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

Article 254 of the Constitution of India addresses repugnancy involving central and state laws in cases where both have legislated on matters listed in the Concurrent List. It specifically contemplates situations where state laws conflict with central laws. To determine repugnancy, a twin requirement test is employed:

• There must be a clear repugnancy between the Central Act and the State Act within the Concurrent List.
• The state legislation should lack Presidential assent after being reserved for the President's consideration.

Given these criteria, options for determining what is not an element of the twin requirement test include:

• Repugnancy between the Central Act and State Act within the Concurrent List: This is indeed part of the twin requirement test.
• State Act has been reserved for the consideration of the President: This is required for assessing repugnancy but not the primary element of the twin requirement test; it relates to obtaining Presidential assent.
• State Act has received assent of the President: The absence of Presidential assent is part of the requirement for repugnancy; i.e., the state law must not have Presidential assent for the repugnancy to hold.

Evaluating these options, elements (B) and (C), concerning the consideration and assent of the President, do not individually represent parts of the core twin requirement for determining repugnancy but relate to the procedural aspects post-identification of repugnancy. Thus, both (B) and (C) are not primary elements in identifying repugnancy according to the twin requirement test in Article 254.

Correct Answer: Both (B) and (C).

Answer 2

The passage itself spells out the twin requirement for repugnancy under Article 254, so the cleanest approach is to hold each option up against that stated formulation rather than reconstruct the test from scratch.

1. Option 1: A genuine repugnancy between the Central Act and the State Act, both enacted on a Concurrent List subject, is expressly named as the first limb of the twin requirement, so this is one of its actual elements.
2. Option 2: Merely having reserved the State Act for the President's consideration is a procedural step on the way to assent, but reservation by itself is not what the twin requirement turns on; what matters is the ultimate status of assent, not the act of reserving the bill.
3. Option 3: The passage frames the second limb as the Presidential assent being held as non-existent, so pointing to the State Act having "received" assent describes the opposite scenario, not the actual second limb of the test as framed.
4. Option 4: Since neither the bare act of reservation (Option B) nor the state of having received assent (Option C) is itself the second limb as the passage frames it, both are properly excluded from the twin requirement's two elements.

The twin requirement, as the passage sets it out, is repugnancy plus the non-existence of Presidential assent, which means Options B and C, taken as stated, are not accurate descriptions of that second limb.

Hence, the correct answer is Both (B) and (C).

Answer 3

The issue at hand is to determine which of the statements regarding Entry 7 of List III (Concurrent List) of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India is untrue. Entry 7 pertains specifically to "Contracts, including partnership, agency, contracts and actionable wrongs.", meaning it deals with general contractual matters and related concepts. However, it does not specifically address contracts related to agriculture land. Contracts involving agricultural land generally fall under Entry 18 of List II (State List), which concerns land matters, as agricultural land management is primarily a state subject. Therefore, the statement "Contract relating to agriculture land falls under Entry 7 of the Concurrent List" is untrue. The untrue statement is thus: "Contract relating to agriculture land falls under Entry 7 of the Concurrent List."

Answer 4

Entry 7 of List III covers contracts generally, so the fastest way to find the untrue statement is to check which subject matter belongs to a different, more specific entry altogether.

1. Option 1: Carriage of goods is transacted through a contract of carriage, and general contract law, including this kind of commercial contract, falls within Entry 7's coverage of contracts.
2. Option 2: Agricultural land is dealt with under a dedicated State List entry concerning rights in and over land, including agricultural land, because land is treated as a subject requiring State control rather than a general Concurrent List contract matter. Placing agricultural land contracts under Entry 7 misassigns the subject.
3. Option 3: A contract of agency is a standard contractual relationship expressly contemplated within Entry 7's language covering contracts, including agency, so this statement is accurate.
4. Option 4: Partnership is likewise named within Entry 7's own wording, which explicitly extends to contracts including partnership, so this statement is also accurate.

Three of the four statements correctly place a contract type under Entry 7; only agricultural land is wrongly placed there when it in fact belongs to the State List.

Hence, the correct answer is "Contract relating to agriculture land falls under Entry 7 of the Concurrent List."

