Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions.The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the validity of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, stating that the Act cannot be struck down on the ground that its provisions discriminate or are arbitrary when compared with the provisions of the central law - the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (LA Act 2013). A State law could be contrary to the central law but would stand protected under Article 254(2) after it receives the assent of the President of India. Hence, merely because there is discrimination between the two statutes would not be ground to invalidate the State law, the bench ruled. Article 254 of the C.O.I states that if any provision of a law made by the Legislature of a State is repugnant to any provision of a law made by Parliament which Parliament is competent to enact, or to any provision of an existing law with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List, then, subject to the provisions of clause (2), the law made by Parliament, whether passed before or after the law made by the Legislature of such State, or, as the case may be, the existing law, shall prevail and the law made by the Legislature of the State shall, to the extent of the repugnancy, be void. Clause 2 of the Article states that where a law made by the Legislature of a State with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the concurrent List contains any provision repugnant to the provisions of an earlier law made by Parliament or an existing law with respect to that matter, then, the law so made by the Legislature of such State shall, if it has been reserved for the consideration of the President and has received his assent, prevail in that State: Provided that nothing in this clause shall prevent Parliament from enacting at any time any law with respect to the same matter including a law adding to, amending, varying or repealing the law so made by the Legislature of the State.Q.What does Article 254(1) of the Constitution of India state regarding the relationship between state and central laws?a)It specifies that state laws always prevail over central laws.b)It mandates that state and central laws must be identical in content.c)It allows for state laws to be overridden by central laws on any matter.d)It provides a mechanism for resolving conflicts between state and central laws.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?

EduRev

All Courses

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

CLAT Exam > CLAT Questions > Directions: Read the following passage carefu...

Join the Discussion on the App

Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the validity of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, stating that the Act cannot be struck down on the ground that its provisions discriminate or are arbitrary when compared with the provisions of the central law - the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (LA Act 2013). A State law could be contrary to the central law but would stand protected under Article 254(2) after it receives the assent of the President of India. Hence, merely because there is discrimination between the two statutes would not be ground to invalidate the State law, the bench ruled. Article 254 of the C.O.I states that if any provision of a law made by the Legislature of a State is repugnant to any provision of a law made by Parliament which Parliament is competent to enact, or to any provision of an existing law with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List, then, subject to the provisions of clause (2), the law made by Parliament, whether passed before or after the law made by the Legislature of such State, or, as the case may be, the existing law, shall prevail and the law made by the Legislature of the State shall, to the extent of the repugnancy, be void. Clause 2 of the Article states that where a law made by the Legislature of a State with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the concurrent List contains any provision repugnant to the provisions of an earlier law made by Parliament or an existing law with respect to that matter, then, the law so made by the Legislature of such State shall, if it has been reserved for the consideration of the President and has received his assent, prevail in that State: Provided that nothing in this clause shall prevent Parliament from enacting at any time any law with respect to the same matter including a law adding to, amending, varying or repealing the law so made by the Legislature of the State.

Q. What does Article 254(1) of the Constitution of India state regarding the relationship between state and central laws?

a)
It specifies that state laws always prevail over central laws.
b)
It mandates that state and central laws must be identical in content.
c)
It allows for state laws to be overridden by central laws on any matter.
d)
It provides a mechanism for resolving conflicts between state and central laws.

Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?

FREE This question is part of

Test: CLAT Mock Test - 11

Attempt Test

Attempt this Test

Most Upvoted Answer

Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questi...

Article 254(1) of the Constitution of India addresses the relationship between state and central laws, particularly in cases where there is a conflict or repugnancy between them. This provision establishes a mechanism for resolving such conflicts. It states that if any provision of a law made by the Legislature of a State is repugnant to any provision of a law made by Parliament (central law) that Parliament is competent to enact, or to any provision of an existing law with respect to matters in the Concurrent List, then, subject to the provisions of clause (2), the law made by Parliament (or the existing law) shall prevail, and the law made by the Legislature of the State shall be void to the extent of the repugnancy.

In essence, Article 254(1) establishes a hierarchy between state and central laws, with central laws taking precedence when they conflict. However, it also acknowledges the role of Article 254(2) in providing exceptions and protections, as discussed in the previous question, allowing certain state laws to prevail even in cases of repugnancy when they receive the President's assent. Therefore, Article 254(1) and Article 254(2) together form the framework for resolving conflicts between state and central laws in India.

