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 (RERA) Act, 2022 was passed by the state legislature as a result of the Sharma Builders v. State of Maharashtra lawsuit to control the real estate market in the state. On the grounds that they were incompatible with the Central law, the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, (RERA Act 2016), passed by Parliament, the provisions of the RERA Act were challenged.a)The Maharashtra RERA Act will take precedence because it has the President of Indias approval.b)Because the Maharashtra RERA Act conflicts with the RERA Act 2016, it shall be deemed null and void.c)The Maharashtra RERA Act, which was passed by the state legislature following the RERA Act of 2016, shall take precedence.d)The Maharashtra RERA Act would be found invalid since it discriminates against builders in contrast to the RERA Act 2016s requirements.Correct answer is option 'A'. 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. The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) Act, 2022 was passed by the state legislature as a result of the Sharma Builders v. State of Maharashtra lawsuit to control the real estate market in the state. On the grounds that they were incompatible with the Central law, the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, (RERA Act 2016), passed by Parliament, the provisions of the RERA Act were challenged.

a)
The Maharashtra RERA Act will take precedence because it has the President of India's approval.
b)
Because the Maharashtra RERA Act conflicts with the RERA Act 2016, it shall be deemed null and void.
c)
The Maharashtra RERA Act, which was passed by the state legislature following the RERA Act of 2016, shall take precedence.
d)
The Maharashtra RERA Act would be found invalid since it discriminates against builders in contrast to the RERA Act 2016's requirements.

Correct answer is option 'A'. 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...

A State law may be in conflict with the Constitutional law, but after receiving the President of India's approval, it is protected by Article 254(2). In this instance, the RERA Act 2016 was followed by the Maharashtra RERA Act, which was passed by the Maharashtra State Legislature. The Maharashtra RERA Act shall take precedence in the state if it was reserved for the President's consideration and gained his approval.

The correct response is therefore option A.

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 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.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.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 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?

View answer

Passage - 1Fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution are, in the absence of specific constitutional provisions, mainly enforceable against "the State". The definition of the State in article 12 being an "inclusive" one, courts have ruled that where there is pervasive or predominant governmental control or significant involvement in its activity, such bodies, entities and organizations fall within the definition of "the State".Article 14 is one of the most important Articles of the Indian constitution and it is also regarded as part of the golden triangle of the Constitution along with Article 19 and 21 .In India, this right is very important because there has been a widespread socio-economic difference which has been in existence from a long time. People have been discriminated on the basis of their gender or the religion they follow, therefore Article 14 was included in the Constitution to remove such inequalities and bring all the people under the equal protection of the law. Another important point about this Article is that it not only imposes a duty on the State to abstain from discriminating people but it also puts a positive duty totake such action by which the inequalities can be bridged between the people. Article 19(1)(

