The Parliament of India acquires the power to legislate on any item in the State List in the national interest if a resolution to that effect is passed by the

States that Parliament is empowered to legislate on State List subjects if the Rajya Sabha passes a resolution in the national interest (extends Parliament's competence without constitutional amendment).

A student can note the decisive role of Rajya Sabha (not Lok Sabha) and check whether the Constitution assigns this power specifically to Rajya Sabha resolutions.

Lists 'When Rajya Sabha Passes a Resolution' as one of the extraordinary circumstances enabling Parliament to legislate on State List matters in national interest (explicitly names Rajya Sabha).

Use this to infer that the relevant house is Rajya Sabha, so verify whether a Lok Sabha resolution would suffice.

Enumerates the specific constitutional topic 'Power of Parliament to legislate with respect to a matter in the State List in the national interest' (this corresponds to Article 249).

A student can link this entry to the constitutional article to check the text and prescribed majority/house for such resolutions.

Explains that Parliament can assume legislative power with respect to a State subject only if the Council of States (Rajya Sabha) declares by a resolution supported by not less than two-thirds of members present and voting (shows a two‑thirds requirement for certain Rajya Sabha resolutions).

One can extend this pattern to suspect that the national-interest resolution may require Rajya Sabha and a special majority rather than a simple Lok Sabha majority—so check Article 249's exact majority rule.

Describes that certain parliamentary resolutions (e.g., approving a proclamation of emergency) must be passed by a special majority (majority of total membership + two‑thirds of members present and voting), contrasting previous simple-majority rules.

Use this as an example that different constitutional powers attach different majority thresholds; thus, test whether the national-interest State List power has a special-majority requirement rather than simple majority by the Lok Sabha.

States that Parliament can legislate on State List subjects if the Rajya Sabha (not Lok Sabha) passes a resolution in the national interest; shows which House is empowered.

A student could contrast this wording with the statement's claim about the Lok Sabha to suspect a mismatch and check the constitutional article (Article 249) for the correct house.

Says Parliament can assume power over State subjects only if the Council of States declares by a resolution supported by not less than two-thirds of its members present and voting.

One could use this to test the statement by noting the required House (Council of States = Rajya Sabha) and the majority type (two‑thirds of members present and voting) and compare with the statement's majority formulation.

Lists as an exclusive power of the Rajya Sabha the authorisation to Parliament to make law on a State List subject (Article 249).

A student can extend this by verifying which chamber is 'Rajya Sabha' and thereby challenge any claim that the Lok Sabha alone can pass such a resolution.

Explains that Parliament may legislate on State List matters when Rajya Sabha declares it necessary in national interest (gives context of extraordinary circumstances).

Use this pattern to infer that the procedural trigger is a Rajya Sabha resolution, so replacing Rajya Sabha with Lok Sabha in the statement likely alters correctness.

Describes a different constitutional context where a special majority (majority of total membership plus two-thirds of members present and voting) is required for emergency resolutions — illustrating variations in required majorities and houses.

A student could use this to note that different provisions specify different majority formulas and houses, so they should check which majority the State‑List authorization requires versus emergency provisions.

States that Parliament is 'empowered to legislate on any subject of the State List if the Rajya Sabha passes a resolution to that effect in the national interest' — identifies the Rajya Sabha-resolution route as a constitutional mechanism.

A student can use this rule and then check the constitutional text or authoritative sources to see what majority (simple/special/total membership) the provision specifies.

Lists the Rajya Sabha resolution as one of the five 'extraordinary circumstances' under which Parliament may legislate on State List matters, tying the mechanism to a specific category.

One can combine this pattern with knowledge of the other four circumstances and compare procedural requirements to infer whether the Rajya Sabha route typically requires an ordinary or enhanced majority.

Explains that Parliament can legislate on State List subjects under five 'abnormal circumstances' and explicitly names '(a) when Rajya Sabha passes a resolution to that effect' — corroborates the mechanism across chapters.

A student could cross-reference this repeated listing with the exact constitutional article(s) or authoritative commentary to determine the precise voting threshold required.

Shows that for some parliamentary approvals (proclamations of emergency) the Constitution specifies a 'special majority' (majority of total membership plus two‑thirds of members present and voting), illustrating that different types of resolutions may carry different majority rules.

Using this pattern, a student can reason that the specific majority for the Rajya Sabha 'national interest' resolution is not a foregone simple majority and must be checked against the relevant constitutional provision or amendment history.

Characterises Rajya Sabha as the institutional protector of states' interests and notes that Union Parliament needs Rajya Sabha approval to move State List matters to Union/Concurrent lists — indicating the political importance and likely procedural safeguards surrounding such approvals.

A student can use this to suspect that the framers intended a meaningful procedural requirement (possibly more than a mere simple majority) and should verify the exact voting rule in the Constitution or authoritative commentaries.