Question

Which of the following is not an element of the twin requirement test to determine repugnancy under Article 254 of the Constitution of India?

• A. Repugnancy between the Central Act and State Act within the Concurrent List.
• B. State Act has been reserved for the consideration of the President.
• C. State Act has received accent of the President.
• D. Both (B) and (C).
• A. Contract relating to carriage of goods falls under Entry 7 of the Concurrent List.
• B. Contract relating to agriculture land falls under Entry 7 of the Concurrent List.
• C. Contract relating to agency falls under Entry 7 of the Concurrent List.
• D. Contract relating to partnership falls under Entry 7 of the Concurrent List.
• A. Repugnancy
• B. Pith and substance
• C. Colourable legislation
• D. Superior legislation
• A. A constitutional formality of obtaining consent of the President for promulgating a new Act.
• B. An express agreement of mind to what is proposed by the State Legislature by enacting a new law on the same subject on which the Central law already exists.
• C. An express agreement of mind to what is proposed by the State Legislature regarding repugnancy.
• D. Both (B) and (C).
• A. The Union List
• B. The State List
• C. The Concurrent List
• D. The Union List and the State List
• A. Completely be void.
• B. To the extent of the repugnancy, be void.
• C. At the discretion of the Parliament, be void.
• D. At the discretion of the Court, be void.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is D

Step 1: Understanding Article 254 twin test.
Article 254(1) provides that if there is inconsistency between a Central and a State law on a subject in the Concurrent List, the Central law prevails and the State law is void to the extent of repugnancy.
Step 2: Twin requirement.
The two conditions for repugnancy are:
1. There must be repugnancy between a Central and a State law.
2. The Presidential assent for the State law must be non-existent (i.e., not obtained under Article 254(2)).
Step 3: Application to options.
Options (B) and (C) refer to “reserved for consideration” and “received assent” — these are not part of the definition of repugnancy itself but rather exceptions to it. Hence, both together are not elements of the twin test. \[ \boxed{\text{D}} \]

Answer 2

The twin requirement test under Article 254 has exactly two limbs, so this question is really asking which options fall outside those two limbs, including the combined option.

1. Option A: Repugnancy between a Central Act and a State Act within the Concurrent List is the first limb of the twin test, so this is a genuine element of the test.
2. Option B: Describes the State Act as having been reserved for the President's consideration. Reservation for consideration is a procedural step that may precede assent, but the twin test itself asks whether Presidential assent exists, not merely whether the law was reserved for consideration, so standing alone this does not correctly state the second limb.
3. Option C: Describes the State Act as having received the President's assent, stated as a bare positive fact. The second limb of the test turns on whether such assent is absent, so this isolated statement about simply receiving assent also does not correctly frame the twin test.
4. Option D: Groups B and C together as not being elements of the twin test. Because the test actually comprises only repugnancy and the non-existence of assent, and neither B nor C individually states that second limb accurately, combining both is the option that correctly identifies what falls outside the twin requirement test.

Working through each limb shows that repugnancy is the genuine first element, while the isolated statements about reservation and simple receipt of assent do not, by themselves, state the twin test accurately.

Therefore, the correct answer is Option D.

Answer 3

Step 1: Understanding Entry 7 of List III.
Entry 7 of the Concurrent List covers matters such as contracts including those relating to partnership, agency, carriage of goods, and other specified commercial transactions.
Step 2: Application to options.
- (A), (C), and (D) are correct inclusions under Entry 7.
- (B) is incorrect — contracts relating to agricultural land are covered under the State List (List II), not Entry 7 of the Concurrent List. \[ \boxed{\text{B}} \]

Answer 4

Entry 7 of List III covers a defined set of contract subjects, so the way to find the untrue statement is to check which of the four contract types actually sits inside that entry.

