Examkin

Indian Polity and Governance

316 questions

All types316Multiple choice161Multiple select68Matching74Ordering13
Question 1Question →

Given below are two statements, one labeled as Assertion (A) and the other labeled as Reason (R), regarding the legislative procedure in an Indian State:

Assertion (A): The State Legislative Assembly holds ultimate legislative supremacy over the State Legislative Council in passing ordinary bills.
Reason (R): Unlike the Rajya Sabha at the Parliament level, the State Legislative Council lacks equal statutory powers to veto an ordinary bill and can only delay its passage for a maximum cumulative period of four months.

In the context of the statements above, which one of the following is correct?

Show answer & explanation

Answer: Both Assertion (A) and Reason (R) are true, and Reason (R) is the correct explanation of Assertion (A).

Answer

Both Assertion (A) and Reason (R) are true, and Reason (R) is the correct explanation of Assertion (A).
Both Assertion (A) and Reason (R) are constitutionally sound. Under Article 197, when a Legislative Assembly passes an ordinary bill and transmits it to the Legislative Council, the Council can delay it for up to 3 months. If the Assembly passes it a second time, the Council can delay it for at most 1 month. After 4 months total, the bill is deemed passed by both Houses. Thus, the Legislative Council is merely a advisory/delaying chamber, and Reason (R) is the exact rationale for Assertion (A).

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze Assertion (A)
Assertion (A) is TRUE. Under the Indian Constitution, the State Legislative Assembly has final authority over non-money (ordinary) legislation.
If the Legislative Council rejects an ordinary bill or suggests unacceptable amendments, the Assembly can re-pass the bill and overcome the Council's opposition.
2
Analyze Reason (R) under Article 197
Reason (R) is TRUE. The delaying power of the Legislative Council is limited to 3 months in the first instance and 1 month in the second instance (total 4 months).
Article 197 specifies that after the expiry of 3 months (first instance) or 1 month (second instance), the bill is deemed to have been passed by both Houses in the form passed by the Assembly.
3
Determine the causal relationship between Assertion (A) and Reason (R)
Reason (R) correctly explains Assertion (A).
Because the Legislative Council can only delay (not veto) and no joint sitting exists, the Assembly's will prevails, establishing its legislative supremacy.

Key Concept

Legislative Procedure for Ordinary Bills in State Legislatures (Article 197)
Question 2Question →

Which of the following statements is correct regarding the writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 and High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India?

Show answer & explanation

Answer: The High Court can issue writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights as well as for any other purpose, whereas the Supreme Court can issue writs only for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights.

Answer

The High Court can issue writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights as well as for any other purpose, whereas the Supreme Court can issue writs only for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
Under Article 32, the Supreme Court can issue writs only for enforcing Fundamental Rights. Under Article 226, High Courts can issue writs for enforcing Fundamental Rights as well as 'for any other purpose', meaning ordinary statutory and legal rights. Hence, the High Court's writ jurisdiction is broader in terms of subject matter.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the subject-matter scope of Article 32.
Article 32 empowers the Supreme Court to issue writs exclusively for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution.
Article 32 is specifically designed as a Constitutional Remedy for Fundamental Rights violations.
2
Analyze the subject-matter scope of Article 226.
Article 226 empowers High Courts to issue writs for Fundamental Rights and 'for any other purpose' (enforcement of ordinary legal rights).
The phrase 'for any other purpose' broadens the remedial scope of High Courts beyond Part III rights.
3
Compare territorial extent and discretionary nature of both courts.
The Supreme Court has pan-India territorial jurisdiction and cannot decline an Article 32 petition, whereas High Courts have state-bound territorial jurisdiction and discretionary writ powers under Article 226.
This confirms that the option highlighting the High Court's wider subject-matter writ jurisdiction is correct.

Key Concept

Writ Jurisdiction Comparison (Article 32 vs Article 226)
Estimated Time:1m 0s
Question 3Question →

Which of the following statements regarding the constitutional operation, judicial enforcement, and statutory provisions of Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles, and Fundamental Duties are correct?

