Analyzing Assertion (A) and Reason (R) on Legislative Powers

This question requires evaluating statements about legislative powers under the Indian Constitution, specifically concerning laws made under different constitutional lists and the concept of repugnancy.

Assertion (A) Analysis: Laws Under List I Entry 66 and List III Entry 25

Assertion (A) claims that an Act enacted under List I Entry 66 and another under List III Entry 25 can be repugnant to each other.

• List I Entry 66 grants the Union Parliament exclusive power regarding the 'coordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education or scientific and technical education'.
• List III Entry 25, falling under the Concurrent List, allows both the Union Parliament and State Legislatures to make laws concerning 'education, including university education; vocational and technical training of labour'.
• Constitutional repugnancy, primarily governed by Article 254, arises when a State law on a subject in the Concurrent List conflicts with a Union law on the same subject. While Parliament's law under List I is supreme, the assertion's framing implies a direct repugnancy between laws made under these specific entries, which isn't accurate according to the standard definition. A law under List I operates in the Union's exclusive domain, while List III is concurrent. Therefore, Assertion (A) is considered incorrect.

Reason (R) Analysis: Role of the Annamalai University Case

Reason (R) justifies Assertion (A) by citing the Supreme Court's decision in Annamalai University Vs. Secretary of Inf. and Tourism Department.

• The cited case deals with the division of powers between the Union and States concerning higher education, particularly the scope of List I Entry 66 versus List III Entry 25.
• The judgment affirms the Union's paramountcy in determining standards (List I Entry 66). However, it does not explicitly state that laws enacted under List I Entry 66 and List III Entry 25 are 'repugnant' in the constitutional sense (Article 254). The relationship is more about the overriding nature of Union power on standards.
• Thus, Reason (R) inaccurately uses the court's ruling to support the assertion's claim of repugnancy. Therefore, Reason (R) is also considered incorrect.

Conclusion

Based on the analysis, both Assertion (A) and Reason (R) are factually incorrect in their statements and justification regarding legislative repugnancy between List I Entry 66 and List III Entry 25.