Which among the following is not correct?
- A.Legislation on criminal law, barring exceptions, is a subject under the Concurrent List.
- B.Bankruptcy and Insolvency are subjects under the Concurrent List.
- C.Inter-State trade and commerce is a subject under the State List.
- D.Banking is exclusively under the Union List.
Correct answer
Explanation
The correct answer is C. Trade and commerce between States is Entry 42 of the Union List, so it is wrong to place it in the State List.
The Seventh Schedule divides law-making powers into three lists under Article 246. The Union List holds subjects that need one national rule, such as defence, foreign affairs, banking (Entry 45) and inter-State trade and commerce (Entry 42). The State List holds local subjects such as police, public order and trade and commerce within the State (Entry 26). The Concurrent List holds subjects on which both may legislate, including criminal law (Entry 1), and bankruptcy and insolvency (Entry 9). If a State law on a Concurrent subject clashes with a Union law, the Union law usually prevails under Article 254.
A is wrong as an answer because criminal law is indeed in the Concurrent List. B is wrong as an answer because bankruptcy and insolvency are indeed Concurrent subjects. D is wrong as an answer because banking is indeed a Union subject.
Exam tip: trade within a State is in the State List, trade between States in the Union List; criminal law and bankruptcy are Concurrent.
Practice Questions
View allWhich of the following statements is/are correct ?
1. The abolition of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 was recommended by the Second Administrative Reforms Commission
2. The Right to Information Act was enacted in 2005
Select the answer using the code given below :
- A.1 only
- B.2 only
- C.Both 1 and 2
- D.Neither 1 nor 2
Show answer
The Second Administrative Reforms Commission asked for the Official Secrets Act to be repealed, and the Right to Information Act was passed in 2005.
Read the full explanation →Which one of the following powers has not been conferred on the President of India?
- A.Appointment of Prime Minister
- B.To decide at his/her discretion any question regarding disqualification of a Member of the Parliament
- C.To grant pardon to a person who has been punished by a court-martial
- D.To remove a Judge of the High Court
Show answer
Under Article 103 the President decides a question of disqualification of an MP, but must obtain the opinion of the Election Commission and act according to it, so there is no discretion.
Read the full explanation →Which among the following statements regarding the powers of the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not correct?
- A.It can issue writs of habeas corpus, mandamus, quo warranto, certiorari, and prohibition.
- B.Writs can be issued to enforce any rights conferred by Part-III and for any other purpose.
- C.This power can derogate the power conferred on the Supreme Court under Article 32(2).
- D.Writ can be issued to any authority under its jurisdiction.
Show answer
Article 226(4) says expressly that the High Court's writ power shall not be in derogation of the power conferred on the Supreme Court by Article 32(2).
Read the full explanation →Consider the following quote :
"On the 26th January, 1950, we are going to enter a life of contradictions. In politics we will have equality and in social and economic life we will have inequality."
To whom among the following leaders is this quote attributed?
- A.Mahatma Gandhi
- B.Sarojini Naidu
- C.B. R. Ambedkar
- D.Somnath Lahiri
Show answer
He spoke these words in his final speech to the Constituent Assembly on 25 November 1949. Dr B. R. Ambedkar, chairman of the Drafting Committee, closed the debates on the draft Constitution with a speech warning about the gap between political and social democracy.
Read the full explanation →Which among the following deals with Habeas Corpus?
- A.State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain and Ors. (1975)
- B.Additional District Magistrate, Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla (1976)
- C.Mrs. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
- D.Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani (1978)
Show answer
This is the famous habeas corpus case decided during the Emergency. During the Emergency of 1975 to 1977, the President suspended the right to move courts for the enforcement of Article 21.
Read the full explanation →