All Courses
Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity Get the App Login Join for Free
Sign in Open App
CLAT Exam  >  CLAT Questions  >  Directions: Read the following passage carefu... Start Learning for Free
SaveJoin 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. 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 (DCA)?
  • a)
    The GDCA Act shall be deemed void as it is in repugnance with the DCA.
  • b)
    The GDCA Act shall prevail.
  • c)
    The GDCA Act shall prevail as it was enacted by the State Legislature after the DCA.
  • d)
    The GDCA Act shall be deemed void as it violates the fundamental rights of pharmaceutical companies.
Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?
FREE This question is part of
Download PDF Attempt Test
Download PDF Attempt this Test
Most Upvoted Answer
Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questi...
In the context of repugnancy between a state law and a central law, the general principle is that if the state law was enacted after the central law, the state law prevails. This principle is based on Article 254(2) of the Indian Constitution, which grants protection to state laws passed after central laws. Therefore, in this case, where the GDCA Act was enacted by the Gujarat State Legislature after the DCA, the GDCA Act is likely to prevail over the DCA, unless specific circumstances apply.
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.
< Previous Question Next Question >
Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

Passage:Last week, the government used the Drug Price Control Order, 2013, to increase the price ceilingfor 21 medicines by as much as 50% to ensure their availability in the market. This is a welcome move because lower prices would have further limited the availability of these drugs, some of which include those used for malaria, leprosy and allergy. The decision by the regulatory authority – usually known to reduce prices of essential drugs – was prompted by repeated petitions by the pharmaceutical industry, which pointed out that the increasing cost of imports had made the production of some of these drugs unviable. Prices of bulk drugs and active pharmaceutical ingredients have, in fact, gone up by up to 88%, and are largely imported. This raises a basic question: Should the government control prices? The motivation for controlling drug prices is not very difficult to understand. Unlike some of the developed countries, where most of the population has insurance coverage or medical facilities are provided by the state, medical expenses in India are borne by citizens, largely through out-of pocket expenses. Therefore, the state intervenes by keeping prices of some drugs in check to contain such spending. However, the unintended consequence is that it affects the supply of drugs and can potentially make citizens worse off. The risk of non-availability was an important reason for raising prices. Although all pharmaceutical companies may not stop producing drugs with price control, they may limit the supply. Further, the government usually dithers on price hike because of political considerations so that it is not accused of favouring private companies. Thus, the government should stay away from dictating prices and allow the market to function. Competition in the marketplace will ensure that no company is able to make extraordinary profits in basic and essential drugs. Since the state has limited resources, it should focus on regulation, and ensure that the quality of drugs supplied in the market is not compromised at any point. Q.The pharmaceutical industry has been asking the government to raise the prices of certain drugs for a long time, but has not received a response. Why, according to the author, could this be?

Passage:Last week, the government used the Drug Price Control Order, 2013, to increase the price ceilingfor 21 medicines by as much as 50% to ensure their availability in the market. This is a welcome move because lower prices would have further limited the availability of these drugs, some of which include those used for malaria, leprosy and allergy. The decision by the regulatory authority – usually known to reduce prices of essential drugs – was prompted by repeated petitions by the pharmaceutical industry, which pointed out that the increasing cost of imports had made the production of some of these drugs unviable. Prices of bulk drugs and active pharmaceutical ingredients have, in fact, gone up by up to 88%, and are largely imported. This raises a basic question: Should the government control prices? The motivation for controlling drug prices is not very difficult to understand. Unlike some of the developed countries, where most of the population has insurance coverage or medical facilities are provided by the state, medical expenses in India are borne by citizens, largely through out-of pocket expenses. Therefore, the state intervenes by keeping prices of some drugs in check to contain such spending. However, the unintended consequence is that it affects the supply of drugs and can potentially make citizens worse off. The risk of non-availability was an important reason for raising prices. Although all pharmaceutical companies may not stop producing drugs with price control, they may limit the supply. Further, the government usually dithers on price hike because of political considerations so that it is not accused of favouring private companies. Thus, the government should stay away from dictating prices and allow the market to function. Competition in the marketplace will ensure that no company is able to make extraordinary profits in basic and essential drugs. Since the state has limited resources, it should focus on regulation, and ensure that the quality of drugs supplied in the market is not compromised at any point.Q.Based on the author’s arguments in the passage above, which of the following would be most correct

