Examkin

Indian Polity and Governance

316 questions

All types316Multiple choice161Multiple select68Matching74Ordering13
Question 41Question →

Regarding the constitutional provisions, amendments, and judicial interpretations governing Part III (Fundamental Rights), Part IV (Directive Principles of State Policy), and Part IV-A (Fundamental Duties) of the Constitution of India, which of the following statements are correct?

Select all that apply

Show answer & explanation

Answer: The 25th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1971 introduced Article 31C, giving legal primacy to the Directive Principles contained in Article 39(b) and Article 39(c) over the Fundamental Rights conferred by Articles 14 and 19.; In the landmark judgment of State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951), the Supreme Court ruled that in case of any conflict between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles, Fundamental Rights would prevail.

Answer

The statements confirming that the 25th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1971 granted primacy to Article 39(b) and 39(c) over Articles 14 and 19, and that the Supreme Court ruled in Champakam Dorairajan (1951) that Fundamental Rights prevail over Directive Principles, are correct.
The 25th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1971 added Article 31C, establishing that laws carrying out Directive Principles in Article 39(b) and (c) cannot be challenged under Articles 14 or 19. Furthermore, in State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951), the Supreme Court clearly held that Fundamental Rights override Directive Principles whenever a conflict arises, making both of these statements factually and constitutionally accurate.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the constitutional history of Article 31C and DPSP primacy over Fundamental Rights.
The 25th Amendment Act, 1971 introduced Article 31C, protecting laws enacted to implement Article 39(b) and 39(c) from judicial challenge under Articles 14, 19, and 31.
To verify the validity of the statement concerning the 25th Amendment.
2
Evaluate the enforceability and justiciability of Fundamental Duties under Part IV-A.
Fundamental Duties incorporated via the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976 (and expanded by the 86th Amendment Act, 2002) are non-justiciable. Neither Article 32 nor Article 226 can be invoked directly to enforce them without underlying statutory authority.
To verify the claim regarding the 44th Amendment Act making Fundamental Duties justiciable under Article 32.
3
Examine judicial precedents regarding the hierarchy between Part III and Part IV.
In State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951), the Supreme Court established that Fundamental Rights are sacrosanct and DPSPs must remain subsidiary to them, a position later modified in Kerala Education Bill (1958) and Minerva Mills (1980).
To verify the accurate historical doctrine laid down in the 1951 ruling.
4
Assess the scope of Writ Jurisdiction (Article 226) regarding Directive Principles.
Article 37 explicitly declares Part IV provisions non-enforceable by any court. Courts cannot issue a writ of Mandamus compelling Parliament or State Legislatures to enact laws for implementing DPSPs.
To evaluate the judicial writ power regarding legislative mandates under Part IV.

Key Concept

Interrelationship, amendments, and judicial evolution of Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles, and Fundamental Duties
Question 42Question →

According to Article 157 of the Constitution of India, what is the minimum age required for a person to be eligible for appointment as the Governor of a State?

Show answer & explanation

Answer: 35 years

Answer

The minimum age required for appointment as the Governor of a State is 35 years.
Article 157 of the Constitution of India provides two primary qualifications for a person to be appointed as Governor: they must be a citizen of India and must have completed thirty-five years of age.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the relevant constitutional provision regarding Gubernatorial qualifications.
Article 157 of the Constitution of India specifies qualifications for appointment as Governor.
Constitutional qualifications for the office of the Governor are explicitly listed under Article 157.
2
Examine the specific criteria stated in Article 157.
The two constitutional qualifications are: (1) He/She must be a citizen of India, and (2) He/She must have completed the age of 35 years.
This establishes 35 years as the mandatory lower age threshold.

Key Concept

Qualifications for appointment as Governor under Article 157
Question 43Question →

Which of the following statements accurately describe the legal status and constitutional relationship of Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) and Fundamental Rights under the Constitution of India? Select all the correct statements.

Select all that apply

Show answer & explanation

Answer: Article 37 explicitly declares that Directive Principles are fundamental in the governance of the country and imposes a duty on the State to apply these principles in making laws.; The Supreme Court held in the Minerva Mills case (1980) that the Indian Constitution is founded on the bedrock of a balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles.