Select all that apply

Show answer & explanation

Answer: Parliament is empowered under Article 33 to restrict or abrogate the Fundamental Rights of members of the armed forces and intelligence organizations, and such parliamentary laws cannot be challenged on the ground of violating any Fundamental Right.; Although the Fundamental Duties enshrined in Part IV-A are non-justiciable in themselves, Parliament possesses constitutional competence to enforce them through statutory legislation carrying penal sanctions.

Answer

The correct statements are the provision conferring power on Parliament under Article 33 to modify Fundamental Rights for armed forces and intelligence personnel, and the constitutional principle that Parliament can enact statutory laws with penal provisions to enforce non-justiciable Fundamental Duties.
Parliament holds exclusive constitutional authority under Article 33 to curtail Fundamental Rights for armed forces, paramilitary forces, and intelligence personnel to preserve discipline. Furthermore, while Fundamental Duties under Part IV-A are non-justiciable on their own, Parliament possesses legislative power to create statutory offences enforcing these duties.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the scope of Parliamentary power under Article 33 regarding Armed Forces.
Article 33 gives exclusive power to Parliament to restrict Part III rights for armed forces and security agencies to maintain discipline, making such laws immune from Part III challenges.
Verify constitutional text and judicial interpretation of Article 33.
2
Evaluate the requirement of Presidential assent for State laws claiming immunity under Article 31C.
State laws giving effect to Article 39(b) and (c) do not automatically gain immunity under Article 31C; the proviso mandates reservation for and receipt of Presidential assent.
Check the exact procedural condition in the proviso to Article 31C.
3
Examine the legal status and parliamentary enforceability of Part IV-A Fundamental Duties.
Fundamental Duties are non-justiciable by themselves, but Parliament has the legislative authority to pass statutory laws enforcing specific duties.
Differentiate between direct constitutional enforceability and legislative enforcement of duties.
4
Assess the maintainability of a writ of Mandamus against private entities.
Mandamus requires the performance of a public duty or statutory obligation; it cannot be issued for purely private commercial obligations.
Apply public duty prerequisites established for writ jurisdiction under Article 32 and Article 226.

Key Concept

Constitutional provisions under Part III (Article 33), Part IV/IV-A relationship (Article 31C proviso), enforceability mechanisms of Fundamental Duties, and limits of writ jurisdiction.
Estimated Time:2m 0s
Question 4Question →

Match the Constitutional Articles under Part IX (73rd Amendment Act) in List I with their corresponding provisions in List II.

Click a left item, then click its matching right item

Items

Article 243A
Article 243B
Article 243I
Article 243K

Matches

Show answer & explanation

Answer

Article 243A matches Gram Sabha; Article 243B matches Constitution of Panchayats; Article 243I matches State Finance Commission; Article 243K matches Elections to the Panchayats (State Election Commission).
Each constitutional article under Part IX corresponds to its exact constitutional mandate: Article 243A relates to Gram Sabha, Article 243B mandates the Constitution of Panchayats, Article 243I creates the State Finance Commission, and Article 243K establishes the State Election Commission for local body elections.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the provision of Article 243A.
Article 243A explicitly establishes the Gram Sabha as a body consisting of persons registered in the electoral rolls of a village.
It forms the foundation of direct democracy in the Panchayati Raj system.
2
Identify the provision of Article 243B.
Article 243B mandates the 3-tier system for the Constitution of Panchayats in states with a population exceeding 20 lakhs.
It sets the structural mandate for local bodies.
3
Identify the provision of Article 243I.
Article 243I obligates the State Governor to constitute a Finance Commission every five years.
It secures fiscal devolution to local governance institutions.
4
Identify the provision of Article 243K.
Article 243K establishes an independent State Election Commission.
It ensures regular, free, and fair elections to Panchayati Raj Institutions.

Key Concept

Constitutional Articles governing Panchayati Raj Institutions under Part IX (73rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1992)
Question 5Question →

Arrange the following key British colonial legislations in chronological order of their enactment from earliest to latest:

Drag items to arrange them in the correct order

Show answer & explanation

Answer

The correct chronological sequence is: Regulating Act (1773) → Pitt's India Act (1784) → Charter Act of 1833 → Government of India Act of 1858.
The correct arrangement follows the historical timeline of British parliamentary control in India: Regulating Act (1773), followed by Pitt's India Act (1784), Charter Act of 1833, and finally the Government of India Act of 1858 after the Revolt of 1857.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the year of enactment for each constitutional act
Regulating Act: 1773; Pitt's India Act: 1784; Charter Act: 1833; Government of India Act: 1858.
Establishing the precise year of passage for each piece of legislation is necessary to determine their historical order.
2
Arrange the acts in chronological order from earliest to latest year
1773 → 1784 → 1833 → 1858.
Ordering the dates sequentially from the 18th century to the mid-19th century produces the correct timeline.