Passage:Last week, the government used the Drug Price Control Order, 2013, to increase the price ceilingfor 21 medicines by as much as 50% to ensure their availability in the market. This is a welcome move because lower prices would have further limited the availability of these drugs, some of which include those used for malaria, leprosy and allergy. The decision by the regulatory authority – usually known to reduce prices of essential drugs – was prompted by repeated petitions by the pharmaceutical industry, which pointed out that the increasing cost of imports had made the production of some of these drugs unviable. Prices of bulk drugs and active pharmaceutical ingredients have, in fact, gone up by up to 88%, and are largely imported. This raises a basic question: Should the government control prices? The motivation for controlling drug prices is not very difficult to understand. Unlike some of the developed countries, where most of the population has insurance coverage or medical facilities are provided by the state, medical expenses in India are borne by citizens, largely through out-of pocket expenses. Therefore, the state intervenes by keeping prices of some drugs in check to contain such spending. However, the unintended consequence is that it affects the supply of drugs and can potentially make citizens worse off. The risk of non-availability was an important reason for raising prices. Although all pharmaceutical companies may not stop producing drugs with price control, they may limit the supply. Further, the government usually dithers on price hike because of political considerations so that it is not accused of favouring private companies. Thus, the government should stay away from dictating prices and allow the market to function. Competition in the marketplace will ensure that no company is able to make extraordinary profits in basic and essential drugs. Since the state has limited resources, it should focus on regulation, and ensure that the quality of drugs supplied in the market is not compromised at any point.Q.The state removes all price restrictions on an essential medicine. Pharmaceutical companies start selling that medicine at a price nearly 5 times its earlier price. In such a situation, based on the author’s reasoning above

Passage:Last week, the government used the Drug Price Control Order, 2013, to increase the price ceilingfor 21 medicines by as much as 50% to ensure their availability in the market. This is a welcome move because lower prices would have further limited the availability of these drugs, some of which include those used for malaria, leprosy and allergy. The decision by the regulatory authority – usually known to reduce prices of essential drugs – was prompted by repeated petitions by the pharmaceutical industry, which pointed out that the increasing cost of imports had made the production of some of these drugs unviable. Prices of bulk drugs and active pharmaceutical ingredients have, in fact, gone up by up to 88%, and are largely imported. This raises a basic question: Should the government control prices? The motivation for controlling drug prices is not very difficult to understand. Unlike some of the developed countries, where most of the population has insurance coverage or medical facilities are provided by the state, medical expenses in India are borne by citizens, largely through out-of pocket expenses. Therefore, the state intervenes by keeping prices of some drugs in check to contain such spending. However, the unintended consequence is that it affects the supply of drugs and can potentially make citizens worse off. The risk of non-availability was an important reason for raising prices. Although all pharmaceutical companies may not stop producing drugs with price control, they may limit the supply. Further, the government usually dithers on price hike because of political considerations so that it is not accused of favouring private companies. Thus, the government should stay away from dictating prices and allow the market to function. Competition in the marketplace will ensure that no company is able to make extraordinary profits in basic and essential drugs. Since the state has limited resources, it should focus on regulation, and ensure that the quality of drugs supplied in the market is not compromised at any point.Q.The state places a very low price for the sale of an essential medicine, which is lower than the price of the imported ingredients used to make that medicine. What, according to the author, would be the effect of setting such a low price?

Instruction to Candidates: This section consists of ten problems (with 45 questions) in total. Each problem consists of a set of rules and facts. Apply the specified rules to the set of facts and answer the questions.In answering the following questions, you should not rely on any rule(s) except the rule(s) that are supplied for every problem. Further, you should not assume any fact other than those stated in the problem. The aim is to test your ability to properly apply a rule to a given set of facts, even when the result is absurd or unacceptable for any other reason. It is not the aim to test any knowledge of law you may already possess.Problem 1 (For question)RulesA. The fundamental right to freedom of association includes the right to form an association as well as not join an association.B. The fundamental right to freedom of association also includes the freedom to decide with whom toassociate.C. The fundamental right to freedom of association does not extend to the right to realize the objectives of forming the association.D. Fundamental rights are applicable only to laws made by or administrative actions of the State and do not apply to actions of private persons.E. Any law in contravention of fundamental rights is unconstitutional and therefore cannot bind anyperson.FactsGajodhar Pharmaceuticals, a private company, offered an employment contract of two years to Syed Monirul Alam. One of the clauses in the employment contract provided that Syed Monirul Alam must join Gajodhar Mazdoor Singh (GMS), one of the trade unions active in Gajodhar Pharmaceuticals.Q. If Parliament enacts a legislation prohibiting strikes by trade unions of employees engaged in pharmaceutical industry, then