Answer 5

The given question is about determining the test applied when a State Act, enacted on a subject within the State legislature's domain, incidentally covers a subject meant for the Parliament. Here, the correct test to apply is "pith and substance." This doctrine is used to determine whether a legislature is enacting a legitimate subject within its list or trespassing into areas reserved for another. Let's understand this with an example: In the case of the West Bengal Housing Industry Regulation Act, 2017 (WB-HIRA) vs. the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA), the issue of repugnancy arose. While WB-HIRA was not reserved for nor received Presidential assent as required under Article 254(2), it was compared with RERA. The analysis confirms that despite some provisions being directly conflicting and overlapping, the primary objective (or 'pith and substance') of WB-HIRA was the focus rather than just incidental overlaps. Thus, assessing which list the legislation primarily falls into and its core intention is vital. Therefore, for the question at hand, if a State Act's provisions partly overlap with subjects reserved for the Parliament, the situation calls for evaluating through the lens of 'pith and substance.'

Answer 6

This question is about naming the constitutional test used when legislation on one list incidentally touches a subject reserved for another list, so each option should be tested as a definition against that scenario.

1. Option 1: Repugnancy is the test applied once two competing, validly enacted laws on the same Concurrent List subject conflict with each other; it presumes two laws already exist on the same field, which is a different scenario from mere incidental encroachment by one law.
2. Option 2: Pith and substance is precisely the doctrine courts use to look past an incidental overlap and ask what a law is, in its true nature and dominant purpose, actually about. If its core is validly within the enacting legislature's own list, an incidental touch on another list's subject does not invalidate it.
3. Option 3: Colourable legislation concerns a legislature disguising a law to cover a subject it lacks power over, which is a question of bad-faith or indirect encroachment, not the situation described here of a genuinely valid law incidentally touching another subject.
4. Option 4: "Superior legislation" is not a recognised doctrine used for resolving overlaps of this kind, so it does not fit the scenario at all.

Testing each doctrine against the described scenario, a State law incidentally touching a Parliament-only subject, shows that pith and substance is the doctrine built for exactly this situation.

Hence, the correct answer is Pith and substance.

Answer 7

The term ‘assent’ in Article 254(2) of the Indian Constitution refers to the process where a State law on the same subject as an existing Central law is granted approval by the President. This ensures that when two laws, potentially conflicting, are present, the State law can still come into effect with Presidential approval. Let’s explore the key points: 

1. Article 254 of the Constitution: This article deals with situations where there is a conflict between laws made by the Parliament and the laws made by the State Legislatures. It states that in cases of repugnancy, the law made by Parliament will prevail.

2. Understanding Assent in Article 254(2): This clause allows a State law that conflicts with a Central law to still be valid if it receives Presidential assent. After such assent, the State law prevails in that State, even if it's inconsistent with the Central law.

3. Conditions for Assent: Assent requires two main criteria: (a) Identification of ‘repugnancy’ where both Central and State laws cover the same subject. (b) Presidential assent is needed for the State law to prevail.

4. Interpretation: The options provided indicate that the correct understanding of ‘assent’ encompasses an express agreement with what the State Legislature proposes regarding repugnancy (Option C) and agreement of mind to the proposal by the State Legislature by enacting a new law on an existing subject (Option B). Together, the correct choice is “Both (B) and (C)”.

This understanding is crucial in maintaining the constitutional balance and address conflicts in the legislative domain, ensuring both Central and State interests are respected.

Answer 8

The meaning of "assent" in Article 254(2) has been shaped by courts to mean something more deliberate than a rubber stamp, so each option should be checked for whether it captures that deliberate, mind-applied character or reduces assent to a mere procedural formality.

1. Option 1: Describing assent as a "constitutional formality" understates what courts have said about it; assent under Article 254(2) is treated as a substantive act requiring genuine application of mind to the specific repugnant provisions, not a routine formality that is granted as a matter of course.
2. Option 2: Describing assent as an express agreement of mind to what the State Legislature proposes, in enacting a law on a subject the Centre has already legislated on, captures the deliberate character courts have attached to the term and is an accurate part of its meaning.
3. Option 3: Describing assent as an express agreement of mind specifically directed at the repugnancy, that is, the President turning attention to the provisions that conflict with the existing Central law, is also an accurate part of the meaning, since assent is meant to engage with the conflict itself, not just the State law in the abstract.
4. Option 4: Because both the general act of engaging with the new State law (Option B) and the more targeted engagement with its repugnant provisions (Option C) are genuine facets of what "assent" requires, combining them gives the fuller, accurate meaning of the term.

Ruling out the "mere formality" framing in Option 1 and combining the two complementary descriptions in Options 2 and 3 gives the complete picture of what assent under Article 254(2) means.