Answer

The correct statements are that Article 37 explicitly declares Directive Principles as fundamental in the governance of the country, and that the Supreme Court established in the Minerva Mills case (1980) that the Constitution rests on the balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles.
The statements emphasizing Article 37's mandate on governance and the Minerva Mills doctrine on harmony between Part III and Part IV are accurate legal facts under Indian Constitutional law.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Evaluate the enforceability and explicit constitutional wording of Article 37.
Article 37 clarifies that Part IV provisions are non-justiciable in court but fundamental to national governance, obligating the State to apply them during legislation.
Establishes the intended constitutional role of DPSPs.
2
Examine judicial remedies under Article 32 regarding Part IV provisions.
Writ jurisdiction under Article 32 applies exclusively to the enforcement of Fundamental Rights (Part III), not Directive Principles (Part IV).
Distinguishes justiciable rights from non-justiciable directives.
3
Analyze judicial precedent set in Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980).
The Supreme Court held that neither Part III nor Part IV is absolute over the other; the Constitution is built on the harmony and balance between both.
Confirms the modern constitutional interpretation of the FR-DPSP relationship.

Key Concept

Relationship between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy
Question 44Question →

Which Constitutional Amendment Act incorporated Part IV-A, establishing the Fundamental Duties of citizens, into the Constitution of India upon the recommendation 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 Article 51A into the Constitution of India.
The 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act of 1976 added Part IV-A (Article 51A) to the Indian Constitution based on the recommendations of the Swaran Singh Committee, introducing ten Fundamental Duties for citizens.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the constitutional committee responsible for recommending Fundamental Duties.
The Swaran Singh Committee was set up in 1976 to recommend provisions on Fundamental Duties.
Establishing the historical context clarifies which amendment enacted these recommendations.
2
Match the committee's recommendations with the constitutional amendment passed in 1976.
The 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act inserted Part IV-A containing Article 51A.
This act formally added ten Fundamental Duties to the Indian Constitution.

Key Concept

Incorporation of Part IV-A (Fundamental Duties) via Constitutional Amendment
Estimated Time:45s
Question 45Question →

With reference to the Finance Commission of India constituted under Article 280 of the Constitution of India, which of the following statements is correct?

Show answer & explanation

Answer: The Constitution authorizes Parliament to determine by law the qualifications required for appointment as members of the Commission and the manner of their selection.

Answer

The Constitution authorizes Parliament to determine by law the qualifications required for appointment as members of the Commission and the manner of their selection.
The statement regarding Parliament's authority to determine qualifications is correct because Article 280(2) explicitly grants Parliament the power to prescribe qualifications and selection criteria by law.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze Constitutional Provision under Article 280(2)
Article 280(2) states that Parliament may by law determine the qualifications which shall be requisite for appointment as members of the Commission and the manner in which they shall be selected.
The Constitution leaves the specific operational qualifications and selection procedure of Finance Commission members to parliamentary legislation (enacted via the Finance Commission Act, 1951).
2
Evaluate Reporting and Safeguard Provisions
Under Article 281, recommendations are submitted to the President (not the Speaker). Removal procedures and post-retirement eligibility differ from bodies like UPSC or CAG.
CAG and UPSC have strict constitutional post-retirement employment bars, whereas Finance Commission members are eligible for re-appointment under statutory provisions.

Key Concept

Powers of Parliament regarding Finance Commission Qualifications and Structure (Article 280)
Estimated Time:1m 0s
Question 46Question →

Match the constitutional provisions concerning the State Executive and Legislature in List-I with their corresponding Constitutional Articles in List-II.

Click a left item, then click its matching right item

Items

Power of the Governor to grant pardons and suspend or commute sentences
Duties of the Chief Minister as respects the furnishing of information to the Governor
Special address by the Governor at the commencement of the first session of the State Legislature
Power of the Governor to promulgate Ordinances during recess of the State Legislature

Matches

Show answer & explanation

Answer

The power to grant pardons corresponds to Article 161; the duties of the Chief Minister regarding furnishing information correspond to Article 167; the special address by the Governor corresponds to Article 176; and the power to promulgate ordinances corresponds to Article 213.
Article 161 empowers the Governor to grant pardons and commute sentences for offences against state laws. Article 167 specifies the Chief Minister's duties to keep the Governor informed of administrative and legislative decisions. Article 176 governs the Governor's special address to the State Legislature. Article 213 grants the Governor legislative authority to issue ordinances when the assembly is not in session.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the constitutional article associated with the Governor's judicial powers.
Pardoning power of the Governor is codified under Article 161 of the Constitution.
Article 161 grants executive clemency powers to the Governor for offenses against state laws.
2
Identify the article detailing administrative duties of the Chief Minister towards the Governor.
Duties of the Chief Minister regarding communication of cabinet decisions and administrative information match Article 167.
Article 167 acts as the constitutional bridge between the Governor and the Council of Ministers.
3
Determine the provision for legislative opening address by the Governor.
Special address by the Governor at the beginning of legislative sessions matches Article 176.
Article 176 outlines the requirement of the Governor addressing the house(s) assembled together.
4
Identify the ordinance-making power of the Governor.
Promulgation of ordinances during recess of the State Legislature matches Article 213.
Article 213 provides legislative powers to the Governor during legislative recess, parallel to the President's power under Article 123.