Top Courses for CLATView all

Top Courses for CLAT

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 (DCA)?a)The GDCA Act shall be deemed void as it is in repugnance with the DCA.b)The GDCA Act shall prevail.c)The GDCA Act shall prevail as it was enacted by the State Legislature after the DCA.d)The GDCA Act shall be deemed void as it violates the fundamental rights of pharmaceutical companies.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?
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.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 (DCA)?a)The GDCA Act shall be deemed void as it is in repugnance with the DCA.b)The GDCA Act shall prevail.c)The GDCA Act shall prevail as it was enacted by the State Legislature after the DCA.d)The GDCA Act shall be deemed void as it violates the fundamental rights of pharmaceutical companies.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.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 (DCA)?a)The GDCA Act shall be deemed void as it is in repugnance with the DCA.b)The GDCA Act shall prevail.c)The GDCA Act shall prevail as it was enacted by the State Legislature after the DCA.d)The GDCA Act shall be deemed void as it violates the fundamental rights of pharmaceutical companies.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.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 (DCA)?a)The GDCA Act shall be deemed void as it is in repugnance with the DCA.b)The GDCA Act shall prevail.c)The GDCA Act shall prevail as it was enacted by the State Legislature after the DCA.d)The GDCA Act shall be deemed void as it violates the fundamental rights of pharmaceutical companies.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.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 (DCA)?a)The GDCA Act shall be deemed void as it is in repugnance with the DCA.b)The GDCA Act shall prevail.c)The GDCA Act shall prevail as it was enacted by the State Legislature after the DCA.d)The GDCA Act shall be deemed void as it violates the fundamental rights of pharmaceutical companies.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.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 (DCA)?a)The GDCA Act shall be deemed void as it is in repugnance with the DCA.b)The GDCA Act shall prevail.c)The GDCA Act shall prevail as it was enacted by the State Legislature after the DCA.d)The GDCA Act shall be deemed void as it violates the fundamental rights of pharmaceutical companies.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.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 (DCA)?a)The GDCA Act shall be deemed void as it is in repugnance with the DCA.b)The GDCA Act shall prevail.c)The GDCA Act shall prevail as it was enacted by the State Legislature after the DCA.d)The GDCA Act shall be deemed void as it violates the fundamental rights of pharmaceutical companies.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.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 (DCA)?a)The GDCA Act shall be deemed void as it is in repugnance with the DCA.b)The GDCA Act shall prevail.c)The GDCA Act shall prevail as it was enacted by the State Legislature after the DCA.d)The GDCA Act shall be deemed void as it violates the fundamental rights of pharmaceutical companies.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.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 (DCA)?a)The GDCA Act shall be deemed void as it is in repugnance with the DCA.b)The GDCA Act shall prevail.c)The GDCA Act shall prevail as it was enacted by the State Legislature after the DCA.d)The GDCA Act shall be deemed void as it violates the fundamental rights of pharmaceutical companies.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.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 (DCA)?a)The GDCA Act shall be deemed void as it is in repugnance with the DCA.b)The GDCA Act shall prevail.c)The GDCA Act shall prevail as it was enacted by the State Legislature after the DCA.d)The GDCA Act shall be deemed void as it violates the fundamental rights of pharmaceutical companies.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.
Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Top Courses for CLAT

Explore Courses

Suggested Free Tests

Signup for Free!
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days! Learn & Practice with 1000+ FREE Notes, Videos & Tests.
10M+ students study on EduRev
Get App
© EduRev
Education Revolution
Follow Us
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days!
Access 1000+ FREE Docs, Videos and Tests
Takes less than 10 seconds to signup