Key Concept

Chronological progression of British constitutional and administrative legislations in India.
Question 6Question →

In the context of Indian Constitutional jurisprudence, which of the following statements correctly captures the legal framework governing the restriction of Fundamental Rights, the judicial utility of Directive Principles of State Policy, and the enforcement of Fundamental Duties?

Show answer & explanation

Answer: Parliament has the authority under Article 33 to restrict or abrogate Fundamental Rights for armed forces personnel by law, and such parliamentary legislation cannot be declared void by courts on the ground of violating any Fundamental Right.

Answer

Parliament has the authority under Article 33 to restrict or abrogate Fundamental Rights for armed forces personnel by law, and such parliamentary legislation cannot be declared void by courts on the ground of violating any Fundamental Right.
The statement regarding Article 33 is correct because the Constitution explicitly confers power on Parliament to restrict or abrogate Fundamental Rights for members of the Armed Forces, forces charged with public order, intelligence bureaus, and telecommunication personnel. Laws made pursuant to Article 33 cannot be challenged for violating any Fundamental Right under Part III.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze Article 33 of the Indian Constitution regarding the power of Parliament to modify Fundamental Rights in their application to forces.
Article 33 empowers Parliament exclusively to enact laws restricting Part III rights for military, police, and intelligence personnel to ensure discipline. Such laws are immune from challenge under Article 13(2).
To maintain national defense discipline, constitutional protection is granted to parliamentary laws enacted under Article 33.
2
Evaluate the judicial application of Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV) in interpreting Fundamental Rights (Part III).
Under Article 37, while Part IV is non-justiciable, the Supreme Court ruled in landmark cases (such as Minerva Mills and Pathumma v. State of Kerala) that courts can treat legislative provisions aimed at implementing Part IV as 'reasonable restrictions' under Article 19.
Part III and Part IV form the core of constitutional philosophy and are read harmoniously.
3
Assess the enforceability and writ jurisdiction surrounding Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties (Part IV-A).
Neither Part IV nor Part IV-A is directly enforceable by judicial writs like Mandamus unless backed by enabling statutory legislation.
Article 37 explicitly bars courts from directly enforcing Part IV, and Article 51A duties lack inherent penal consequences unless specified by parliamentary law.

Key Concept

Interplay between Fundamental Rights (Article 33), Directive Principles (Article 37), and Fundamental Duties (Article 51A)
Question 7Question →

Consider the following statements regarding the Estimates Committee of the Indian Parliament:
1. It consists of 30 members drawn exclusively from the Lok Sabha.
2. A Minister is eligible to be elected as a member of this committee.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Show answer & explanation

Answer: 1 only

Answer

The statement stating '1 only' is correct.
The Estimates Committee is the largest committee of the Indian Parliament comprising 30 members, all elected exclusively from the Lok Sabha annually. Rajya Sabha has no representation in this committee. To maintain legislative oversight, no minister can be elected as a member of the committee.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze Statement 1 regarding the composition of the Estimates Committee.
The Estimates Committee consists of 30 members, and all 30 members are elected from the Lok Sabha only (Rajya Sabha has no representation). Statement 1 is TRUE.
The committee was constituted to examine estimates included in the budget and suggest economies in public expenditure.
2
Analyze Statement 2 regarding the eligibility of Ministers to serve on the committee.
A Minister cannot be elected as a member of the committee. If a member, after election to the committee, becomes a Minister, they cease to be a member from the date of such appointment. Statement 2 is FALSE.
This rule ensures legislative independence in scrutinizing executive administration and finances.