Answered by Glance Learning Institute · View profile

Attention CLAT Students!

To make sure you are not studying endlessly, EduRev has designed CLAT study material, with Structured Courses, Videos, & Test Series. Plus get personalized analysis, doubt solving and improvement plans to achieve a great score in CLAT.

Legal Reasoning for CLAT

Lucent for GK

Current Affairs: Daily, Weekly & Monthly

CLAT Mock Test Series 2025

View all answers Start learning for free

< Previous Question Next Question >

Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions.The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the validity of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, stating that the Act cannot be struck down on the ground that its provisions discriminate or are arbitrary when compared with the provisions of the central law - the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (LA Act 2013). A State law could be contrary to the central law but would stand protected under Article 254(2) after it receives the assent of the President of India. Hence, merely because there is discrimination between the two statutes would not be ground to invalidate the State law, the bench ruled. Article 254 of the C.O.I states that if any provision of a law made by the Legislature of a State is repugnant to any provision of a law made by Parliament which Parliament is competent to enact, or to any provision of an existing law with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List, then, subject to the provisions of clause (2), the law made by Parliament, whether passed before or after the law made by the Legislature of such State, or, as the case may be, the existing law, shall prevail and the law made by the Legislature of the State shall, to the extent of the repugnancy, be void. Clause 2 of the Article states that where a law made by the Legislature of a State with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the concurrent List contains any provision repugnant to the provisions of an earlier law made by Parliament or an existing law with respect to that matter, then, the law so made by the Legislature of such State shall, if it has been reserved for the consideration of the President and has received his assent, prevail in that State: Provided that nothing in this clause shall prevent Parliament from enacting at any time any law with respect to the same matter including a law adding to, amending, varying or repealing the law so made by the Legislature of the State.Q.The Gujarat State Legislature passed the Gujarat Labor Welfare (Amendment) Act, 2023 (GLWA Act) to change certain provisions of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (ESI Act) in the case of Patel Constructions v. State of Gujarat. The Indian President has not yet approved the Act. The GLWA Act was contested on the basis that, in contrast to the ESI Acts provisions, it discriminates against employees.

View answer

Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions.The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the validity of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, stating that the Act cannot be struck down on the ground that its provisions discriminate or are arbitrary when compared with the provisions of the central law - the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (LA Act 2013). A State law could be contrary to the central law but would stand protected under Article 254(2) after it receives the assent of the President of India. Hence, merely because there is discrimination between the two statutes would not be ground to invalidate the State law, the bench ruled. Article 254 of the C.O.I states that if any provision of a law made by the Legislature of a State is repugnant to any provision of a law made by Parliament which Parliament is competent to enact, or to any provision of an existing law with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List, then, subject to the provisions of clause (2), the law made by Parliament, whether passed before or after the law made by the Legislature of such State, or, as the case may be, the existing law, shall prevail and the law made by the Legislature of the State shall, to the extent of the repugnancy, be void. Clause 2 of the Article states that where a law made by the Legislature of a State with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the concurrent List contains any provision repugnant to the provisions of an earlier law made by Parliament or an existing law with respect to that matter, then, the law so made by the Legislature of such State shall, if it has been reserved for the consideration of the President and has received his assent, prevail in that State: Provided that nothing in this clause shall prevent Parliament from enacting at any time any law with respect to the same matter including a law adding to, amending, varying or repealing the law so made by the Legislature of the State.Q.The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RER

View answer

Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions.The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the validity of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, stating that the Act cannot be struck down on the ground that its provisions discriminate or are arbitrary when compared with the provisions of the central law - the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (LA Act 2013). A State law could be contrary to the central law but would stand protected under Article 254(2) after it receives the assent of the President of India. Hence, merely because there is discrimination between the two statutes would not be ground to invalidate the State law, the bench ruled. Article 254 of the C.O.I states that if any provision of a law made by the Legislature of a State is repugnant to any provision of a law made by Parliament which Parliament is competent to enact, or to any provision of an existing law with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List, then, subject to the provisions of clause (2), the law made by Parliament, whether passed before or after the law made by the Legislature of such State, or, as the case may be, the existing law, shall prevail and the law made by the Legislature of the State shall, to the extent of the repugnancy, be void. Clause 2 of the Article states that where a law made by the Legislature of a State with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the concurrent List contains any provision repugnant to the provisions of an earlier law made by Parliament or an existing law with respect to that matter, then, the law so made by the Legislature of such State shall, if it has been reserved for the consideration of the President and has received his assent, prevail in that State: Provided that nothing in this clause shall prevent Parliament from enacting at any time any law with respect to the same matter including a law adding to, amending, varying or repealing the law so made by the Legislature of the State.Q.The Karnataka Agricultural Produce selling (Regulation) Act, 2019 (KAPM Act) was passed by the state legislature in the Ramakrishna v. State of Karnataka case to control the selling of agricultural products in the state. The Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 2003 (APM Act), which was passed by Parliament, was cited as the central statute that the provisions of the KAPM Act violated.

