Read the following statements regarding the "Doctrine of Repugnancy (Article 254):
Statement I: If a "State law" on a "Concurrent List" subject conflict with a "Union law", then the Union law prevails, and the State law becomes 'void' to the extent of the repugnancy.
Statement II: A State law on a Concurrent subject that conflicts with a Union law can still prevall within that State, if it has been reserved for and received the assent of the President.
Which of the above statements is/are correct?
Show answer & explanation
Correct answer: A
Explanation
The correct answer is Option 1 i.e. Both Statements I and II are correct.
The Doctrine of Repugnancy, under Article 254 of the Indian Constitution, manages conflicts between Union and State laws regarding the Concurrent List.
-
Statement I reflects the general rule: if a state law contradicts a central law, the central law prevails to maintain constitutional consistency.
-
Statement II highlights a crucial exception (Article 254(2)): if a state law is specifically reserved for the President's consideration and receives their assent, that state law will prevail within that particular state, despite the conflict with the central legislation.