KSLU Solved Question Papers
Constitutional Law II
Previous Year Question Paper with Solution
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) · Sem 4
2024 Aug Examination
munotes.in
Mumbai
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) Sem 4 Constitutional Law II 2024 Aug Question Paper with Solutions
First published on munotes.in on 21 October 2026.
Published by munotes.in, Mumbai.
Model answers written and edited by the munotes.in editorial desk.
Passages from this volume may be quoted, in print, online or by an AI system, with credit: name munotes.in and link to this volume's page. The volume may not be reproduced as a whole. Full terms at munotes.in/content-license.
munotes.in is an independent study resource for students of Karnataka State Law University. It is not affiliated with Karnataka State Law University, and is not endorsed by it.
The University does not publish an official answer key for this paper. The answers in this volume are model answers, written to show how a full-mark answer is built. They are a study aid, not an authority on what an examiner marked.
The question paper reproduced here is the paper as set by Karnataka State Law University at the 2024 Aug examination.
Contents
The questions below are the paper as Karnataka State Law University set it at the 2024 Aug examination, in the order it was set.
MarksPage
MarksPage
The Paper as Set
The questions in this volume are the questions asked at the 2024 Aug examination, reproduced as Karnataka State Law University set them, in the order it set them. Long reading passages are shortened to their first and last lines and our summary; the original paper prints them in full. Only the answers are ours. See the original question paper.
Duration 3 hours · Total marks 80 · 20 questions answered
Instructions printed on the paper
- N.B. (1) Answer all five Units. (2) One essay type question and short note/problems is compulsory from each Unit. (3) Figures to the right indicate marks. (4) Answer should be written either in English or Kannada completely.
How to use this volume
Solve the paper first, under exam conditions and against the clock. Then read the answers here and mark your own. Reading a solution before attempting the question feels productive and teaches very little, because recognising an answer is not the same as being able to write one.
Q1
Unit I
(a)What is the constitutional position in case of repugnancy between Central law and State law ?[10]
Answer
For full marks, cover: meaning of repugnancy; the general rule in article 254(1); the exception for a State law reserved and assented to (article 254(2)); the proviso letting Parliament override even such a law (Zaverbhai Amaidas); the field in which repugnancy arises, the Concurrent List only (Hoechst Pharmaceuticals); the tests (M. Karunanidhi); the effect on a law already acted upon (Deep Chand); conflicts outside the Concurrent List (article 246 and pith and substance); a conclusion.
Meaning
Repugnancy means a conflict between a law of Parliament and a law of a State Legislature on the same subject. The two laws cannot both be obeyed. It mainly arises on Concurrent List subjects, where both may legislate. Article 254 decides which law wins.
The general rule: article 254(1)
Article 254(1) covers a State law that is repugnant to a law Parliament is competent to make. It also covers a State law repugnant to an existing law on a Concurrent subject. In either case:
- the law of Parliament, whether passed before or after the State law, prevails; and
- the State law is void to the extent of the repugnancy, and only to that extent.
The exception: article 254(2)
Take a State law on a Concurrent subject that conflicts with an earlier law of Parliament. It will prevail in that State if it was reserved for the President and received his assent. This lets a State adapt a national law to local conditions, with the Union's approval.
The proviso. Parliament may still at any time make a law on the same matter, including one that adds to, amends, varies or repeals the State law.
In Zaverbhai Amaidas v. State of Bombay, AIR 1954 SC 752, a Bombay Act passed with assent had raised the maximum punishment for offences under a Central Act on essential supplies to seven years. Parliament later recast the same offence with a three-year maximum. An accused tried by a Magistrate argued that only a Sessions Court could try him under the Bombay Act. The Court held that the later Central Act dealt with the same matter, punishment for that offence, so it prevailed over the State Act. The Magistrate's jurisdiction and the conviction stood.
Repugnancy arises only in the Concurrent field
In Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd v. State of Bihar, (1983) 4 SCC 45, a Bihar law imposed a sales tax surcharge on large dealers and barred them from passing it on to buyers. Drug manufacturers said this clashed with a central Drugs (Prices Control) Order that let dealers pass on sales tax. The Court upheld the State law. The tax was under Entry 54 of the State List. Repugnancy under article 254 arises only where both laws are on a Concurrent List matter and directly conflict. A clash between a State List law and a Union law falls under article 246, not article 254. The question there is which legislature had competence.
The tests of repugnancy
In M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India, AIR 1979 SC 898, a former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu argued that a State law on misconduct by public men had displaced the central anti-corruption laws. The Court rejected this. Repugnancy needs:
- a clear and direct inconsistency between the two laws;
- an inconsistency that is absolutely irreconcilable; and
- a conflict so direct that obeying one law means disobeying the other.
The two laws were complementary, so there was no repugnancy. Repugnancy may also arise where Parliament intended its law to be a complete code on the subject, so that it occupies the whole field.
Effect on things already done
In Deep Chand v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1959 SC 648, a U.P. Act on State road transport schemes was followed by a central amendment to the Motor Vehicles Act on the same subject. The Court held that the U.P. Act did not become wholly void. It still supported a scheme already framed under it. So repugnancy affects the State law only to the extent and from the time of the conflict.
Conflicts outside the Concurrent List
Where a State law on a State List subject touches a Union List subject, the question is one of competence under article 246. The doctrine of pith and substance applies. If the State law is in substance on a State subject, an incidental effect on a Union subject does not make it invalid.
| Situation | Rule |
|---|---|
| Concurrent subject, direct conflict | Union law prevails, State law void to that extent (254(1)) |
| Concurrent subject, State law assented to | State law prevails in that State (254(2)) |
| Later Union law on the same matter | Union law prevails again (proviso to 254(2)) |
| State List law touching Union List | Competence and pith and substance (246) |
Conclusion. Where a State law conflicts with a Union law on a Concurrent subject, the Union law prevails. The State law is void to the extent of the conflict. A State law reserved for and assented to by the President prevails in that State, but Parliament can override it later, as Zaverbhai Amaidas shows. Repugnancy is confined to the Concurrent field and needs a real, irreconcilable conflict, as Hoechst and Karunanidhi hold. This scheme keeps national uniformity while allowing approved local variation.
The rest of the answers
The first answer is free. The rest come with the KSLU B.A. LL.B. Semester 4 solved papers.
You have read the question paper and its first answer in full. Buy the solved papers once and you can read every answer of every solved paper in this semester.
Solved papers: ₹499 Already bought it? Sign in
The question paper itself stays free.
Found an error in this volume? Report it and we will check it against the paper.