View answer

Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions.The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the validity of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, stating that the Act cannot be struck down on the ground that its provisions discriminate or are arbitrary when compared with the provisions of the central law - the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (LA Act 2013). A State law could be contrary to the central law but would stand protected under Article 254(2) after it receives the assent of the President of India. Hence, merely because there is discrimination between the two statutes would not be ground to invalidate the State law, the bench ruled. Article 254 of the C.O.I states that if any provision of a law made by the Legislature of a State is repugnant to any provision of a law made by Parliament which Parliament is competent to enact, or to any provision of an existing law with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List, then, subject to the provisions of clause (2), the law made by Parliament, whether passed before or after the law made by the Legislature of such State, or, as the case may be, the existing law, shall prevail and the law made by the Legislature of the State shall, to the extent of the repugnancy, be void. Clause 2 of the Article states that where a law made by the Legislature of a State with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the concurrent List contains any provision repugnant to the provisions of an earlier law made by Parliament or an existing law with respect to that matter, then, the law so made by the Legislature of such State shall, if it has been reserved for the consideration of the President and has received his assent, prevail in that State: Provided that nothing in this clause shall prevent Parliament from enacting at any time any law with respect to the same matter including a law adding to, amending, varying or repealing the law so made by the Legislature of the State.Q.Which of the following statements best reflects the likely outcome in the case of Patel Pharmaceuticals v. Union of India, where the Gujarat Drug Control (Amendment) Act, 2023 (GDCA Act) amends provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (DC

View answer

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.It is no secret that a number of POCSO cases end in acquittals. While a more uninformed opinion is that the cases themselves might not have been genuine, the grim reality is that there is a gross failure to support and rehabilitate the victim and her family. As a result of this, either the victims turn hostile or the family turns hostile, or they simply lose hope and stop cooperating.Section 33(8) of POCSO provides that in appropriate cases, in addition to punishment, the Special Court may direct payment of compensation to the child for any physical/mental trauma caused to the child or for immediate rehabilitation. Pursuant to the parent Act, the POCSO Rules of 2012 dedicated Rule 7 to the procedure and parameters of providing such compensation. Rule 7(3) enlisted the various parameters/factors to be considered by the Special Court in deciding such compensation, such as gravity of the offence, expenditure incurred/likely to be incurred on medical treatment, loss of educational opportunity, financial conditions, etc. Rule 7(4) and state that after the amount is decided/ granted by the Special Court, it is to be disbursed from the Victim; Compensation Fund or such other scheme by the legal services authority within 30 days of receipt of such order.It is seen that the grant of compensation by Special Courts under POCSO is both sporadic and erratic. There is also confusion as to who is to apply for compensation on behalf of the victim, with many victims under the impression that the investigating officer would apply for compensation on their behalf. To top it off, even in cases where the compensation was granted by the Special Court, the amounts were rather inconsistent and arbitrary, some being as meagre as Rs. 10,000 .These issues were raised and argued at length in a PIL filed in the Delhi High Court back in 2016. While the matter was still being heard in the High Court in the captioned PIL, the Supreme Court passed a significant direction on the aspect of compensation under POCSO in Nipun Saxena & Anr v. Union of India \& Ors. It was directed that the Special Court, upon receipt of information as to the commission of any offence under the Act by the registration of FIR, shall on his own or on the application of the victim make an enquiry as to the immediate needs of the child for relief or rehabilitation and pass appropriate order for interim compensation. It was further held that if the court declines to grant interim or final compensation it shall record its reasons for not doing so. Nipun Saxena's case was preceded by another pertinent judgment passed under POCSO by the Supreme Court in Alakh Alok Srivastava v. UOI, wherein the Apex Court directed for each High Court to constitute a three-judge committee to regulate and monitor the progress of trials under POCSO. In addition, each state was directed to constitute a Special Task Force to ensure that investigation is properly conducted under POCSO.It was the Unnao Rape case and the Supreme Court's suo moto cognizance of it that truly brought many of these issues to the fore. The Supreme Court noted that timelines of the Act are not being followed at all. Besides granting interim compensation of Rs. 25 lakh to the victim, the Supreme Court directed that in each district in the country (if there are more than 100 POCSO cases) an exclusive Special Court will be set up, which will try no offence except those under POCSO Act. Though the Court had granted 60 days for the same, the process of setting up and functioning of these courts all over the country is still underway.The advent of the new POCSO Rules, 2020 and the directions of the Supreme Court in 2018-2019 have given a sliver of hope to POCSO victims. As is with all laws, the implementation on the ground is a whole new ball game from the promulgation of the law itself. It remains to be seen whether these new developments provide the care and rehabilitation that POCSO victims need and deserve.Q. Anita is a child of 8 years. One day while she was playing on the roads a Brahmin Pandit kidnapped her and took her to an abandoned temple and raped her. When she was found out after 2 days she was senseless due to excessive bleeding and was grievously hurt. Who can claim compensation for Anita?

