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 prevail within that State if it has been reserved for and received the assent of the President. Which of the above statements is/are correct?

Correct — B. The two statements are the two clauses of Article 254.

Statement I is clause (1): a State law on a Concurrent List matter that is repugnant to a Union law is void to the extent of the repugnancy, and the Union law prevails.

Statement II is clause (2): if that State law was reserved for the President and received his assent, it prevails in that State. Both true → option (b).

Why the others are wrong

• (a)
  Only Statement II is correct — Statement I is also true. It is the general rule of Article 254(1): on a Concurrent matter, a repugnant State law gives way to the Union law.
• (c)
  Only Statement I is correct — Statement II is also true. Article 254(2) lets a repugnant State law prevail in that State once it has been reserved for the President and received assent.
• (d)
  Neither Statement I nor II is correct — Both statements track the text of Article 254: clause (1) states the rule, clause (2) the assent exception. Neither misstates it.

On Concurrent List subjects both Parliament and the State legislatures can make laws, so their laws can collide. Article 254 decides which one survives.

The rule, clause (1): the Union law prevails, whether passed before or after the State law.

The exception, clause (2): a State law reserved for the President and given assent prevails in that State. Its proviso still lets Parliament later add to, amend, vary or repeal that State law.

Key facts

• The Concurrent List is List III of the Seventh Schedule.
• Article 254(1): a State law repugnant to a Union law on a Concurrent matter is void to the extent of the repugnancy.
• Article 254(2): a repugnant State law reserved for the President's consideration prevails in that State once it receives his assent.
• The proviso to Article 254(2) lets Parliament later enact a law adding to, amending, varying or repealing that State law.

Common traps

• Reading Statement II as contradicting Statement I. Clause (1) is made subject to clause (2), so both hold.
• Taking presidential assent as permanent protection. The proviso lets Parliament amend or repeal the State law later.

No directly related past PYQ was found.