Key Concept

Constitutional Articles governing the State Executive and Legislature
Estimated Time:1m 0s
Question 47Question →

With reference to the constitutional protections in respect of conviction for offences guaranteed under Article 20 of Part III of the Constitution of India, consider the following statements:

1. The protection against ex-post facto laws under Article 20(1) extends to both criminal legislation and civil or tax liabilities imposed retroactively.
2. The protection against double jeopardy under Article 20(2) can be claimed only before a court of law or judicial tribunal, and does not apply to departmental or administrative proceedings.
3. The privilege against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) covers only testimonial compulsion and does not prohibit compelling an accused to provide thumb impressions, specimen signatures, or blood samples.

Which of the statements given above are correct?

Show answer & explanation

Answer: 2 and 3 only

Answer

The statements asserting that double jeopardy protection applies strictly to judicial proceedings (Statement 2) and that self-incrimination protection does not extend to physical or material evidence (Statement 3) are correct.
The option selecting statements 2 and 3 is correct because Article 20(2) immunity against double jeopardy is restricted solely to judicial prosecutions before courts/tribunals (excluding departmental inquiries), and Article 20(3) protection against self-incrimination applies strictly to testimonial evidence rather than physical samples or specimens.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Evaluate Statement 1 regarding Ex-Post Facto Laws under Article 20(1)
Statement 1 is incorrect.
Article 20(1) prohibits retroactive criminal legislation (penal laws). It does not apply to civil liabilities or tax obligations, which can be enacted with retrospective effect.
2
Evaluate Statement 2 regarding Double Jeopardy under Article 20(2)
Statement 2 is correct.
Article 20(2) protects an individual from being prosecuted and punished more than once for the same offence before a court of law or judicial tribunal. Departmental, administrative, or disciplinary proceedings by non-judicial authorities are not considered judicial prosecutions.
3
Evaluate Statement 3 regarding Self-Incrimination under Article 20(3)
Statement 3 is correct.
As held in State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad (1961), Article 20(3) protects against 'testimonial compulsion' (imparting personal knowledge orally or in writing). Giving thumb impressions, handwriting specimens, or blood samples constitutes physical/material evidence and is not covered under self-incrimination.

Key Concept

Constitutional safeguards against arbitrary conviction under Article 20 (Ex-post facto laws, Double Jeopardy, and Self-Incrimination)
Question 48Question →

Match the state executive and legislative constitutional features in Column I with their corresponding constitutional attributes and procedural rules in Column II.

Click a left item, then click its matching right item

Items

Advocate General for the State (Article 165)
Special Procedure regarding Money Bills (Article 198)
Disqualification on grounds of Defection (Tenth Schedule)
Prorogation of the State Legislature (Article 174)

Matches

Show answer & explanation

Answer

Advocate General for the State corresponds to holding office during the pleasure of the Governor with rights to speak in the Legislature without voting; Special Procedure regarding Money Bills corresponds to requiring the Governor's prior recommendation for introduction in the Assembly; Disqualification on grounds of Defection corresponds to decision-making by the Presiding Officer rather than the Governor; Prorogation corresponds to terminating a session without causing pending bills to lapse.
The correct pairings accurately reflect the Constitutional distribution of executive and legislative powers: the Advocate General serves at the Governor's pleasure with non-voting speaking rights in the legislature; Money Bills require the Governor's prior recommendation and originate solely in the lower house; anti-defection disqualifications are decided by the Presiding Officer of the House rather than the Governor; and prorogation terminates a legislative session without causing pending bills to lapse.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the constitutional role of the Advocate General for the State (Article 165 & Article 177).
The Advocate General is the chief legal advisor to the state government, appointed by and serving at the pleasure of the Governor, with rights to participate in state legislative proceedings without voting privileges.
Matching constitutional officer duties with executive pleasure and legislative audience rights.
2
Examine the procedural constraints on Money Bills in State Legislatures under Articles 198 and 207.
Money Bills require the prior recommendation of the Governor and can exclusively originate in the Legislative Assembly.
Distinguishing Financial and Money Bill initiation rules from ordinary legislative bills.
3
Differentiate disqualification procedures under Article 192 versus the Tenth Schedule.
While general constitutional disqualifications under Article 191(1) are decided by the Governor acting on Election Commission advice, defection disqualifications under the Tenth Schedule are decided exclusively by the Speaker/Chairman.
Avoiding the common misconception that the Governor decides all member disqualifications.
4
Evaluate the effect of Prorogation under Article 174 on pending legislative business.
Prorogation brings a session to an end but leaves pending bills alive, whereas dissolution terminates the Assembly itself.
Differentiating prorogation from dissolution regarding the lapsing of bills.