View answer

Top Courses for CLATView all

Legal Reasoning for CLAT

Lucent for GK

Current Affairs: Daily, Weekly & Monthly

CLAT Mock Test Series 2025

Crash Course for CLAT

Top Courses for CLAT

View all

Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions.The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the validity of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, stating that the Act cannot be struck down on the ground that its provisions discriminate or are arbitrary when compared with the provisions of the central law - the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (LA Act 2013). A State law could be contrary to the central law but would stand protected under Article 254(2) after it receives the assent of the President of India. Hence, merely because there is discrimination between the two statutes would not be ground to invalidate the State law, the bench ruled. Article 254 of the C.O.I states that if any provision of a law made by the Legislature of a State is repugnant to any provision of a law made by Parliament which Parliament is competent to enact, or to any provision of an existing law with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List, then, subject to the provisions of clause (2), the law made by Parliament, whether passed before or after the law made by the Legislature of such State, or, as the case may be, the existing law, shall prevail and the law made by the Legislature of the State shall, to the extent of the repugnancy, be void. Clause 2 of the Article states that where a law made by the Legislature of a State with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the concurrent List contains any provision repugnant to the provisions of an earlier law made by Parliament or an existing law with respect to that matter, then, the law so made by the Legislature of such State shall, if it has been reserved for the consideration of the President and has received his assent, prevail in that State: Provided that nothing in this clause shall prevent Parliament from enacting at any time any law with respect to the same matter including a law adding to, amending, varying or repealing the law so made by the Legislature of the State.Q.What does Article 254(1) of the Constitution of India state regarding the relationship between state and central laws?a)It specifies that state laws always prevail over central laws.b)It mandates that state and central laws must be identical in content.c)It allows for state laws to be overridden by central laws on any matter.d)It provides a mechanism for resolving conflicts between state and central laws.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

