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 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 3

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 4

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 5

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 6

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