Key Concept

Structure and membership criteria of Parliamentary Financial Committees (Estimates Committee)
Question 8Question →

Match the following Parliamentary Committees of the Indian Parliament with their respective functions:

Click a left item, then click its matching right item

Items

Public Accounts Committee
Estimates Committee
Committee on Public Undertakings
Business Advisory Committee

Matches

Show answer & explanation

Answer

Public Accounts Committee matches with examining CAG audit reports; Estimates Committee matches with suggesting administrative economies and alternative policies; Committee on Public Undertakings matches with examining public sector reports and accounts; Business Advisory Committee matches with allocating time for legislative business.
The correct matches reflect the specific roles defined in parliamentary procedure: the Public Accounts Committee examines CAG reports; the Estimates Committee focuses on suggesting alternative policies for efficiency and economy; the Committee on Public Undertakings inspects corporate financial performance of state enterprises; and the Business Advisory Committee determines the time allocated for bills and debates in Parliament.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the function of the Public Accounts Committee.
It scrutinizes the expenditure accounts and audit reports presented by the CAG.
Ensure accountability of executive expenditure post-spending.
2
Identify the mandate of the Estimates Committee.
It reviews budget estimates to recommend efficiency measures and alternative policy approaches.
Acts as a continuous economy committee.
3
Match Committee on Public Undertakings and Business Advisory Committee.
Public Undertakings Committee inspects PSU financial records, while the Business Advisory Committee schedules parliamentary proceedings.
Each committee possesses a defined statutory/procedural jurisdiction in Parliament.

Key Concept

Parliamentary Standing Committees and their primary functions
Question 9Question →

Consider the following statements regarding the jurisdictional powers of the Supreme Court and High Courts under the Constitution of India:

1. Both the Supreme Court and High Courts possess the power of judicial review to examine and strike down a constitutional amendment if it violates the basic structure of the Constitution.
2. The writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 is a Fundamental Right in itself, whereas the writ jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226 is wider in scope as it extends to the enforcement of non-fundamental legal rights.
3. The Supreme Court's plenary jurisdiction under Article 136 (Special Leave Petition) is limited strictly to final judgments of High Courts and cannot be invoked against interlocutory orders or decisions of statutory tribunals.

Which of the statements given above are correct?

Show answer & explanation

Answer: 1 and 2 only

Answer

Statements 1 and 2 are correct, while statement 3 is incorrect. Therefore, the option stating '1 and 2 only' is the correct choice.
The option stating '1 and 2 only' is correct because both statements 1 and 2 correctly formulate constitutional law. High Courts (Art 226) and the Supreme Court (Art 32) both hold judicial review powers over constitutional amendments under the Basic Structure doctrine. Article 32 is restricted to Fundamental Rights, whereas Article 226 extends to ordinary legal rights ('any other purpose'). Statement 3 is false because Article 136 explicitly allows special leave against any determination or order (interlocutory or final) of any tribunal or court, except military tribunals.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze Statement 1 regarding Judicial Review of constitutional amendments by Supreme Court and High Courts.
Statement 1 is correct. In Kesavananda Bharati (1973) and L. Chandra Kumar (1997), the Supreme Court ruled that judicial review under Articles 32 and 226 is an integral part of the basic structure of the Constitution. Both High Courts and the Supreme Court can examine whether a constitutional amendment violates the basic structure.
Judicial review is a basic feature granted to Constitutional Courts (SC and HCs).
2
Analyze Statement 2 comparing writ jurisdiction scope under Article 32 and Article 226.
Statement 2 is correct. Article 32 is guaranteed under Part III and can be invoked ONLY for enforcing Fundamental Rights. Article 226 allows High Courts to issue writs for enforcing Fundamental Rights as well as 'for any other purpose' (ordinary legal rights), making HC writ jurisdiction wider in functional scope.
Article 32 is a fundamental right itself, while Article 226 covers wider remedial grounds.
3
Analyze Statement 3 regarding the scope of Article 136 (Special Leave Petition).
Statement 3 is incorrect. Article 136(1) states that the Supreme Court may grant special leave to appeal from 'any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal'. It is not restricted to final judgments nor only to High Courts, and covers interlocutory orders and statutory tribunals.
The text of Article 136 encompasses both final and interlocutory orders across all courts and tribunals (except armed forces tribunals under Art 136(2)).

Key Concept

Constitutional Jurisdiction of Supreme Court vs. High Courts: Judicial Review, Writ Scope (Art 32 vs 226), and Special Leave Petition (Art 136)
Question 10Question →

Under the Constitution of India, the executive clemency powers of the President under Article 72 and the Governor under Article 161 exhibit key procedural and constitutional differences. Which of the following statements accurately describes a constitutional distinction between the pardoning powers of the President and a State Governor?