Key Concept

Constitutional Roles, Powers, and Procedural Rules of the State Executive and Legislature
Question 49Question →

With reference to the Indian Constitution and its judicial evolution regarding the relationship between Fundamental Rights (Part III) and Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV), consider the following statements:

1. Article 31C, introduced by the 25th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1971, protected laws giving effect to the Directive Principles specified in Article 39(b) and Article 39(c) from being declared void on the ground of inconsistency with Article 14 or Article 19.
2. The 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976, expanded the protective shield of Article 31C to cover laws giving effect to any Directive Principle enumerated in Part IV of the Constitution.
3. In the Minerva Mills case (1980), the Supreme Court upheld this expanded scope of Article 31C introduced by the 42nd Amendment, affirming the absolute supremacy of Directive Principles over Fundamental Rights.

Which of the statements given above are correct?

Show answer & explanation

Answer: 1 and 2 only

Answer

Statements 1 and 2 only are correct.
The statement combination '1 and 2 only' is correct. The 25th Amendment (1971) introduced Article 31C protecting Article 39(b) and (c) implementation from Article 14 and 19 challenges. The 42nd Amendment (1976) attempted to widen this immunity to all Directive Principles under Part IV. However, in Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980), the Supreme Court struck down this broad extension, affirming that harmony between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles forms part of the basic structure of the Constitution.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Evaluate Statement 1 regarding the 25th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1971.
Statement 1 is correct. The 25th Amendment inserted Article 31C, which declared that no law implementing Directive Principles under Article 39(b) and 39(c) could be struck down for violating Articles 14, 19, or 31.
This provision aimed to secure social justice by preventing legal challenges to wealth redistribution and resource control laws.
2
Evaluate Statement 2 regarding the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976.
Statement 2 is correct. The 42nd Amendment extended immunity under Article 31C to laws giving effect to ANY Directive Principle in Part IV, not just Article 39(b) and 39(c).
The government sought to give parliamentary primacy to all DPSP implementation over Fundamental Rights.
3
Evaluate Statement 3 regarding the Minerva Mills Case (1980).
Statement 3 is incorrect. The Supreme Court invalidated section 4 of the 42nd Amendment (which expanded Article 31C), holding that conferring absolute supremacy to Directive Principles over Fundamental Rights destroys the basic structure of the Constitution.
The Court established that Part III and Part IV are built on a system of balance and harmony, neither being absolute over the other.

Key Concept

Harmony and Balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy (Article 31C and Minerva Mills Doctrine)
Question 50Question →

Match the Constitutional Provisions relating to the State Executive and Legislature in List-I with their corresponding Constitutional Limits and Procedural Mandates in List-II.

Click a left item, then click its matching right item

Items

Mandatory Reservation of State Bills for Presidential Assent
Promulgation of State Ordinances during Recess
Gubernatorial Pardoning Power under State Executive Competence
Introduction of Money Bills in the State Legislature

