court that Section 23 only applies to security
agencies who were in business on the date of enactment and
not thereafter, would completely exclude security agencies
starting business after 1981. If such contentions are allowed
then the right to carry on business under Article 19(1 )(g) of the
c Constitution would be violative. Furthermore, it has been
submitted that the High Court while upholding the validity of the
scheme ignored the pertinent submission that Clause 13(1)(b)
of the Scheme of 2002 which prohibited the principal employer
from engaging any private security guards is incorrect as it
0
allows State monopoly.
16. It has been submitted by Mr. Cama, learned senior
counsel that the two Acts are repugnant. Section 23 of the State
Act and Section 9 of the Central Act deal with the same issue
substantially and only through Section 23 of the State Act private
E
security agencies are permitted to operate subject to conditions
imposed by the Board. Section 23 regulates the
commencement and operation of private security guard
agencies under the State Act, thereby in conflict with the Section
9 of the Central Act which admittedly regulated the
F
commencement and operation of security guards agencies
under the Act. Furthermore, different pre-conditions are laid
down in both the statutes which created a direct and
substantive repugnancy between Section 23 of the State Act
and Section 9 of the Central Act. It has also been contended
G by learned senior counsel that the repugnancy is substantial and
not incidental and in light of the same it has been submitted,
as held by the High Court, that the commencement of the
Central Act and the rights and obligations of the parties under .
the same are subject to grant of exemption under Section 23
H of the State Act, then Section 23 acts as a condition precedent
_;
SECURITY ASSOCIATION OF INDIA v. UNION OF
895
INDIA [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.]
for the operation of the Central Act. Such break in the operation
A
of the Central Act clearly indicated that the encroachment is not
incidental but substantial, as incidental encroachment does not
affect the existence of two statutes simultaneously. Furthermore,
the holding of the High Court in this regard is also incorrect.
17. It has also been submitted by Mr. Cama, learned senior
counsel that Article 246(1) of the Constitution gives the
Parliament a blanket power to make law to govern the whole
B
of India. The non-obstante clause makes it clear that
irrespective of the rights of the States to legislate under List-II
C
or List-Ill, the Parliament is supreme and there is no need for
the legislations to be in the concurrent list before a ban falls
upon the inconsistent State enactment. As per Article 246(1)
of the Constitution, legislation of the Parliament will govern and
there is no need for direct conflict. Mr. Cama in light of the
above submission drew our attention to the decisions of this
D
Court in Hoechst Pharamaceuticals Ltd & Ors. vs. State of
Bihar & Ors. 9, Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors vs. J.B.
Educational Society & Anr. 10, State of West Bengal & O[S. vs.
Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights of West
Bengal & Ors. 11 • Furthermore, Mr. Cama it has been submitted
that the conflict between 'policy' of the State Government and
'express legislation' by the Parliament was settled in State of
Maharashtra vs. Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra
Mahavidyalaya & Ors., wherein this Court held that when
parliamentary enactment covers a subject then 'state policy'
does not apply. Thus, when the Central Act legislates on the
issue of security guards at a national level then the State Act
which sets out State Policy must give way to the Central Act.
E
F
In light of the above, it has. been brought to our notice that the
Central Act which enables the application of nine labour
G
statutes on private security guards, apart from regulation-of
9.
(1983) 4 sec 45.
10. (2005) 3 sec 212.
11. (2010) 3 sec 571.
12. (2oos) 9 sec 1.
H
896
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014] 9 S.C.R.
A agencies, deals with all matters relating to private security
guards and juxtaposed to the Central Act the State Act has a
narrower scope as it is applicable in certain parts of
Maharashtra with respect to employment in factories and
establishments. That the interpretation of the High Court
B creates a situation where two separate statutes apply to
security guards and Agencies in factories and establishments
in the same State.
