If both State and Parliamentary law on a subject are repugnant under Articles 249 or 250, what happens?
AState law prevails
BBoth laws are valid
CSupreme Court decides the outcome
DParliamentary law prevails
No.1 PSC Learning App
★
★
★
★
★
Related Questions:
Consider the following statements:
The SPSC's role extends to advising on the classification of services and cadre management.
A selection made by the SPSC becomes mandatory for the government to accept if there is no irregularity in the process.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Assertion (A): The advice of the Supreme Court in the matter of removal of an SPSC member is binding on the President.
Reason (R): This procedure is designed to uphold the independence and security of tenure of the members of the Commission.
Consider the following statements:
The First ARC recommended deployment of Central armed forces in states only upon the state’s request.
The Sarkaria Commission recommended that the Centre may deploy armed forces without state consent, though consultation is desirable.
The West Bengal Memorandum opposed central powers for deployment of armed forces without state approval.
Consider the following statements regarding parliamentary legislation in the state field.
(i) Under Article 249, a Rajya Sabha resolution allows Parliament to legislate on a State List matter for one year, renewable annually.
(ii) Under Article 252, a law enacted by Parliament can be amended or repealed by the state legislatures of the concerned states.
(iii) During President’s rule, Parliament can legislate on State List matters, and such laws continue after the President’s rule ends.
Consider the following statements about Punchhi Commission recommendations:
It recommended time limits for both State Legislature and the President in matters of state bills reserved for consideration.
It supported the continuation of the All India Services.
It proposed setting up an Inter-State Trade and Commerce Commission under Article 307.