Matches

Show answer & explanation

Answer

Mandatory Reservation of State Bills matches with the second proviso to Article 200 regarding High Court powers; Promulgation of State Ordinances matches with Article 213 requiring Presidential instructions under specified conditions; Gubernatorial Pardoning Power matches with Article 161 for state executive jurisdiction; and Introduction of Money Bills matches with Article 207(1) requiring prior gubernatorial recommendation and assembly-only introduction.
Each item in List-I corresponds directly to its specific constitutional mandate and procedural limitation under Articles 200, 213, 161, and 207(1) of the Indian Constitution respectively.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the constitutional basis for state bill reservation
Identify that Article 200 contains a mandatory clause (second proviso) requiring reservation for Presidential assent specifically when the state law threatens High Court powers.
This is a key structural requirement maintaining judicial independence within federalism.
2
Examine the limitations on the Governor's ordinance-making power
Identify that Article 213 restricts gubernatorial ordinance power by requiring Presidential instructions if identical legislation would require Presidential sanction or reservation.
Prevents state executive bypass of constitutional checks requiring central approval.
3
Differentiate gubernatorial pardoning powers from presidential pardoning powers
Confirm that Article 161 applies to state executive competence and lacks the full death sentence pardon power reserved for the President under Article 72.
Clarifies the precise jurisdiction and limits of executive clemency at the state level.
4
Determine procedural rules for financial legislation in states
Establish that under Article 207(1) and Article 198, Money Bills require prior recommendation of the Governor and cannot originate in the Legislative Council.
Ensures financial legislative primacy remains with the directly elected house subject to executive oversight.

Key Concept

Constitutional Framework and Procedural Limitations of the State Executive and Legislature
Question 51Question →

Regarding the Council of Ministers in an Indian State, which of the following statements are correct?

Select all that apply

Show answer & explanation

Answer: The Chief Minister is appointed by the Governor, and other ministers are appointed by the Governor on the advice of the Chief Minister.; The total number of ministers, including the Chief Minister, in a state cannot exceed 15 percent of the total strength of the Legislative Assembly of that state.; A minister who is not a member of the State Legislature for six consecutive months ceases to be a minister upon the expiration of that period.

Answer

The statements regarding the appointment of ministers on the advice of the Chief Minister, the 15 percent ceiling on the size of the Council of Ministers, and the six-month membership requirement for ministers are correct.
Under Article 164 of the Constitution of India, the Chief Minister is appointed by the Governor and other ministers are appointed on the Chief Minister's advice. The 91st Constitutional Amendment introduced a 15% ceiling relative to the Legislative Assembly's strength, and non-legislators may only serve as ministers for up to six consecutive months without getting elected.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Examine the constitutional provisions for appointment and numerical limit of the State Council of Ministers.
Confirm that the Chief Minister is appointed by the Governor and other ministers are appointed on the Chief Minister's advice under Article 164(1), and that the 15 percent strength cap applies under Article 164(1A).
Articles 164(1) and 164(1A) govern the appointment mechanism and upper limit on executive cabinet size.
2
Analyze the collective responsibility provision of the State Council of Ministers.
Identify that the Council of Ministers is collectively responsible to the popular lower house (Legislative Assembly), making the reference to the Legislative Council incorrect.
Article 164(2) explicitly establishes collective accountability to the Legislative Assembly.
3
Verify the tenure conditions for non-legislator ministers.
Confirm that a non-member can hold ministerial office for a maximum of six continuous months without obtaining membership in the State Legislature.
Article 164(4) mandates election or nomination to the State Legislature within six months.

Key Concept

Constitutional provisions governing the State Council of Ministers (Article 164)
Question 52Question →

Under Part IV of the Constitution of India, various Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) were inserted or modified through constitutional amendments. Which of the following provisions was specifically added to the Directive Principles by the 44th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1978?

Show answer & explanation

Answer: State directive to minimize inequalities in income, status, facilities, and opportunities

Answer

The provision requiring the State to minimize inequalities in income, status, facilities, and opportunities among individuals and groups was added as Article 38(2) by the 44th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1978.
The 44th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1978 added clause (2) to Article 38, directing the State to minimize inequalities in income and eliminate inequalities in status, facilities, and opportunities not only amongst individuals but also amongst groups of people residing in different areas or engaged in different vocations.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the constitutional provision inserted into Part IV (Directive Principles of State Policy) by the 44th Amendment Act, 1978.
Article 38 was amended to add clause (2), which mandates the State to strive to minimize inequalities in income, status, facilities, and opportunities.
The Janata Party government introduced the 44th Amendment in 1978 to revise certain provisions introduced during the Emergency and add explicit egalitarian directives under Article 38.
2
Differentiate this amendment from other major constitutional amendments affecting Part IV.
Article 43A (workers' participation in industrial management) was added by the 42nd Amendment (1976); Article 43B (co-operative societies) was added by the 97th Amendment (2011); Article 45 (early childhood care up to 6 years) was altered by the 86th Amendment (2002).
Distinguishing between the 42nd, 44th, 86th, and 97th Amendments is crucial for accurately placing amendments to Part IV of the Constitution.