Question Description
Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions.The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the validity of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, stating that the Act cannot be struck down on the ground that its provisions discriminate or are arbitrary when compared with the provisions of the central law - the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (LA Act 2013). A State law could be contrary to the central law but would stand protected under Article 254(2) after it receives the assent of the President of India. Hence, merely because there is discrimination between the two statutes would not be ground to invalidate the State law, the bench ruled. Article 254 of the C.O.I states that if any provision of a law made by the Legislature of a State is repugnant to any provision of a law made by Parliament which Parliament is competent to enact, or to any provision of an existing law with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List, then, subject to the provisions of clause (2), the law made by Parliament, whether passed before or after the law made by the Legislature of such State, or, as the case may be, the existing law, shall prevail and the law made by the Legislature of the State shall, to the extent of the repugnancy, be void. Clause 2 of the Article states that where a law made by the Legislature of a State with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the concurrent List contains any provision repugnant to the provisions of an earlier law made by Parliament or an existing law with respect to that matter, then, the law so made by the Legislature of such State shall, if it has been reserved for the consideration of the President and has received his assent, prevail in that State: Provided that nothing in this clause shall prevent Parliament from enacting at any time any law with respect to the same matter including a law adding to, amending, varying or repealing the law so made by the Legislature of the State.Q.What does Article 254(1) of the Constitution of India state regarding the relationship between state and central laws?a)It specifies that state laws always prevail over central laws.b)It mandates that state and central laws must be identical in content.c)It allows for state laws to be overridden by central laws on any matter.d)It provides a mechanism for resolving conflicts between state and central laws.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2024 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions.The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the validity of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, stating that the Act cannot be struck down on the ground that its provisions discriminate or are arbitrary when compared with the provisions of the central law - the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (LA Act 2013). A State law could be contrary to the central law but would stand protected under Article 254(2) after it receives the assent of the President of India. Hence, merely because there is discrimination between the two statutes would not be ground to invalidate the State law, the bench ruled. Article 254 of the C.O.I states that if any provision of a law made by the Legislature of a State is repugnant to any provision of a law made by Parliament which Parliament is competent to enact, or to any provision of an existing law with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List, then, subject to the provisions of clause (2), the law made by Parliament, whether passed before or after the law made by the Legislature of such State, or, as the case may be, the existing law, shall prevail and the law made by the Legislature of the State shall, to the extent of the repugnancy, be void. Clause 2 of the Article states that where a law made by the Legislature of a State with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the concurrent List contains any provision repugnant to the provisions of an earlier law made by Parliament or an existing law with respect to that matter, then, the law so made by the Legislature of such State shall, if it has been reserved for the consideration of the President and has received his assent, prevail in that State: Provided that nothing in this clause shall prevent Parliament from enacting at any time any law with respect to the same matter including a law adding to, amending, varying or repealing the law so made by the Legislature of the State.Q.What does Article 254(1) of the Constitution of India state regarding the relationship between state and central laws?a)It specifies that state laws always prevail over central laws.b)It mandates that state and central laws must be identical in content.c)It allows for state laws to be overridden by central laws on any matter.d)It provides a mechanism for resolving conflicts between state and central laws.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions.The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the validity of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, stating that the Act cannot be struck down on the ground that its provisions discriminate or are arbitrary when compared with the provisions of the central law - the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (LA Act 2013). A State law could be contrary to the central law but would stand protected under Article 254(2) after it receives the assent of the President of India. Hence, merely because there is discrimination between the two statutes would not be ground to invalidate the State law, the bench ruled. Article 254 of the C.O.I states that if any provision of a law made by the Legislature of a State is repugnant to any provision of a law made by Parliament which Parliament is competent to enact, or to any provision of an existing law with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List, then, subject to the provisions of clause (2), the law made by Parliament, whether passed before or after the law made by the Legislature of such State, or, as the case may be, the existing law, shall prevail and the law made by the Legislature of the State shall, to the extent of the repugnancy, be void. Clause 2 of the Article states that where a law made by the Legislature of a State with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the concurrent List contains any provision repugnant to the provisions of an earlier law made by Parliament or an existing law with respect to that matter, then, the law so made by the Legislature of such State shall, if it has been reserved for the consideration of the President and has received his assent, prevail in that State: Provided that nothing in this clause shall prevent Parliament from enacting at any time any law with respect to the same matter including a law adding to, amending, varying or repealing the law so made by the Legislature of the State.Q.What does Article 254(1) of the Constitution of India state regarding the relationship between state and central laws?a)It specifies that state laws always prevail over central laws.b)It mandates that state and central laws must be identical in content.c)It allows for state laws to be overridden by central laws on any matter.d)It provides a mechanism for resolving conflicts between state and central laws.