Skip to content

CS Executive · Jurisprudence, Interpretation and General Laws · Sources of Law

A State Legislature enacts a law on a subject in the Concurrent List. Parliament has earlier enacted a law on the same subject, and the two are repugnant. Without any Presidential assent to the State law, which statement is correct under the Constitution?

The State law is void to the extent of repugnancy. On Concurrent List subjects Parliament's law prevails over a conflicting State law unless the State law was reserved for and received the President's assent, which is absent here.

  1. AThe State law prevails because States have equal power on the Concurrent List
  2. BThe State law is void to the extent of repugnancy, as the Parliamentary law prevailsCorrect
  3. CBoth laws operate together and courts choose between them
  4. DThe State law prevails only within a Union Territory

Explanation

On Concurrent List subjects, a repugnant State law yields to the earlier Parliamentary law and is void to the extent of repugnancy. The exception applies only if the State law has been reserved for and received the President's assent, in which case it prevails in that State. Here there is no such assent, so the exception does not apply.

Did you get it right without looking?

One question tells you little. A timed set on Sources of Law shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.

Practise Sources of LawFree diagnostic mock

More Sources of Law questions