Show answer & explanation

Answer: The President is the sole authority empowered to grant a pardon for a sentence of death, whereas a State Governor can only suspend, remit, or commute a death sentence.

Answer

The President is the sole authority empowered to grant a pardon for a sentence of death, whereas a State Governor can only suspend, remit, or commute a death sentence.
Under Article 72, the President has exclusive authority to grant a complete pardon in all cases where the sentence is a sentence of death. Under Article 161, a Governor can suspend, remit, or commute a sentence of death, but cannot grant a full pardon for it.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Examine Article 72 of the Constitution of India regarding Presidential pardoning powers.
Article 72 grants the President power to grant pardons, reprieves, respites, or remissions of punishment in three specific instances: Court Martial cases, offenses against Union laws, and all cases involving a sentence of death.
Establishes the extent of executive clemency granted to the Union Executive head.
2
Examine Article 161 regarding the Governor's pardoning powers and compare it with Article 72.
Article 161 empowers the Governor regarding offenses against State laws, but explicitly excludes Court Martial cases and full pardons for death sentences.
Directly highlights the constitutional distinction between Presidential and Gubernatorial clemency scope.
3
Identify the accurate statement based on constitutional provisions.
Even though a Governor can suspend, remit, or commute a death sentence, the power to completely pardon a death sentence rests exclusively with the President of India.
Confirms the correct distinction matching the question requirement.

Key Concept

Pardoning Powers of the President (Article 72) versus Governor (Article 161)
Question 11Question →

With regard to the constitutional powers of the judiciary as a 'Court of Record' and tribunal oversight under the Constitution of India, evaluate the following statements:

Statement I: A High Court, as a court of record under Article 215, possesses inherent power to punish for contempt of itself as well as for contempt of courts subordinate to it.
Statement II: The Supreme Court's power to punish for contempt under Article 129 is limited strictly to contempt of the Supreme Court itself and cannot be extended to subordinate courts.
Statement III: The power of judicial review exercised by High Courts under Article 226 over decisions of administrative tribunals established under Article 323A forms part of the basic structure of the Constitution.

Which of the statements given above are correct?

Show answer & explanation

Answer: Statements I and III only

Answer

Statements I and III only
The correct option identifies Statements I and III as true. Under Article 215, High Courts are courts of record with inherent authority to punish for contempt of both themselves and subordinate courts. Furthermore, the 7-judge bench in L. Chandra Kumar (1997) affirmed that High Court judicial review under Article 226 over tribunal decisions forms an inviolable part of the basic structure of the Indian Constitution.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze Statement I regarding High Court court of record powers under Article 215.
Statement I is correct. Article 215 designates High Courts as courts of record, giving them constitutional authority to punish for contempt of themselves and subordinate courts within their territorial jurisdiction.
High Courts act as supervisory bodies over lower judicial hierarchies under Article 227 and Article 215.
2
Analyze Statement II regarding Supreme Court contempt powers under Article 129.
Statement II is incorrect. In Delhi Judicial Service Association v. State of Gujarat (1991), the Supreme Court affirmed that Article 129 grants plenary powers to punish for contempt of any court subordinate to it across India.
The Supreme Court, as the apex court of record, maintains judicial integrity throughout the national system.
3
Analyze Statement III regarding High Court judicial review over tribunals under Article 323A.
Statement III is correct. In L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997), a Constitution Bench ruled that judicial review under Article 226/227 over administrative tribunals is part of the basic structure.
Exclusion of High Court jurisdiction under Article 323A was declared unconstitutional as judicial review cannot be completely abrogated.

Key Concept

Court of Record powers (Articles 129 and 215) and Basic Structure doctrine regarding Judicial Review over Tribunals (L. Chandra Kumar case)
Estimated Time:1m 30s
Question 12Question →

The Government of India Act of 1935 established a three-fold distribution of legislative powers between the Centre and the units through Federal, Provincial, and Concurrent Lists. Under this statutory arrangement, in whom were the residuary powers of legislation explicitly vested?