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions.The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the validity of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, stating that the Act cannot be struck down on the ground that its provisions discriminate or are arbitrary when compared with the provisions of the central law - the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (LA Act 2013). A State law could be contrary to the central law but would stand protected under Article 254(2) after it receives the assent of the President of India. Hence, merely because there is discrimination between the two statutes would not be ground to invalidate the State law, the bench ruled. Article 254 of the C.O.I states that if any provision of a law made by the Legislature of a State is repugnant to any provision of a law made by Parliament which Parliament is competent to enact, or to any provision of an existing law with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List, then, subject to the provisions of clause (2), the law made by Parliament, whether passed before or after the law made by the Legislature of such State, or, as the case may be, the existing law, shall prevail and the law made by the Legislature of the State shall, to the extent of the repugnancy, be void. Clause 2 of the Article states that where a law made by the Legislature of a State with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the concurrent List contains any provision repugnant to the provisions of an earlier law made by Parliament or an existing law with respect to that matter, then, the law so made by the Legislature of such State shall, if it has been reserved for the consideration of the President and has received his assent, prevail in that State: Provided that nothing in this clause shall prevent Parliament from enacting at any time any law with respect to the same matter including a law adding to, amending, varying or repealing the law so made by the Legislature of the State.Q.What does Article 254(1) of the Constitution of India state regarding the relationship between state and central laws?a)It specifies that state laws always prevail over central laws.b)It mandates that state and central laws must be identical in content.c)It allows for state laws to be overridden by central laws on any matter.d)It provides a mechanism for resolving conflicts between state and central laws.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions.The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the validity of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, stating that the Act cannot be struck down on the ground that its provisions discriminate or are arbitrary when compared with the provisions of the central law - the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (LA Act 2013). A State law could be contrary to the central law but would stand protected under Article 254(2) after it receives the assent of the President of India. Hence, merely because there is discrimination between the two statutes would not be ground to invalidate the State law, the bench ruled. Article 254 of the C.O.I states that if any provision of a law made by the Legislature of a State is repugnant to any provision of a law made by Parliament which Parliament is competent to enact, or to any provision of an existing law with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List, then, subject to the provisions of clause (2), the law made by Parliament, whether passed before or after the law made by the Legislature of such State, or, as the case may be, the existing law, shall prevail and the law made by the Legislature of the State shall, to the extent of the repugnancy, be void. Clause 2 of the Article states that where a law made by the Legislature of a State with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the concurrent List contains any provision repugnant to the provisions of an earlier law made by Parliament or an existing law with respect to that matter, then, the law so made by the Legislature of such State shall, if it has been reserved for the consideration of the President and has received his assent, prevail in that State: Provided that nothing in this clause shall prevent Parliament from enacting at any time any law with respect to the same matter including a law adding to, amending, varying or repealing the law so made by the Legislature of the State.Q.What does Article 254(1) of the Constitution of India state regarding the relationship between state and central laws?a)It specifies that state laws always prevail over central laws.b)It mandates that state and central laws must be identical in content.c)It allows for state laws to be overridden by central laws on any matter.d)It provides a mechanism for resolving conflicts between state and central laws.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions.The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the validity of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, stating that the Act cannot be struck down on the ground that its provisions discriminate or are arbitrary when compared with the provisions of the central law - the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (LA Act 2013). A State law could be contrary to the central law but would stand protected under Article 254(2) after it receives the assent of the President of India. Hence, merely because there is discrimination between the two statutes would not be ground to invalidate the State law, the bench ruled. Article 254 of the C.O.I states that if any provision of a law made by the Legislature of a State is repugnant to any provision of a law made by Parliament which Parliament is competent to enact, or to any provision of an existing law with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List, then, subject to the provisions of clause (2), the law made by Parliament, whether passed before or after the law made by the Legislature of such State, or, as the case may be, the existing law, shall prevail and the law made by the Legislature of the State shall, to the extent of the repugnancy, be void. Clause 2 of the Article states that where a law made by the Legislature of a State with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the concurrent List contains any provision repugnant to the provisions of an earlier law made by Parliament or an existing law with respect to that matter, then, the law so made by the Legislature of such State shall, if it has been reserved for the consideration of the President and has received his assent, prevail in that State: Provided that nothing in this clause shall prevent Parliament from enacting at any time any law with respect to the same matter including a law adding to, amending, varying or repealing the law so made by the Legislature of the State.Q.What does Article 254(1) of the Constitution of India state regarding the relationship between state and central laws?a)It specifies that state laws always prevail over central laws.b)It mandates that state and central laws must be identical in content.c)It allows for state laws to be overridden by central laws on any matter.d)It provides a mechanism for resolving conflicts between state and central laws.