Read the following statements regarding the 'Doctrine of Repugnancy' (Article 254):

Question

Read the following statements regarding the 'Doctrine of Repugnancy' (Article 254):

Statement I: If a ‘State law’ on a "Concurrent List" subject conflict with a ‘Union law’, then the Union law prevails, and the State law becomes 'void' to the extent of the repugnancy.

Statement II: A State law on a Concurrent subject that conflicts with a Union law can still prevail within that State if it has been reserved for and received the assent of the President.

Which of the above statements is/are correct?

1. A. Only Statement I is correct
2. B. Only Statement II is correct
3. C. Both Statements I and II are correct (Correct answer)
4. D. Neither Statement I nor II is correct

Correct Answer

Option C — Both Statements I and II are correct

Detailed Solution & Explanation

The correct answer is Both Statements I and II are correct.

Key Points

• Article 254 embodies the Doctrine of Repugnancy, governing conflict between Union and State law on a Concurrent List subject.
• Statement I is correct: where the two conflict, the Union law prevails and the State law is void to the extent of the repugnancy.
• Statement II is correct as the recognised exception: a State law reserved for and receiving the President's assent prevails within that State.
• Both being accurate, the answer is the "both correct" option.

Additional Information

• Even where a State law prevails under Article 254(2), Parliament may later legislate afresh on the same matter and override it — the State's advantage is not permanent.
• The three legislative lists sit in the Seventh Schedule: Union (97 entries originally), State (66) and Concurrent (47).
• Concurrent List subjects include criminal law and procedure, marriage and divorce, education, forests, and economic and social planning.
• Residuary powers — subjects in none of the lists — belong to Parliament under Article 248.