Show answer & explanation

Answer: Governor-General of India

Answer

Governor-General of India
The Government of India Act of 1935 introduced a three-fold enumeration of legislative subjects into Federal, Provincial, and Concurrent Lists. Unlike the modern Indian Constitution, which grants residuary powers to the Union Parliament (Article 248), Section 104 of the 1935 Act vested the Governor-General of India with the personal discretion to assign any unenumerated subject to either the central or provincial legislatures.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the division of legislative powers under the Government of India Act of 1935.
The Act created three detailed legislative lists: Federal List, Provincial List, and Concurrent List.
To distribute legislative jurisdiction between the central government and the provinces.
2
Identify the statutory authority holding residuary legislative powers under the 1935 Act.
Residuary powers were neither automatically given to the central legislature nor to the provincial legislatures.
Section 104 vested the Governor-General with discretionary authority to empower either legislature to enact laws on subjects not enumerated in any list.

Key Concept

Allocation of Residuary Legislative Powers under the Government of India Act of 1935
Estimated Time:1m 0s
Question 13Question →

Match the Constitutional Provisions listed in List-I with their corresponding Legal Classifications given in List-II:

Click a left item, then click its matching right item

Items

Protection of life and personal liberty (Article 21)
Separation of judiciary from executive (Article 50)
To abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals (Article 51A)

Matches

Show answer & explanation

Answer

Protection of life and personal liberty (Article 21) matches with Fundamental Right (Part III); Separation of judiciary from executive (Article 50) matches with Directive Principle of State Policy (Part IV); To abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals (Article 51A) matches with Fundamental Duty (Part IVA).
Each constitutional provision aligns directly with its respective part: Article 21 is a Fundamental Right in Part III, Article 50 is a Directive Principle in Part IV, and Article 51A is a Fundamental Duty in Part IVA.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Classify Article 21 in List-I.
Article 21 is guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution of India as a Fundamental Right.
Articles 12 to 35 in Part III cover basic human freedoms enforceable by courts.
2
Classify Article 50 in List-I.
Article 50 is a Directive Principle of State Policy under Part IV.
Articles 36 to 51 contain non-justiciable constitutional directives to guide state policy.
3
Classify Article 51A in List-I.
Article 51A belongs to Part IVA as a Fundamental Duty.
Part IVA was added by the 42nd Amendment Act in 1976 to prescribe duties of citizens.

Key Concept

Classification of Constitutional Provisions across Part III, Part IV, and Part IVA
Question 14Question →

In which Part of the Constitution of India are the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) enumerated?

Show answer & explanation

Answer: Part IV

Answer

The Directive Principles of State Policy are enumerated in Part IV of the Constitution of India.
Part IV of the Constitution of India, comprising Articles 36 to 51, specifies the Directive Principles of State Policy. These principles provide socio-economic guidelines for state policy and lawmaking to establish a welfare state.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the constitutional domain requested in the stem
The target domain is the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP).
The question specifically asks for the location of Directive Principles within the structure of the Indian Constitution.
2
Recall the relevant Part and Articles of the Indian Constitution
The Directive Principles of State Policy are contained in Part IV, covering Articles 36 to 51.
The framers borrowed these principles from the Irish Constitution to guide governance toward a welfare state.

Key Concept

Parts of the Indian Constitution: Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV)
Question 15Question →

Which of the following provisions are enumerated as Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) under Part IV of the Constitution of India? Select all correct options.

Select all that apply

Show answer & explanation

Answer: Organization of village panchayats; Separation of judiciary from executive in public services

Answer

The provisions classified under the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) in Part IV of the Constitution of India are the organization of village panchayats (Article 40) and the separation of the judiciary from the executive (Article 50).
The Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV) contain Article 40 (Organization of village panchayats) and Article 50 (Separation of judiciary from executive). Both are guidelines for state policy.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the constitutional domain tested
The item asks to distinguish Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV) from Fundamental Rights (Part III) and Fundamental Duties (Part IV-A).
Clear part-wise classification is essential to distinguish obligations of the State from rights and duties of citizens.
2
Evaluate the provisions under Part IV (DPSPs)
Organization of village panchayats (Article 40) and separation of judiciary from executive (Article 50) are both listed under Part IV.
These are Gandhian and Liberal-Intellectual principles directed at State policy.
3
Filter out non-DPSP provisions
Respecting the National Flag is a Fundamental Duty under Article 51A(a) in Part IV-A, and moving the Supreme Court for rights enforcement is a Fundamental Right under Article 32 in Part III.
These belong to Part IV-A and Part III respectively.