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions.The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the validity of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, stating that the Act cannot be struck down on the ground that its provisions discriminate or are arbitrary when compared with the provisions of the central law - the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (LA Act 2013). A State law could be contrary to the central law but would stand protected under Article 254(2) after it receives the assent of the President of India. Hence, merely because there is discrimination between the two statutes would not be ground to invalidate the State law, the bench ruled. Article 254 of the C.O.I states that if any provision of a law made by the Legislature of a State is repugnant to any provision of a law made by Parliament which Parliament is competent to enact, or to any provision of an existing law with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List, then, subject to the provisions of clause (2), the law made by Parliament, whether passed before or after the law made by the Legislature of such State, or, as the case may be, the existing law, shall prevail and the law made by the Legislature of the State shall, to the extent of the repugnancy, be void. Clause 2 of the Article states that where a law made by the Legislature of a State with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the concurrent List contains any provision repugnant to the provisions of an earlier law made by Parliament or an existing law with respect to that matter, then, the law so made by the Legislature of such State shall, if it has been reserved for the consideration of the President and has received his assent, prevail in that State: Provided that nothing in this clause shall prevent Parliament from enacting at any time any law with respect to the same matter including a law adding to, amending, varying or repealing the law so made by the Legislature of the State.Q.What does Article 254(1) of the Constitution of India state regarding the relationship between state and central laws?a)It specifies that state laws always prevail over central laws.b)It mandates that state and central laws must be identical in content.c)It allows for state laws to be overridden by central laws on any matter.d)It provides a mechanism for resolving conflicts between state and central laws.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions.The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the validity of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, stating that the Act cannot be struck down on the ground that its provisions discriminate or are arbitrary when compared with the provisions of the central law - the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (LA Act 2013). A State law could be contrary to the central law but would stand protected under Article 254(2) after it receives the assent of the President of India. Hence, merely because there is discrimination between the two statutes would not be ground to invalidate the State law, the bench ruled. Article 254 of the C.O.I states that if any provision of a law made by the Legislature of a State is repugnant to any provision of a law made by Parliament which Parliament is competent to enact, or to any provision of an existing law with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List, then, subject to the provisions of clause (2), the law made by Parliament, whether passed before or after the law made by the Legislature of such State, or, as the case may be, the existing law, shall prevail and the law made by the Legislature of the State shall, to the extent of the repugnancy, be void. Clause 2 of the Article states that where a law made by the Legislature of a State with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the concurrent List contains any provision repugnant to the provisions of an earlier law made by Parliament or an existing law with respect to that matter, then, the law so made by the Legislature of such State shall, if it has been reserved for the consideration of the President and has received his assent, prevail in that State: Provided that nothing in this clause shall prevent Parliament from enacting at any time any law with respect to the same matter including a law adding to, amending, varying or repealing the law so made by the Legislature of the State.Q.What does Article 254(1) of the Constitution of India state regarding the relationship between state and central laws?a)It specifies that state laws always prevail over central laws.b)It mandates that state and central laws must be identical in content.c)It allows for state laws to be overridden by central laws on any matter.d)It provides a mechanism for resolving conflicts between state and central laws.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions.The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the validity of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, stating that the Act cannot be struck down on the ground that its provisions discriminate or are arbitrary when compared with the provisions of the central law - the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (LA Act 2013). A State law could be contrary to the central law but would stand protected under Article 254(2) after it receives the assent of the President of India. Hence, merely because there is discrimination between the two statutes would not be ground to invalidate the State law, the bench ruled. Article 254 of the C.O.I states that if any provision of a law made by the Legislature of a State is repugnant to any provision of a law made by Parliament which Parliament is competent to enact, or to any provision of an existing law with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List, then, subject to the provisions of clause (2), the law made by Parliament, whether passed before or after the law made by the Legislature of such State, or, as the case may be, the existing law, shall prevail and the law made by the Legislature of the State shall, to the extent of the repugnancy, be void. Clause 2 of the Article states that where a law made by the Legislature of a State with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the concurrent List contains any provision repugnant to the provisions of an earlier law made by Parliament or an existing law with respect to that matter, then, the law so made by the Legislature of such State shall, if it has been reserved for the consideration of the President and has received his assent, prevail in that State: Provided that nothing in this clause shall prevent Parliament from enacting at any time any law with respect to the same matter including a law adding to, amending, varying or repealing the law so made by the Legislature of the State.Q.What does Article 254(1) of the Constitution of India state regarding the relationship between state and central laws?a)It specifies that state laws always prevail over central laws.b)It mandates that state and central laws must be identical in content.c)It allows for state laws to be overridden by central laws on any matter.d)It provides a mechanism for resolving conflicts between state and central laws.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.

Explore Courses for CLAT exam