1. Option A: Contracts for the carriage of goods are commercial transactions of exactly the kind Entry 7 lists, so this statement is accurate.
2. Option B: Contracts relating to agricultural land sit within land and agrarian matters, which are placed under the State List rather than Entry 7 of the Concurrent List, so describing them as falling under Entry 7 misstates their constitutional placement.
3. Option C: Contracts of agency are a recognised category of commercial contract covered by Entry 7, so this statement holds.
4. Option D: Contracts of partnership are likewise a commercial contract type expressly within Entry 7's coverage, so this statement is also accurate.

Since carriage of goods, agency and partnership contracts are all genuinely covered by Entry 7, while agricultural land is a State subject rather than a Concurrent List entry, the statement about agricultural land is the one that is untrue.

Therefore, the correct answer is Option B.

Answer 5

Step 1: Understanding the doctrine.
The doctrine of “pith and substance” is used to determine the true nature and character of legislation when a law appears to overlap into another list’s subject matter.
Step 2: Application in this scenario.
If the State law’s pith and substance falls within a State subject, it is valid, even if it incidentally touches upon a subject in the Union List.
Step 3: Why not other options.
- (A) Repugnancy applies to conflicts in Concurrent List subjects, not List I vs List II incidental overlaps.
- (C) Colourable legislation involves legislative fraud in enacting something indirectly that one cannot do directly.
- (D) “Superior legislation” is not a standard constitutional doctrine in this context.
\[ \boxed{\text{B}} \]

Answer 6

This question is testing which constitutional doctrine governs a State law that is genuinely about a State subject but happens to touch a Union subject in passing, so each option needs to be checked against what it actually addresses.

1. Option A: Repugnancy is the doctrine used when a Central and State law both validly occupy a Concurrent List subject and conflict with each other, it does not address a State law incidentally brushing against a Union subject, so it is not the right fit here.
2. Option B: Pith and substance asks courts to look past incidental encroachment and examine the true nature and dominant purpose of the legislation. If that dominant purpose lies within the State's own field, the law remains valid even though it touches a Union subject in passing, which is exactly the scenario described.
3. Option C: Colourable legislation concerns a legislature disguising a law to indirectly achieve something it lacks the power to do directly, it is about a lack of genuine legislative competence, not about a validly enacted State law incidentally overlapping another list.
4. Option D: Superior legislation is not a recognised doctrine used to resolve overlaps between legislative lists, so it does not describe the applicable test at all.

Because the scenario involves a State law whose real subject matter lies within its own competence but which incidentally touches a Union subject, the applicable test is the one that looks at the true character of the legislation rather than its incidental effects.

Therefore, the correct answer is Option B.

Answer 7

Step 1: Understanding Article 254(2).
Article 254(2) allows a State law on a Concurrent List subject to prevail over an inconsistent Central law in that State if it has received Presidential assent.
Step 2: Meaning of ‘assent’.
In constitutional usage, ‘assent’ here means an express agreement by the President to what is proposed by the State Legislature — particularly in cases where a new State law overlaps with an existing Central law or is repugnant to it.
Step 3: Application to options.
- (B) captures assent in terms of same-subject overlap.
- (C) captures assent in the context of resolving repugnancy.
Thus, both (B) and (C) together reflect the full meaning. \[ \boxed{\text{D}} \]

Answer 8

Article 254(2) uses assent in a specific constitutional sense, so each option needs to be tested for whether it captures that full meaning rather than only a formality.

1. Option A: Describes assent as merely a constitutional formality for promulgating a new Act. Reducing assent to a bare procedural formality understates its role, since assent under Article 254(2) is meant to be a considered response to a specific overlap with existing Central law, not a routine formality.
2. Option B: Frames assent as an express agreement of mind to what the State Legislature proposes when enacting a law on a subject already covered by Central law. This captures the substantive character of assent as a deliberate mental application by the President to the State's proposal.
3. Option C: Frames assent as an express agreement of mind specifically regarding repugnancy. This captures the other dimension of the same deliberate exercise, where the President's mind is applied to the fact that the State law conflicts with the Central law.
4. Option D: Combines B and C. Since assent under Article 254(2) involves the President consciously engaging both with the State's proposal on an overlapping subject and with the repugnancy it creates, neither B nor C alone tells the whole story, and only the combination reflects the full meaning of assent in this context.