Key Concept

Classification of Constitutional Provisions: Part III (Fundamental Rights), Part IV (Directive Principles), and Part IV-A (Fundamental Duties)
Question 16Question →

Which of the following constitutional writs literally means 'We Command' and is issued by a court to compel a public official to perform a mandatory statutory duty?

Show answer & explanation

Answer: Mandamus

Answer

Mandamus is the writ that literally means 'We Command' and compels performance of a public duty.
Mandamus is a Latin term meaning 'We Command'. It is issued by superior courts to compel a public official, lower court, or administrative body to execute a legal duty imposed upon them.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the literal translation and legal purpose of the writ described in the question.
The phrase 'We Command' corresponds to Mandamus, which enforces mandatory public or statutory duties.
Under Article 32 and Article 226 of the Constitution of India, courts issue Mandamus to prevent public authorities from failing or refusing to carry out legal obligations.

Key Concept

Scope and meaning of Judicial Writs under Fundamental Rights
Estimated Time:45s
Question 17Question →

Consider the following statements regarding Financial Bills in the Indian Parliament:

1. A Financial Bill (I) governed under Article 117(1) can be introduced only in the Lok Sabha and requires the prior recommendation of the President.
2. A Financial Bill (II) governed under Article 117(3) can be introduced in either House of Parliament without the recommendation of the President for its introduction, but cannot be passed by either House unless the President recommends its consideration.
3. The Rajya Sabha possesses equal powers with the Lok Sabha to reject or amend both Financial Bill (I) and Financial Bill (II), exactly as in the case of an Ordinary Bill.

Which of the statements given above are correct?

Show answer & explanation

Answer: 1, 2 and 3

Answer

All three statements (1, 2, and 3) are correct.
All three statements are constitutionally accurate. Under Article 117(1), Financial Bill (I) shares two characteristics with a Money Bill: introduction exclusively in the Lok Sabha and mandatory prior recommendation of the President. Under Article 117(3), Financial Bill (II) does not require recommendation for introduction, but cannot be passed by either House unless recommended by the President for consideration. Finally, both Financial Bills (I) and (II) follow ordinary legislative procedure regarding Rajya Sabha's right to amend or reject them.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze Financial Bill (I) provisions under Article 117(1)
Financial Bill (I) contains matters of Article 110 plus general legislation. Like a Money Bill, it can only be introduced in Lok Sabha and requires the President's prior recommendation. Thus, Statement 1 is correct.
Verify procedural requirements for introducing Financial Bill (I).
2
Analyze Financial Bill (II) provisions under Article 117(3)
Financial Bill (II) involves expenditure from the Consolidated Fund of India but no Article 110 matters. It can be introduced in either House without prior recommendation, but requires presidential recommendation prior to consideration for passage. Thus, Statement 2 is correct.
Verify procedural requirements for Financial Bill (II).
3
Evaluate the legislative powers of Rajya Sabha regarding Financial Bills (I) and (II)
Beyond the introduction stage for Financial Bill (I), both Financial Bills (I) and (II) are treated as Ordinary Bills. Rajya Sabha has full powers to reject or amend them, and joint sittings under Article 108 apply in case of deadlock. Thus, Statement 3 is correct.
Determine House parity and Rajya Sabha powers over non-money financial legislation.

Key Concept

Legislative procedure and constitutional classification of Financial Bills (I & II) under Article 117 vs Money Bills under Article 110
Question 18Question →

Which Constitutional Amendment Act incorporated Part IV-A, containing the Fundamental Duties, into the Constitution of India based on the recommendations of the Swaran Singh Committee?

Show answer & explanation

Answer: 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976

Answer

The 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976 incorporated Part IV-A and the Fundamental Duties into the Constitution of India.
The 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976 inserted Part IV-A and Article 51A into the Indian Constitution upon the recommendation of the Swaran Singh Committee, introducing ten Fundamental Duties.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the committee that recommended Fundamental Duties.
The Swaran Singh Committee was set up in 1976 and recommended including a chapter on Fundamental Duties.
The original Constitution of 1950 contained Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles, but no Fundamental Duties.
2
Identify the specific constitutional amendment act that enacted these recommendations.
The 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976 inserted Part IV-A and Article 51A into the Constitution.
This amendment introduced ten Fundamental Duties for citizens.