Key Concept

Constitutional Amendments to Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV)
Question 53Question →

Which of the following statements regarding the powers and constitutional provisions of the Union Executive of India are correct?

Select all that apply

Show answer & explanation

Answer: All executive actions of the Government of India are formally expressed to be taken in the name of the President.; The Prime Minister is appointed by the President, and other Ministers are appointed by the President on the advice of the Prime Minister.

Answer

The statements confirming that all executive actions of the Government of India are expressed in the name of the President, and that the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers are appointed by the President (with ministers appointed on the advice of the Prime Minister), are correct.
The statements explaining that Union executive actions are formally taken in the President's name (Article 77) and that the Prime Minister and other Ministers are appointed by the President (Article 75) are constitutionally correct.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Examine constitutional provisions governing executive actions of the Union Government.
Article 77 specifies that all executive actions of the Union are taken in the name of the President.
To verify formal executive authority under the Constitution.
2
Analyze appointment procedures for the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers.
Article 75(1) mandates that the President appoints the Prime Minister, while other Ministers are appointed by the President on the advice of the Prime Minister.
To evaluate the legal procedure for forming the Council of Ministers.
3
Evaluate the scope of pardoning power for death sentences between the President and Governors.
Article 72 gives exclusive power to the President to pardon death sentences; the Governor's pardoning power under Article 161 does not extend to pardoning a death sentence.
To identify differences between Presidential and Gubernatorial pardoning powers.
4
Check the official role of the Vice-President as a presiding officer.
Article 64 states that the Vice-President is the ex-officio Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, not the Lok Sabha.
To verify constitutional duties of the Vice-President.

Key Concept

Constitutional provisions governing the Union Executive, including Presidential powers, appointment of Ministers, and roles of the Vice-President
Question 54Question →

With reference to the constitutional developments during British rule in India, consider the following statements:

1. The Government of India Act, 1919 introduced dyarchy in the executive administration of the provinces and established a bicameral central legislature.
2. The Indian Councils Act, 1909 introduced a system of communal representation for Muslims by recognizing the concept of a separate electorate.
3. The Government of India Act, 1935 provided for the establishment of an All-India Federation comprising provinces and princely states, which came into immediate operation upon enactment.

Which of the statements given above are correct?

Show answer & explanation

Answer: 1 and 2 only

Answer

The correct option is the choice stating '1 and 2 only'.
The correct answer is the option stating '1 and 2 only'. Dyarchy at the provincial level and central bicameralism were key features of the Government of India Act, 1919. Separate electorates for Muslims were introduced by the Indian Councils Act, 1909. However, the All-India Federation proposed in the Government of India Act, 1935 never materialized due to lack of accession by princely states.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze Statement 1 regarding the Government of India Act, 1919.
Statement 1 is correct. The Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms (1919 Act) introduced dyarchy in the provinces by dividing provincial subjects into 'transferred' and 'reserved', and established a bicameral legislature at the Centre consisting of the Council of State and Legislative Assembly.
Verification of structural provisions introduced under Montford reforms.
2
Analyze Statement 2 regarding the Indian Councils Act, 1909.
Statement 2 is correct. The Morley-Minto Reforms (1909 Act) introduced separate electorates for Muslims, legalizing communal representation.
Verification of communal electorate provisions.
3
Analyze Statement 3 regarding the Government of India Act, 1935.
Statement 3 is incorrect. While the 1935 Act did provide for an All-India Federation consisting of British Indian provinces and princely states, the federation part never came into operation because the princely states chose not to join it.
Distinguishing between statutory provisions and their historical execution status.

Key Concept

Constitutional feature attribution and implementation history of colonial legislative acts (1909, 1919, and 1935).
Estimated Time:1m 30s
Question 55Question →

Which Constitutional Amendment Act added Part IX and the Eleventh Schedule to the Constitution of India, granting constitutional status to Panchayati Raj Institutions?

Show answer & explanation

Answer: 73rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1992

Answer

73rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1992
The 73rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1992 accorded constitutional status to Panchayati Raj Institutions by inserting Part IX and the Eleventh Schedule into the Indian Constitution.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the constitutional amendment act that enacted rural local self-governance provisions.
The 73rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1992 added Part IX (Articles 243 to 243-O) and the 11th Schedule containing 29 functional matters for Panchayats.
Constitutional recognition for Panchayati Raj was established specifically through the 73rd Amendment, while the 74th Amendment addressed Urban Local Bodies.