18. Mr. Gama in his submissions drew our attention to
C Article 254 of the Constitution. He submitted that Article 254(1)
demonstrates that the Parliament has an overriding right to
make any enactment in respect of the items in the Concurrent
List and that as per Article 254 (2), when any law made by the
State Legislature under the Concurrent List is repugnant to the
provisions of a Parliamentary Law and unless the same has
D received Presidential assent the State Law will give way to the
Parliamentary Law. It has further been stated that when the High
Court held the State Act to fall within the ambit of List-Ill and
Central Act to fall under the residuary power in List-I, then the
High Court cannot simultaneously hold that State Act controls
E the Central Act as that is possible only when they fall under the
same list, thereby attracting Article 254(1 ). Furthermore, both
Section 9 and Section 23 regulate operation of security guard
agencies and both the Acts substantively deal with the
employment of private security agencies and private security
F guards engaged by them and the terms and conditions of their
individual employment. It is submitted that the aforementioned
submission must be considered in light of the decision in
Thirumuruga Kirupananda Variyar Thavathiru Sundara
Swamigal Medical Educational & Charitable Trust vs. State
G of Tamil Nadu & Ors. 13, wherein this Court held that even if two
Acts are not in direct conflict, there would be repugnancy of the
superior legislation if it shows an intention to cover the whole
field.
H
13.
(1996) 3 sec 15.
SECURITY ASSOCIATION OF INDIA v. UNION OF
. 897
INDIA [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.]
19. Mr. Cama on behalf of the appellants has also
A
contended that Section 23 of the Central Act violates Article
19( 1 )(g) of the Constitution because Section 23 when read with
B
the licensing provisions of the Central Act creates a position
where a security agency to commence its business is made
subject to the vagaries of a possible exemption of necessary
security guards and interferes with their fundamental right to
commence and carry on business. This position is further
worsened when the concerned agency is unable to find a guard
who wants to apply for exemption and especially in light of the
fact that there is no pool of exempted guards, that there is no c
time limit for the State Government to act on an exemption
application and that is subject to the discretion of the State
Government. It has been further submitted that the power of
discretion given to the State Government by means of Section
23 is uncanalized and unregulated upon their subjective
0
satisfaction for a specified period only for all or such class or
classes and such power interferes with the agency's right to
business which will be subject to the opinion of the State
Government. It has also been submitted that the benefits under
the Central Act are as good or even better than those provided
in the State Act. Mr. Cama placed reliance on the comparative
Note submitted by him during the course of arguments and
stated that the Central Act also allows the State Government
to make rules and they can incorporate the beneficial
provisions in the Rules under the Central Act.
E
F
20. The submissions of the Appellant Association were
finally concluded by Mr. Cama on the Note that in light of the
unsustainable view of the High Court both the Acts can operate
simultaneously, it is submitted that as .canon of construction,
every Court can read two independents statutes subject to each
G
other but it also must be noted that where the language of the
Act is unambiguous, nothing must be read into it. It was further
submitted that a statute must be read as it stands in the facts
of legislations by incorporation or legislation by reference, a
separate statute can be read into another statute and that
H
898
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2014] 9 S.C.R.
A requires an express statutory provision. In this light, the relief
sought before us is that either it must be clarified that the two
Acts operate in their own field and that the Central Act is not
subject to exemption under Section 23, and if not then the State
Act must give way to the Central Act on being repugnant to the
B same.
21. It is the case of Dr. A. M. Singhvi, learned senior
counsel, appearing for the appellants in the connected appeal,
being Civil Appeal No. 8671 of 2011, that Section 1 (4) exempts
security guards who are direct and regular employees of a
C factory or establishment, however the appellant (being HSBC)
would prefer to hire security guards of private agencies due to
certain advantages. The two private security agencies being
respondent Nos. 7 and 8 (in Civil Appeal No. 8671 of 2011)
were supplying the appellant with security personnel exempted
D under Section 23 of the State Act. However, the application for
renewal made by the appellant under Section 23 was kept
pending by the State Government and the agency had applied
for a license under Section 4 of the Central Act and was entitled
to commence business in light of the proviso to Section 4.