Key Concept

Incorporation of Fundamental Duties (Part IV-A, Article 51A) by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act
Question 19Question →

Consider the following statements regarding the constitutional amendments and legal provisions relating to Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) and Fundamental Duties in India:

1. The 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act of 1976 inserted Article 43A into the Constitution, directing the State to secure the participation of workers in the management of undertakings.
2. The 86th Constitutional Amendment Act of 2002 modified the scope of Article 45 under DPSPs and added a new Fundamental Duty under Article 51A.
3. Fundamental Duties contained under Part IV-A of the Constitution are directly enforceable by courts through the issuance of writs under Article 32.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Show answer & explanation

Answer: 1 and 2 only

Answer

1 and 2 only
The correct response consists of statements 1 and 2 only. Article 43A was inserted by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act in 1976 to promote participation of workers in management. The 86th Constitutional Amendment Act of 2002 altered Article 45 (focusing on early childhood care) and introduced the 11th Fundamental Duty under Article 51A(k). Statement 3 is false because Fundamental Duties are non-justiciable and cannot be directly enforced by courts under Article 32 writ jurisdiction.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Evaluate Statement 1 regarding the 42nd Amendment Act of 1976.
Article 43A was indeed added by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976, to encourage worker participation in industrial management.
This is a factual provision of Part IV of the Constitution.
2
Evaluate Statement 2 regarding the 86th Amendment Act of 2002.
The 86th Amendment modified Article 45 (focusing on early childhood care up to six years) and added clause (k) to Article 51A (duty of parent/guardian to provide education opportunities to children aged 6 to 14).
The 86th Amendment simultaneously impacted Part III (Art 21A), Part IV (Art 45), and Part IV-A (Art 51A).
3
Evaluate Statement 3 regarding judicial enforceability under Article 32.
Fundamental Duties (Part IV-A) are non-justiciable. Article 32 remedies apply exclusively to the enforcement of Fundamental Rights contained in Part III.
Writs cannot be issued by the Supreme Court under Article 32 directly to enforce a Fundamental Duty.

Key Concept

Constitutional Amendments impacting DPSPs/Duties and the Justiciability of Part IV-A
Question 20Question →

Which of the following statements regarding Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles, and Fundamental Duties under the Constitution of India are correct?

Select all that apply

Show answer & explanation

Answer: Fundamental Rights under Part III are justiciable and legally enforceable by courts.; Directive Principles of State Policy under Part IV are non-justiciable in nature.

Answer

The correct statements are that Fundamental Rights under Part III are justiciable and Directive Principles of State Policy under Part IV are non-justiciable.
The statements confirming that Fundamental Rights under Part III are justiciable and that Directive Principles of State Policy under Part IV are non-justiciable are constitutionally accurate. Article 32/226 makes Part III enforceable in courts, whereas Article 37 explicitly renders Part IV non-enforceable by courts.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Evaluate the enforceability of Fundamental Rights (Part III).
Fundamental Rights are justiciable, meaning individuals can move the Supreme Court or High Courts for their enforcement.
Articles 32 and 226 explicitly guarantee constitutional remedies for violations of Part III rights.
2
Evaluate the legal nature of Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV).
Directive Principles are non-justiciable guidelines for state policy.
Article 37 explicitly declares that Part IV provisions shall not be enforceable by any court.
3
Verify the constitutional origin of Fundamental Duties (Part IV-A).
Fundamental Duties were introduced later by amendment.
Part IV-A was added by the 42nd Amendment Act in 1976, not included in the original 1949 Constitution.
4
Verify the article governing Supreme Court versus High Court writ jurisdiction.
Article 32 pertains to the Supreme Court, while Article 226 pertains to High Courts.
Article 32 is itself a Fundamental Right to approach the Supreme Court, whereas Article 226 provides writ powers to High Courts.

Key Concept

Basic nature, enforceability, and constitutional placement of Fundamental Rights, DPSPs, and Fundamental Duties.
Page 1 / 16Next
Indian Polity and Governance Practice Questions — State PSC Exam | Examkin