Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (0.26 seconds)
Sdb- Sps (Jv) vs Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam Ltd. & Ors on 20 October, 2016 cites

M. Karunanidhi vs Union Of India on 20 February, 1979

"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 provisions 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 Patna High Court REQ. CASE No.14 of 2016 dt.20-10-2016 17/33 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 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:
Supreme Court of India Cites 59 - Cited by 260 - S M Ali - Full Document
1   2 Next