If there is inconsistency between laws made by Parliament and a State Legislature, the State law would be

Correct option is C

The correct option is (c) valid if in pith and substance, the State law was covered under any entry in List II of Seventh Schedule to the Constitution.

Explanation

The question addresses how to resolve a perceived conflict between a Central (Parliament) law and a State law. This is determined by two main constitutional principles: Repugnancy and the Doctrine of Pith and Substance.

• Doctrine of Pith and Substance: This is a legal rule used to determine the "true nature" or character of a law. If a State law is challenged because it appears to overlap with a matter reserved for Parliament (List I), the court looks at its "pith and substance" (its true object). If the substance of the law falls squarely within List II (State List), the law is considered valid, even if it incidentally encroaches on a matter in List I.
• Article 254 (Repugnancy): If there is a direct conflict (repugnancy) between a Central law and a State law regarding a matter in List III (Concurrent List), the Central law generally prevails, and the State law is void. However, if the State law is strictly a "State List" matter (List II), the question of repugnancy under Article 254 usually does not arise because the State has exclusive power over that subject.

Analysis of Options:

• (a) Valid if passed under List III: This is incorrect because if a State law in List III is inconsistent with a Parliamentary law, it is generally invalid (void) to the extent of the inconsistency (unless it has received the President's assent under Article 254(2)).
• (b) Valid if passed on any subject in List II: While partially true, the mere fact that it is in List II isn't enough if the law is actually trying to legislate on a Central subject under the guise of a State subject.
• (c) Valid if in pith and substance, it is List II: This is the most accurate legal standard. As long as the essential character of the law is within the State's exclusive competence (List II), the law remains valid even if there is some incidental overlap with a Central law.
• (d) Invalid if covered in List I: This is also incorrect because the "Pith and Substance" doctrine specifically exists to save such laws from being declared invalid if their encroachment on List I is only incidental and not the main purpose of the law.