Key Concept

73rd Constitutional Amendment Act and Panchayati Raj
Question 56Question →

Under Article 163 of the Constitution of India, if any question arises whether a matter is or is not a matter in respect of which the Governor is required by or under the Constitution to act in their discretion, whose decision on this question is constitutionally final?

Show answer & explanation

Answer: The decision of the Governor in their discretion is final, and the validity of anything done by the Governor cannot be called into question.

Answer

The decision of the Governor in their discretion is final, and the validity of anything done by the Governor cannot be called into question.
Under Article 163(2) of the Constitution of India, if any question arises regarding whether a matter falls within the Governor's discretion, the decision of the Governor acting in their discretion is constitutionally final, and the validity of anything done by the Governor cannot be questioned on the ground that they ought or ought not to have acted in discretion.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Examine Article 163(1) of the Indian Constitution regarding the State Council of Ministers and the Governor's discretionary exception.
Article 163(1) mandates a Council of Ministers to aid and advise the Governor except in so far as he is required to exercise functions in his discretion.
Establishes the dual framework of advised action versus constitutional discretion.
2
Analyze Clause (2) of Article 163 concerning disputes over whether a specific matter falls within discretionary powers.
Article 163(2) specifies that if any question arises whether any matter is or is not a matter as respects which the Governor is required to act in his discretion, the decision of the Governor in his discretion shall be final.
Directly resolves the specific constitutional query posed in the question stem.

Key Concept

Discretionary Powers of the Governor under Article 163
Estimated Time:1m 0s
Question 57Question →

Consider the constitutional mechanisms governing the enforcement, operational limits, and judicial interpretation of Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy in India. Which of the following statements are correct?

Select all that apply

Show answer & explanation

Answer: Article 358 automatically suspends the rights guaranteed under Article 19 only when a National Emergency is proclaimed on grounds of war or external aggression, and not internal armed rebellion.; Article 37 explicitly mandates that Directive Principles of State Policy are non-justiciable in courts, yet imposes a moral and legal obligation on the State by declaring them fundamental in national governance.

Answer

The correct statements are that Article 358 automatically suspends Article 19 rights solely during an external emergency, and that Article 37 establishes Directive Principles as non-justiciable while declaring them fundamental in country governance.
The statement regarding Article 358 is accurate because the 44th Amendment restricted automatic suspension of Article 19 rights exclusively to emergencies declared due to war or external aggression. The statement regarding Article 37 is accurate because it correctly captures the dual nature of DPSPs: non-enforceable by courts yet fundamental to state governance.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze Emergency Provisions regarding Fundamental Rights (Articles 358 and 359).
Confirm that Article 358 applies automatically only to Article 19 rights during external emergency. Verify that Article 359 requires a specific Presidential Order and explicitly excludes Articles 20 and 21 from suspension.
The 44th Constitutional Amendment Act (1978) restricted emergency powers to prevent misuse of suspension provisions.
2
Evaluate the non-justiciable character and constitutional weight of Directive Principles (Article 37).
Confirm that Article 37 explicitly bars court enforcement while affirming their fundamental status in governance.
Directive Principles guide legislative policies without creating directly actionable rights in courts of law.
3
Compare Supreme Court (Article 32) and High Court (Article 226) writ jurisdictions.
Determine that High Court writ jurisdiction covers both Fundamental Rights and ordinary legal rights ('for any other purpose'), making its scope wider than Article 32.
Article 32 is limited to Part III enforcement because it is itself a Fundamental Right, whereas Article 226 grants broader remedies for legal infractions.

Key Concept

Operational differences between Article 358 and 359 during National Emergency, enforceability of Directive Principles under Article 37, and comparative writ jurisdiction under Articles 32 and 226.
Question 58Question →

Which of the following statements correctly distinguishes the constitutional scope of the pardoning power of the Governor under Article 161 from that of the President under Article 72 of the Constitution of India?

Show answer & explanation

Answer: The Governor can suspend, remit, or commute a death sentence, but cannot grant a complete pardon for a death sentence.

