RAS question
In case of conflict between a Central law and a State law on a subject in the Concurrent List:
Correct answer: (D) Central law prevails.
On a Concurrent List subject, Article 254 makes the Central law prevail over a conflicting State law, unless the State law has been reserved for and received Presidential assent for that State.
Explanation
Article 254 supplies the constitutional rule for repugnancy on Concurrent List subjects. When a Central law and a State law conflict on such a subject, Article 254(1) gives priority to the Central law, so the State law cannot prevail merely because the subject is also open to State legislation. The important exception is Article 254(2): if the State law was reserved for the President's consideration and received Presidential assent, it can prevail within that State. That exception is local to the assenting State and does not change the basic priority rule. The Central law therefore prevails in the general case, with Presidential assent as the key qualification for State-law priority within that State.
Why the other options are wrong
- (A) State law does not ordinarily prevail in a Concurrent List conflict; it can prevail in that State only when reserved for and assented to by the President under Article 254(2).
- (B) The Constitution itself gives the repugnancy rule in Article 254, so the issue is not framed as an open choice to be decided case by case by the Supreme Court.
- (C) Article 254 does not invalidate both laws together; it establishes which law prevails, subject to the Presidential-assent exception for a State law.
Concept
Legislative relations in Indian federalism include repugnancy under Article 254. RAS repeats this area because Centre-State power-sharing and Concurrent List exceptions are frequent prelims traps.