Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.36 seconds)Article 309 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 254 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 73 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
M. Karunanidhi vs Union Of India on 20 February, 1979
"8. It would be seen that so far as
clause (1) of Article 254 is concerned it
clearly lays down that where there is a
direct collision between a provision of a
law made by the State and that made by
Parliament with respect to one of the
matters enumerated in the Concurrent
List, then, subject to the pro- visions of
clause (2), the State law would be void
to the extent of the repugnancy. This
naturally means that where both the
State and Parliament occupy the field
contemplated by the Concurrent List
then the Act passed by Parliament being
prior in point of time will prevail and
consequently the State Act will have to
yield to the Central Act. In fact, the
scheme of the Constitution is a scientific
and equitable distribution of legislative
powers between Parliament and the
State Legislatures. First, regarding the
matters contained in List I, i.e. the Union
List to the Seventh Schedule,
Parliament alone is empowered to
legislate and the State Legislatures have
no authority to make any law in respect
of the Entries contained in List I.
Secondly, so far as the Concurrent List
34
is concerned, both Parliament and the
State Legislatures are entitled to
legislate in regard to any of the Entries
appearing therein, but that is subject to
the condition laid down by Article 254(1)
discussed above. Thirdly, so far as the
matters in List II, i.e. the State List are
concerned, the State Legislatures alone
are competent to legislate on them and
only under certain conditions Parliament
can do so. It is, therefore, obvious that in
such matters repugnancy may result
from the following circumstances:
Shivendra Narayan Pandey vs State Of U.P. on 25 October, 2021
Learned
counsel has also relied upon the decision of the Allahabad High
Court in Upendra Narayan Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
(decided on 08.08.2006), wherein the Court set aside the action
of the State Government in diluting the requirement of CITS
qualification and reverting to earlier recruitment rules, holding
such action to be unsustainable in law.
1