Because assent has to be a considered response to both the overlap and the repugnancy, and not a mere formality, the combined description of B and C together is the accurate meaning.

Therefore, the correct answer is Option D.

Answer 9

Step 1: Scope of Article 254.
Article 254 applies only when there is repugnancy between Central and State laws on matters in the Concurrent List (List III).
Step 2: Why not Union or State List.
Union List subjects are exclusively Parliament’s domain — no scope for State-Central conflict. State List subjects are generally exclusive to States unless Parliament legislates under special powers (Articles 249–252), but such cases don’t invoke Article 254(2).
Step 3: Conclusion.
Therefore, Article 254(2) applies to Concurrent List subjects only. \[ \boxed{\text{C}} \]

Answer 10

Article 254 as a whole is triggered only in a particular constitutional setting, so identifying which list it applies to means checking where Central-State conflict is even possible.

1. Option A: The Union List is Parliament's exclusive domain, so there is no State law on the same subject for a Central law to conflict with, meaning Article 254 has no work to do there.
2. Option B: The State List is ordinarily reserved for State legislatures, and outside the special circumstances where Parliament may legislate on it, there is no routine overlap for Article 254(2) to resolve.
3. Option C: The Concurrent List is the one field where both Parliament and State legislatures can validly legislate on the same subject, creating the very possibility of conflict that Article 254 exists to resolve, and it is here that Article 254(2) lets a State law prevail with Presidential assent.
4. Option D: Combining the Union and State Lists does not create the dual legislative competence that generates repugnancy, since each of those lists individually keeps lawmaking with only one legislature.

Only the Concurrent List gives both Parliament and the States the power to legislate on the same subject, which is the precondition for the repugnancy and assent mechanism in Article 254 to operate at all.

Therefore, the correct answer is Option C.

Answer 11

Step 1: Article 254(1) rule.
Where a State law conflicts with a Central law on a Concurrent List subject, the Central law prevails and the State law is void only to the extent of the repugnancy.
Step 2: Meaning of “extent of the repugnancy”.
The part of the State law that is not inconsistent remains valid and enforceable. Only overlapping or conflicting provisions are struck down.
Step 3: Application to options.
Option (B) correctly reflects this constitutional limitation. Options (A), (C), and (D) misstate the rule or add non-existent discretion. \[ \boxed{\text{B}} \]

Answer 12

Article 254(1) fixes a precise consequence for a State law that conflicts with a Central law on the same Concurrent List subject, so each option should be checked against how far that consequence actually reaches.

1. Option A: Says the State law becomes completely void. This overstates the consequence, because only the portions of the State law that actually conflict with the Central law are affected, not the statute in its entirety.
2. Option B: Says the State law is void only to the extent of the repugnancy. This mirrors the constitutional text precisely, the provisions that clash with the Central law fall away, while the rest of the State law, being free of conflict, continues to operate.
3. Option C: Suggests Parliament has discretion over whether the State law is void. The invalidity flows automatically from the constitutional rule itself once repugnancy is established, not from any separate choice Parliament makes.
4. Option D: Suggests the Court has discretion over whether the State law is void. Courts apply the rule and identify the extent of conflict, but the voiding of the repugnant part is a consequence fixed by the Constitution itself, not a matter left to judicial discretion in the way this option implies.

Because only the conflicting portions of the State law are displaced and the rest remains valid, and this outcome follows automatically from the constitutional text rather than from any discretionary choice, the option describing partial invalidity limited to the extent of the repugnancy is correct.

Therefore, the correct answer is Option B.