Answer

The Governor can suspend, remit, or commute a death sentence, but cannot grant a complete pardon for a death sentence.
Under the Indian Constitution, the power to grant a complete pardon in all cases involving a death sentence is exclusively vested in the President under Article 72. Although the Governor under Article 161 possesses powers to suspend, remit, or commute a death sentence for offenses against state laws, the Governor cannot grant a full pardon for capital punishment.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Examine the scope of Article 72 vs Article 161 regarding death sentences.
Article 72 grants the President the power to pardon, reprieve, respite, or remit punishment or suspend, remit, or commute the sentence of any person convicted of any offense where the sentence is a sentence of death. Under Article 161, the Governor can suspend, remit, or commute a death sentence, but the power to grant a complete pardon for a death sentence is exclusively vested in the President.
Constitutional distinction between Presidential and Gubernatorial mercy powers regarding capital punishment.
2
Evaluate the jurisdiction over Court-Martial (military courts).
Article 72(1)(a) explicitly confers power upon the President in all cases where the punishment or sentence is by a Court-Martial. Article 161 confers no such power upon the Governor.
Military judicial decisions fall exclusively within the Union executive sphere.
3
Analyze whether the power under Article 161 is discretionary.
As affirmed by the Supreme Court (e.g., Maru Ram v. Union of India and subsequent rulings), the Governor exercises mercy powers under Article 161 on the aid and advice of the State Council of Ministers headed by the Chief Minister.
Constitutional requirement under Article 163 for executive functions unless explicitly discretionary.

Key Concept

Constitutional scope and limits of the Governor's pardoning power (Article 161) compared to the President's pardoning power (Article 72)
Question 59Question →

Match the Constitutional Provisions and Articles listed in List-I with their exact Scope and Judicial Interpretation listed in List-II:

Click a left item, then click its matching right item

Items

Article 32(3)
Article 39(b) & (c)
Article 51A(h)
Article 31B

Matches

Show answer & explanation

Answer

Article 32(3) matches with the power of Parliament to empower subordinate courts to issue writs within local jurisdiction; Article 39(b) & (c) matches with DPSP immunity under Article 31C against Articles 14 and 19; Article 51A(h) matches with the fundamental duty to develop scientific temper and humanism; and Article 31B matches with post-April 24, 1973 Ninth Schedule laws being subject to basic structure judicial review.
The correct pairings accurately reflect constitutional text and authoritative judicial precedents: Article 32(3) allows legislative extension of writ powers to local subordinate courts; Article 39(b) and (c) gain immunity under Article 31C; Article 51A(h) sets out the duty regarding scientific temper; and Article 31B Ninth Schedule protection is qualified by the basic structure test for post-April 24, 1973 laws as held in I.R. Coelho.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze Article 32(3) in List-I
Article 32(3) allows Parliament by law to confer writ-issuing powers on any other court within its local limits.
This specifically addresses legislative allocation of writ jurisdiction to lower courts without impairing Supreme Court authority.
2
Analyze Article 39(b) & (c) in List-I
These socialist Directive Principles receive constitutional protection under Article 31C from challenge under Articles 14 and 19.
This reflects the constitutional relationship between specific DPSPs and fundamental rights protections.
3
Analyze Article 51A(h) in List-I
Article 51A clause (h) enumerates the civic duty focused on scientific temper, humanism, and reform.
This is a direct text match with Part IV-A Fundamental Duties.
4
Analyze Article 31B in List-I
Article 31B provides Ninth Schedule immunity, which was judicially clarified in the I.R. Coelho judgment to apply the basic structure test to post-April 24, 1973 enactments.
This links the constitutional article to its authoritative judicial limitation.

Key Concept

Constitutional provisions, scope, and judicial interpretation governing Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles, and Fundamental Duties
Question 60Question →

Under the provisions of Article 165 of the Constitution of India, who among the following appoints the Advocate General for a State?

Show answer & explanation

Answer: The Governor of the State

Answer

The Governor of the State
Under Article 165 of the Constitution of India, the Governor of the state holds the constitutional authority to appoint the Advocate General for the State. The appointee must be qualified to be appointed as a Judge of a High Court.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the relevant constitutional article for the State Advocate General
Article 165 deals with the appointment, duties, and tenure of the Advocate General for the State.
The Advocate General is the highest law officer in the state.
2
Determine the appointing authority under Article 165(1)
Article 165(1) specifies that the Governor of each state shall appoint a person qualified to be a High Court judge as Advocate General.
The constitutional executive head of the state is the appointing authority for key state offices.

Key Concept

Executive Powers of the Governor - Constitutional Appointments
Estimated Time:45s
PreviousPage 3 / 16Next
Indian Polity and Governance Practice Questions — State PSC Exam — Page 3 | Examkin