Which Article allows Parliament to provide for the adjudication of disputes relating to the waters of inter-State rivers and to bar the jurisdiction of courts in such disputes?

The correct answer is D, Criminal Procedure Code. Criminal procedure is an entry of the Concurrent List, List III of the Seventh Schedule, along with criminal law and the law of evidence, which is why the code of criminal procedure has always been a central law that States may amend with the President's assent. Option A is wrong because police is a classic State subject in List II, and so policing remains a responsibility of the State government. Option B is wrong because public order, usually written in question papers as law and order, is also an entry of the State List. Option C is wrong because prisons, reformatories and borstal institutions are listed in List II as well. Remember the pair that examiners exploit: the crime and its trial are Concurrent, but the force that investigates and the jail that holds the convict are State subjects.

The correct answer is B, Article 248. Article 248 gives Parliament the exclusive power to make a law on any matter not enumerated in the Concurrent List or the State List, and the power to impose a tax not mentioned in either of those lists; entry 97 of the Union List says the same thing from the other side. Option A is wrong because Article 246 only distributes subjects among the three lists and settles their order of priority. Option C is wrong because Article 249 is the route by which Parliament legislates on a State subject after a Rajya Sabha resolution, which is a different power altogether. Option D is wrong because Article 254 deals with repugnancy between a central and a State law on a Concurrent subject. India placed residuary powers with the Centre, following Canada, unlike the United States and Australia, where they stay with the units.

The correct answer is C. Article 254(1) lays down that where a State law is repugnant to a law made by Parliament on a Concurrent subject, the parliamentary law prevails and the State law is void to the extent of the inconsistency. Option A is wrong as a general statement, though there is a narrow exception in Article 254(2): a State law reserved for the President and given assent prevails in that State, and even then Parliament may override it later by a fresh law. Option B is wrong because the central law is untouched; only the repugnant part of the State law falls. Option D is wrong because the rule of supremacy is written into the Constitution and does not depend on a judicial choice in each case, although courts do apply the doctrine of pith and substance to test whether a real conflict exists.

The correct answer is C, Article 263. Article 263 empowers the President to establish by order an Inter-State Council charged with inquiring into and advising upon disputes between States, investigating subjects of common interest, and making recommendations for better coordination of policy. The Council was actually set up in 1990, acting on a recommendation of the Sarkaria Commission. Option A is wrong because Article 261 deals with full faith and credit to public acts, records and judicial proceedings across India. Option B is wrong because Article 262 covers the adjudication of inter-State river water disputes and allows Parliament to bar the jurisdiction of courts in them. Option D is wrong because Article 280 is the Finance Commission. Keep 261, 262 and 263 in that order: credit, water, council.

The correct answer is B, Justice R. S. Sarkaria. The Union government appointed a three-member Commission on Centre-State Relations in 1983 under Justice Rajinder Singh Sarkaria, a retired judge of the Supreme Court; it submitted its report in 1988 and recommended a permanent Inter-State Council, sparing use of Article 356, and consultation with States before legislating on Concurrent subjects. Option A is wrong because Justice Madan Mohan Punchhi, a former Chief Justice of India, headed the later commission appointed in 2007, which reported in 2010. Option C is wrong because Dr P. V. Rajamannar chaired the committee set up in 1969 by the Tamil Nadu government, not by the Union. Option D is wrong because K. Santhanam is associated with the committee on the prevention of corruption of 1962, a different subject entirely.