E While the appellants awaited for their licence the State
Government initiated penal action against the appellants for
engaging non-exempted security guards, against which a writ
petition disposed by the impugned judgment was filed. In light
of the same, it has been submitted by Dr. Singhvi that certain
F parts of the State Act and the Scheme are repugnant to the
Central Act.
22. Mr C.U. Singh, learned senior counsel appeared on
behalf of Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. being the
G appellant in Civil Appeal No.8670 of 2011 and Convergys India
Services P. Ltd & Anr. being the appellants in Civil Appeal
No.8709 .of 2011. He adopted the arguments tendered by Mr.
'
H
Cama and Dr. Singhvi and in addition thereto, he advanced
arguments on six more grounds. The first ground being that the
provisions of the prior State Act of 1981 and the Scheme
SECURITY ASSOCIATION OF INDIA v. UNION OF
899
INDIA [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.]
framed thereunder are inconsistent with the provisions of the
A
later Central Act and they must give away to the extent of the
inconsistency. In light of the same it has been submitted that
regardless of the Central Act being traced to List-I of the
Seventh Schedule, the Central Act will prevail to the extent of
inconsistency in view .of Article 246( 1) and if the Act is traceable
B
to List-Ill, then it will prevail due to the Proviso to Article 254(2).
Mr. Singh in furtherance of the same placed the decisions of
this Court in H. S. Srinivasa Raghavachar & Ors vs. State of
Karnataka & Ors14 . and State of Kera/a & Ors. vs. Mar
Appraem Kuri Company Limited & Anr15•
c
23. The second ground raised by Mr Singh is that the State
Act does not have any express provisions for registration of
private security agencies or for regulating their activities and
business under the Scheme and therefore it is only the latter
Central Act of 2005 which can regulate or control their activities.
D
In light of the same it has been put forth by Mr. Singh that the
State Act is an enabling legislation which operates through the
Scheme and in the entire corpus of the State Act and the
Scheme of 2002 there is no provision requiring registration of
private security agencies and that only the Central Act regulates
E
and governs private security agencies, which fall out of the
scope of the State Act and cannot be forced to seek an
exemption from the same. Furthermore, this also indicates that
Section 23 is in conflict with the Central Act.
24. The third ground of submission raised by Mr. Singh is
that the Central Act juxtaposed to the State Act is a special
statute whereas the State Act is a special statute in relation to
F
the Board Guards and a general statute with respect to the
private security guards, who choose not to register with the G
Board and that the latter specific statute passed by the
Parliament must prevail over the prior general statute of a State
legislature. In furtherance of the same he placed before us the
14. (1987) 2 sec 692.
15. c2012) 1 sec 106.
H
900
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014] 9 S.C.R.
A
decision of this Court in P. V. Hemlatha v. Kattamkandi Puthiya
Maliackal Saheeda16 and a Constitutional Bench decision in
Ashoka Marketing Ltd. & Anr vs. Punjab National Bank &
Ors. 17, which upheld the maxim "leges posteriors priores
contrarias abrogant". The fourth ground of submission is that
B
in any event the application and operation of the later Central
Act are made subject to compliance with the prior State Act,
then the State Act is clearly repugnant to the Central Act; and
being a prior statute, must give way either under Article 246(1)
read with Article 248, or under the proviso to Article 254(2). He
c has placed before the decisions in Zaverbhai Amaidas vs.
State of Bombay18, Deep Chand vs. State of Uttar Pradesh &
Ors. 19, State of Orissa vs. M.A. Tulloch and Co. 20, and
Thirumuruga Kirupananda Variyar Thavathiru Sundara
Swamigal Medical Educational & Charitable Trust vs. State
0
of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (supra). The fifth contention raised by Mr.
Singh is that the State and/or the Board cannot purport to create
a monopoly for the Board and to make the very existence of
private security agencies dependent upon exemption granted
at the whims and fancies of the State Government, after the
E
enactment of the Central Act in 2005 and that there is no
enabling power or authority conferred by the State Act to do
so. The final contention raised by Mr. Singh is that the Central
Government, which has enacted the later Central Statute and
is responsible for implementing the same, has filed a Counter
Affidavit in the in C.A.