Consider the following statements: 1. The Concurrent List allows both Centre and States to legislate. 2. In case of conflict, State law prevails over Union law. Which of the above is/are correct?

Correct — A. Test each statement against the Constitution.

Statement 1: Article 246(2) lets both Parliament and State Legislatures make laws on the Concurrent List. True.

Statement 2: Article 254(1) says the opposite. On a clash, the Union law prevails and the State law is void to the extent of the repugnancy. False.

Only 1 → option (a).

Why the others are wrong

• (b)
  Only 2 — Statement 1 is true, and statement 2 is the false one. Article 254(1) makes the Union law prevail over a repugnant State law.
• (c)
  Both 1 and 2 — Statement 2 is false. It reverses Article 254(1), under which a clashing State law yields to the Union law.
• (d)
  Neither 1 nor 2 — Statement 1 is true. Article 246(2) gives Parliament and State Legislatures concurrent power over List III.

The Seventh Schedule splits legislative subjects into three lists: Union (List I), State (List II) and Concurrent (List III).

On the Concurrent List both levels may legislate. If their laws clash, Article 254(1) makes the Union law prevail.

The exception is Article 254(2): a State law reserved for the President and given assent prevails in that State, until Parliament amends or repeals it.

Key facts

• The Concurrent List is List III of the Seventh Schedule.
• Article 246(2) lets both Parliament and State Legislatures make laws on Concurrent List matters.
• Under Article 254(1), a Union law prevails over a repugnant State law on a Concurrent matter.
• Under Article 254(2), a State law reserved for the President and given assent prevails in that State.

Common traps

• Remembering that a State law can prevail and forgetting the condition: it needs presidential assent under Article 254(2).
• Reading statement 1 as limited to Parliament: the Concurrent List is shared by both.

No directly related past PYQ was found.