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 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.a)The KAPM Act will take effect because the President of India gave it his approval.b)The KAPM Act shall be ruled invalid since it contravenes the APM Act.c)Since the KAPM Act was passed by the state legislature after the APM Act, it shall take precedence.d)The KAPM Act shall be ruled invalid because it discriminates against farmers in contrast to the APM Acts provisions.Correct answer is option 'C'. 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 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.a)The KAPM Act will take effect because the President of India gave it his approval.b)The KAPM Act shall be ruled invalid since it contravenes the APM Act.c)Since the KAPM Act was passed by the state legislature after the APM Act, it shall take precedence.d)The KAPM Act shall be ruled invalid because it discriminates against farmers in contrast to the APM Acts provisions.Correct answer is option 'C'. 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 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.a)The KAPM Act will take effect because the President of India gave it his approval.b)The KAPM Act shall be ruled invalid since it contravenes the APM Act.c)Since the KAPM Act was passed by the state legislature after the APM Act, it shall take precedence.d)The KAPM Act shall be ruled invalid because it discriminates against farmers in contrast to the APM Acts provisions.Correct answer is option 'C'. 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 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.a)The KAPM Act will take effect because the President of India gave it his approval.b)The KAPM Act shall be ruled invalid since it contravenes the APM Act.c)Since the KAPM Act was passed by the state legislature after the APM Act, it shall take precedence.d)The KAPM Act shall be ruled invalid because it discriminates against farmers in contrast to the APM Acts provisions.Correct answer is option 'C'. 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 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.a)The KAPM Act will take effect because the President of India gave it his approval.b)The KAPM Act shall be ruled invalid since it contravenes the APM Act.c)Since the KAPM Act was passed by the state legislature after the APM Act, it shall take precedence.d)The KAPM Act shall be ruled invalid because it discriminates against farmers in contrast to the APM Acts provisions.Correct answer is option 'C'. 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 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.a)The KAPM Act will take effect because the President of India gave it his approval.b)The KAPM Act shall be ruled invalid since it contravenes the APM Act.c)Since the KAPM Act was passed by the state legislature after the APM Act, it shall take precedence.d)The KAPM Act shall be ruled invalid because it discriminates against farmers in contrast to the APM Acts provisions.Correct answer is option 'C'. 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 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.a)The KAPM Act will take effect because the President of India gave it his approval.b)The KAPM Act shall be ruled invalid since it contravenes the APM Act.c)Since the KAPM Act was passed by the state legislature after the APM Act, it shall take precedence.d)The KAPM Act shall be ruled invalid because it discriminates against farmers in contrast to the APM Acts provisions.Correct answer is option 'C'. 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 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.a)The KAPM Act will take effect because the President of India gave it his approval.b)The KAPM Act shall be ruled invalid since it contravenes the APM Act.c)Since the KAPM Act was passed by the state legislature after the APM Act, it shall take precedence.d)The KAPM Act shall be ruled invalid because it discriminates against farmers in contrast to the APM Acts provisions.Correct answer is option 'C'. 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 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.a)The KAPM Act will take effect because the President of India gave it his approval.b)The KAPM Act shall be ruled invalid since it contravenes the APM Act.c)Since the KAPM Act was passed by the state legislature after the APM Act, it shall take precedence.d)The KAPM Act shall be ruled invalid because it discriminates against farmers in contrast to the APM Acts provisions.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.