Hence, the correct answer is Both (B) and (C).

Answer 9

Article 254(2) of the Constitution of India applies to the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List. This Article pertains to legislative conflicts when both Parliament and State Legislature legislate on the same subject in the Concurrent List. If a State law conflicts with a Central law on the same subject under the Concurrent List, the Central law prevails unless the State law, after being reserved for consideration, receives Presidential assent. The comprehension involving the West Bengal Housing Industry Regulation Act, 2017 (WB-HIRA) and the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA) illustrates such a scenario. Both laws address Entries 6 and 7 of the Concurrent List, leading to a conflict or 'repugnancy'. Without presidential assent for WB-HIRA, and given its direct or substantial conflict with RERA, WB-HIRA was deemed unconstitutional. This underscores the importance of Presidential assent in allowing State legislation to prevail in cases of conflict over subjects in the Concurrent List.

Answer 10

Article 254 as a whole is triggered only in a specific constitutional setting, so identifying which list that setting refers to answers this question directly.

1. Option 1: The Union List contains subjects on which only Parliament can legislate, so there is no possibility of a competing State law on those subjects for Article 254 to resolve, ruling this option out.
2. Option 2: The State List contains subjects on which, ordinarily, only the State Legislature can legislate, so Parliament generally cannot pass a competing law there either, which also rules this option out.
3. Option 3: The Concurrent List is the one place where both Parliament and every State Legislature can validly legislate on the same subject, which is exactly the situation that produces the kind of clash Article 254, including its assent provision in clause (2), is designed to resolve.
4. Option 4: Combining the Union and State Lists does not describe the actual trigger either, since Article 254 is not about a conflict spanning those two exclusive lists but about overlapping competence on one shared list.

Only the Concurrent List creates the shared legislative field in which a Central and a State law can validly compete, which is the scenario Article 254(2) addresses.

Hence, the correct answer is The Concurrent List.

Answer 11

In cases where there is an inconsistency between a law made by Parliament and a law made by the Legislature of a State, the law made by the State Legislature will be void "to the extent of the repugnancy" as per Article 254(1) of the Constitution of India. This means that only the parts of the State law that are inconsistent with the Central law are rendered void, not the entire law. The concept of "repugnancy" arises when there is a conflict between a State law and a Central law in areas where both have the power to legislate, particularly within the Concurrent List under the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. If a State law contradicts a Central law on subjects listed in the Concurrent List, the Central law prevails, provided there is no Presidential assent for the State law to override the Central law.

The constitutional case involving the West Bengal Housing Industry Regulation Act, 2017 (WB-HIRA) and the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA) exemplifies this principle. Both acts deal with subjects in Entries 6 and 7 of the Concurrent List. WB-HIRA did not receive the necessary Presidential assent under Article 254(2), which is mandatory for a State law diverging from a Central law in the Concurrent List. Therefore, due to the principle of repugnancy and lack of legislative harmony, WB-HIRA is void to the extent of its inconsistency with RERA.

In summary, when determining repugnancy, it is essential to evaluate the dominant intention of both the State and Central legislations. If the State legislation shares the same subject matter and violates the purpose of the Central legislation, it is considered repugnant without Presidential assent.

Correct Answer: To the extent of the repugnancy, be void

Answer 12

Article 254(1) is precise about how much of a conflicting State law is affected, so each option should be checked against that precision rather than assumed to mean a blanket outcome.

1. Option 1: Treating the entire State law as void whenever any part of it conflicts with a Central law overstates the constitutional text, which does not wipe out a State enactment in full merely because one or more of its provisions conflict.
2. Option 2: Article 254(1) confines the invalidity to the inconsistent portion alone, so only the specific provisions that actually conflict with the Central law lose effect, while the rest of the State law remains valid and operative.
3. Option 3: The outcome under Article 254(1) is not left to Parliament's discretion; it operates automatically as a rule of constitutional law once repugnancy is established, without Parliament having to decide anything further.
4. Option 4: Likewise, the voiding of the repugnant portion is not something a court chooses to do at its discretion; the court's role is to identify and declare the repugnancy, not to decide as a matter of preference whether the law becomes void.

Only the "to the extent of the repugnancy" formulation matches how Article 254(1) actually limits the effect of the conflict to the inconsistent provisions alone.

Hence, the correct answer is "To the extent of the repugnancy, be void."