Resolving Legislative Inconsistencies: Parliament vs. State Law
The question asks which law prevails when there is an inconsistency between a law made by the Indian Parliament and a law made by a state legislature. This scenario is primarily governed by Article 254 of the Constitution of India.
Understanding Legislative Supremacy
Article 254 outlines the rules for resolving such conflicts:
- On subjects listed in the Union List (List I of the Seventh Schedule), only Parliament can legislate, so its laws are supreme.
- On subjects listed in the Concurrent List (List III of the Seventh Schedule), both Parliament and state legislatures can make laws.
- In case of an inconsistency between a Union law and a State law on a Concurrent List subject, the law made by Parliament shall prevail.
- There's a provision (Article 254(2)) where a State law repugnant to an earlier Union law can prevail in that State, *if* it has received the President's assent. However, Parliament can subsequently make a law on the same subject, which will then prevail.
Therefore, the general principle is the supremacy of Parliamentary legislation. Option C accurately reflects this overarching principle, stating that the law made by Parliament prevails regardless of whether it was passed before or after the state law.
Conclusion on Prevailing Law
The law made by Parliament holds precedence over a conflicting law made by a state legislature, irrespective of the sequence of enactment. This ensures uniformity and upholds the constitutional scheme where Parliament has the final say, especially concerning matters of national importance or subjects within the Concurrent List.
Correct Option Analysis:
- Option 1 & 2 are incorrect as they impose specific timing conditions that do not reflect the general rule.
- Option 4 is incorrect as it grants precedence to the State law under conditions not applicable for overriding Parliamentary law.
- Option 3 correctly states the principle of Parliamentary supremacy in cases of inconsistency.
Important Questions from Constitution Law
- Which criteria are used in legislations for treating juveniles differently from young adults?
(a) Physical development
(b) Economic development
(c) Intellectual development
(d) Socio emotional development
Select the most suitable option : - Read Assertion (A) and Reason(R) and answer using the codes given below :
Assertion (A) : The writ of Habeas Corpus can be granted to enable the detainee to argue his case in person.
Reason (R) : Because R Vs. Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Wynne (1992) decided so.
Codes : - Which of the following are matched incorrectly ?
i. Habeas Corpus – ‘To produce the body’
ii. Quo warranto – ‘Issued to a lower court to stop proceedings in a case’.
iii. Prohibition – ‘Issued to a lower court quashing a decision or order’
iv. Mandamus – ‘Commands a person to perform a public duty’. - Read Assertion (A) and Reason (R) to answer using codes given below :
Assertion (A) : One of the two Acts enacted under List I Entry 66 and the other under List III Entry 25 can be repugnant to each other.
Reason (R) : Because in Annamalai University Vs. Secretary of Inf. and Tourism Department decided so.
Codes : - Read Assertion (A) and Reason (R) and answer using the codes given below :
Assertion (A) : The power under 368 of the Constitution is a constituent power subject to the constitutional scheme as to distribution of legislative power according to entries in the Seventh Schedule.
Reason (R) : Because Sasanka Sekhar Maity Vs. Union of India decided so.
Codes :
