Polity · 21 Aug 2026

Article 254 repugnancy Punjab sacrilege law

Assertion (A): Punjab's 2026 anti-sacrilege law, which prescribes a mandatory life sentence for desecrating the Guru Granth Sahib, was enacted by amending a state statute on the ceremonial custody of the scripture rather than the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
Reason (R): This drafting method allows the state to argue that the law does not attract the repugnancy test under Article 254, since it does not directly amend a central law on a subject enumerated in the Concurrent List.
Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above two statements?

ABoth A and R are true and R is the correct explanation of A
BBoth A and R are true, but R is not the correct explanation of A
CA is true, but R is false
DA is false, but R is true
This question is based on: How Punjab Wrote a Life-Sentence Law Without Asking the President
Take this in full test mode → Instructions for 21 Aug 2026
About this question

Why in news

The Punjab and Haryana High Court is hearing a challenge to Punjab's April 2026 sacrilege law, which bypassed Presidential assent by amending a ceremonial-custody statute instead of the BNS, unlike two earlier failed attempts.

Why for UPSC

Article 254 repugnancy and the assent process for state laws on Concurrent List subjects is a recurring static-polity theme; this question tests whether aspirants understand the textual (not merely functional) trigger for Presidential assent, illustrated through a live drafting workaround.

Prelims summary

Article 254 requires Presidential assent only when a state law is repugnant to a central law on a Concurrent List subject. Punjab's 2026 sacrilege law avoided this by amending a ceremonial-custody statute instead of the BNS, unlike its 2016 and 2018 predecessors which sought (and failed to secure) Presidential assent directly.

On web, answers are shown once after a test — no save or reattempt. For unlimited reattempts, Hindi medium, and Mentor Observations, use the TAN App.