Daily Passage Test for CLAT - May 30 MCQs & solutions Free

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?

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 Act's provisions, it discriminates against employees.

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.

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.

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)?