Question

The Indian constitution clearly provided a _____ distribution of legislative powers between the Union Government and the state governments.
A. Two-fold
B. Threefold
C. Multiple folds
D. None of these

Answer 1

Hint: The constitution of India plainly gave triple dissemination of forces between the association and state government. The dispersion depends on the three records containing distinctive subjects of enactment.

Complete answer:
The Constitution accommodates a three-overlay appropriation of administrative subjects between the Union and the states, i.e., List-I (the Union List), List-II (the State List), and List-III (the Concurrent List) in the Seventh Schedule: The Parliament has restrictive forces to make laws regarding any of the issues counted in the Union List. This rundown has at present 98 subjects (initially 97 subjects) (101st established change Act 2016 eliminated 92 and 92C) like safeguard, banking, international concerns, cash, nuclear energy, protection, correspondence, between state exchange and business, statistics, review, etc. The state lawmaking body has "in typical conditions" select forces to make laws regarding any of the issues specified in the State List. This has at present 59 subjects (initially 66 subjects) (101st constitutional change Act, 2016 eliminated 52 and 55) like public request, police, general wellbeing and sterilization, farming, detainment facilities, neighborhood government, fisheries, markets, theaters, betting, etc. Both, the Parliament and state assembly can make laws concerning any of the issues counted in the Concurrent List. This rundown has at present 52 subjects (initially 47 subjects) like criminal law and strategy, common method, marriage and separation, populace control and family arranging, power, work well-passage, financial and social arranging, drugs, papers, books, and print machine, and others.

Thus, option (B) is correct.

Note: The Constitution explicitly secures the transcendence of the Union List over the State List and the Concurrent List and that of the Concurrent List over the State List. In this manner, in the event of covering between the Union List and the State List, the previous ought to win. In the event of covering between the Union List and the Concurrent List, it is again the previous which ought to win. Where there is a contention between the Concurrent List and the State List, the previous ought to win. In the event of contention between the Central law and the state law regarding a matter identified in the Concurrent List, the Central law beats the state law.