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.The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) Act, 2022 was passed by the state legislature as a result of the Sharma Builders v. State of Maharashtra lawsuit to control the real estate market in the state. On the grounds that they were incompatible with the Central law, the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, (RERA Act 2016), passed by Parliament, the provisions of the RERA Act were challenged.a)The Maharashtra RERA Act will take precedence because it has the President of Indias approval.b)Because the Maharashtra RERA Act conflicts with the RERA Act 2016, it shall be deemed null and void.c)The Maharashtra RERA Act, which was passed by the state legislature following the RERA Act of 2016, shall take precedence.d)The Maharashtra RERA Act would be found invalid since it discriminates against builders in contrast to the RERA Act 2016s requirements.Correct answer is option 'A'. 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.The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) Act, 2022 was passed by the state legislature as a result of the Sharma Builders v. State of Maharashtra lawsuit to control the real estate market in the state. On the grounds that they were incompatible with the Central law, the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, (RERA Act 2016), passed by Parliament, the provisions of the RERA Act were challenged.a)The Maharashtra RERA Act will take precedence because it has the President of Indias approval.b)Because the Maharashtra RERA Act conflicts with the RERA Act 2016, it shall be deemed null and void.c)The Maharashtra RERA Act, which was passed by the state legislature following the RERA Act of 2016, shall take precedence.d)The Maharashtra RERA Act would be found invalid since it discriminates against builders in contrast to the RERA Act 2016s requirements.Correct answer is option 'A'. 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.The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) Act, 2022 was passed by the state legislature as a result of the Sharma Builders v. State of Maharashtra lawsuit to control the real estate market in the state. On the grounds that they were incompatible with the Central law, the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, (RERA Act 2016), passed by Parliament, the provisions of the RERA Act were challenged.a)The Maharashtra RERA Act will take precedence because it has the President of Indias approval.b)Because the Maharashtra RERA Act conflicts with the RERA Act 2016, it shall be deemed null and void.c)The Maharashtra RERA Act, which was passed by the state legislature following the RERA Act of 2016, shall take precedence.d)The Maharashtra RERA Act would be found invalid since it discriminates against builders in contrast to the RERA Act 2016s requirements.Correct answer is option 'A'. 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.The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) Act, 2022 was passed by the state legislature as a result of the Sharma Builders v. State of Maharashtra lawsuit to control the real estate market in the state. On the grounds that they were incompatible with the Central law, the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, (RERA Act 2016), passed by Parliament, the provisions of the RERA Act were challenged.a)The Maharashtra RERA Act will take precedence because it has the President of Indias approval.b)Because the Maharashtra RERA Act conflicts with the RERA Act 2016, it shall be deemed null and void.c)The Maharashtra RERA Act, which was passed by the state legislature following the RERA Act of 2016, shall take precedence.d)The Maharashtra RERA Act would be found invalid since it discriminates against builders in contrast to the RERA Act 2016s requirements.Correct answer is option 'A'. 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.The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) Act, 2022 was passed by the state legislature as a result of the Sharma Builders v. State of Maharashtra lawsuit to control the real estate market in the state. On the grounds that they were incompatible with the Central law, the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, (RERA Act 2016), passed by Parliament, the provisions of the RERA Act were challenged.a)The Maharashtra RERA Act will take precedence because it has the President of Indias approval.b)Because the Maharashtra RERA Act conflicts with the RERA Act 2016, it shall be deemed null and void.c)The Maharashtra RERA Act, which was passed by the state legislature following the RERA Act of 2016, shall take precedence.d)The Maharashtra RERA Act would be found invalid since it discriminates against builders in contrast to the RERA Act 2016s requirements.Correct answer is option 'A'. 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.The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) Act, 2022 was passed by the state legislature as a result of the Sharma Builders v. State of Maharashtra lawsuit to control the real estate market in the state. On the grounds that they were incompatible with the Central law, the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, (RERA Act 2016), passed by Parliament, the provisions of the RERA Act were challenged.a)The Maharashtra RERA Act will take precedence because it has the President of Indias approval.b)Because the Maharashtra RERA Act conflicts with the RERA Act 2016, it shall be deemed null and void.c)The Maharashtra RERA Act, which was passed by the state legislature following the RERA Act of 2016, shall take precedence.d)The Maharashtra RERA Act would be found invalid since it discriminates against builders in contrast to the RERA Act 2016s requirements.Correct answer is option 'A'. 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.The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) Act, 2022 was passed by the state legislature as a result of the Sharma Builders v. State of Maharashtra lawsuit to control the real estate market in the state. On the grounds that they were incompatible with the Central law, the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, (RERA Act 2016), passed by Parliament, the provisions of the RERA Act were challenged.a)The Maharashtra RERA Act will take precedence because it has the President of Indias approval.b)Because the Maharashtra RERA Act conflicts with the RERA Act 2016, it shall be deemed null and void.c)The Maharashtra RERA Act, which was passed by the state legislature following the RERA Act of 2016, shall take precedence.d)The Maharashtra RERA Act would be found invalid since it discriminates against builders in contrast to the RERA Act 2016s requirements.Correct answer is option 'A'. 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.The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) Act, 2022 was passed by the state legislature as a result of the Sharma Builders v. State of Maharashtra lawsuit to control the real estate market in the state. On the grounds that they were incompatible with the Central law, the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, (RERA Act 2016), passed by Parliament, the provisions of the RERA Act were challenged.a)The Maharashtra RERA Act will take precedence because it has the President of Indias approval.b)Because the Maharashtra RERA Act conflicts with the RERA Act 2016, it shall be deemed null and void.c)The Maharashtra RERA Act, which was passed by the state legislature following the RERA Act of 2016, shall take precedence.d)The Maharashtra RERA Act would be found invalid since it discriminates against builders in contrast to the RERA Act 2016s requirements.Correct answer is option 'A'. 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.The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) Act, 2022 was passed by the state legislature as a result of the Sharma Builders v. State of Maharashtra lawsuit to control the real estate market in the state. On the grounds that they were incompatible with the Central law, the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, (RERA Act 2016), passed by Parliament, the provisions of the RERA Act were challenged.a)The Maharashtra RERA Act will take precedence because it has the President of Indias approval.b)Because the Maharashtra RERA Act conflicts with the RERA Act 2016, it shall be deemed null and void.c)The Maharashtra RERA Act, which was passed by the state legislature following the RERA Act of 2016, shall take precedence.d)The Maharashtra RERA Act would be found invalid since it discriminates against builders in contrast to the RERA Act 2016s requirements.Correct answer is option 'A'. 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.The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) Act, 2022 was passed by the state legislature as a result of the Sharma Builders v. State of Maharashtra lawsuit to control the real estate market in the state. On the grounds that they were incompatible with the Central law, the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, (RERA Act 2016), passed by Parliament, the provisions of the RERA Act were challenged.a)The Maharashtra RERA Act will take precedence because it has the President of Indias approval.b)Because the Maharashtra RERA Act conflicts with the RERA Act 2016, it shall be deemed null and void.c)The Maharashtra RERA Act, which was passed by the state legislature following the RERA Act of 2016, shall take precedence.d)The Maharashtra RERA Act would be found invalid since it discriminates against builders in contrast to the RERA Act 2016s requirements.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.

Explore Courses for CLAT exam