Examkin

Indian Polity and Governance

316 soru

Tüm türler316Çoktan seçmeli161Çoklu seçim68Eşleştirme74Sıralama13
Soru 201Soru →

Match the Emergency provisions and related grounds under the Constitution of India in List-I with their corresponding Articles in List-II:

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

National Emergency (War, External Aggression, or Armed Rebellion)
President's Rule (Failure of Constitutional Machinery in States)
Financial Emergency (Threat to Financial Stability or Credit of India)
Failure of a State to comply with directions given by the Union

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

National Emergency matches Article 352, President's Rule matches Article 356, Financial Emergency matches Article 360, and Failure of a State to comply with Union directions matches Article 365.
The correct pairing aligns each constitutional provision directly with its specific article: National Emergency with Article 352, President's Rule with Article 356, Financial Emergency with Article 360, and Union directive non-compliance consequences with Article 365.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Match National Emergency with its governing Article
National Emergency maps to Article 352.
Article 352 empowers the President to proclaim a National Emergency during external aggression, war, or armed rebellion.
2
Match President's Rule with its governing Article
President's Rule maps to Article 356.
Article 356 deals with the failure of constitutional machinery in a State.
3
Match Financial Emergency with its governing Article
Financial Emergency maps to Article 360.
Article 360 authorizes the proclamation of Financial Emergency when the financial stability of India is threatened.
4
Match Non-compliance with Union directives with its sanctioning Article
Failure to comply with Union directions maps to Article 365.
Article 365 establishes the legal basis to invoke Article 356 if a State fails to comply with Union directives.

Anahtar Kavram

Constitutional Articles governing Emergency Provisions and Centre-State Relations
Soru 202Soru →

Which of the following Standing Committees of the Indian Parliament consists exclusively of members drawn from the Lok Sabha?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Committee on Estimates

Cevap

The Committee on Estimates consists exclusively of 30 members elected solely from among the members of the Lok Sabha.
The Committee on Estimates is the largest committee of Parliament, consisting of 30 members who are exclusively elected from the Lok Sabha every year. Rajya Sabha members are not represented on this committee at all because it scrutinizes budget estimates prepared by government departments.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Examine the membership structure of Financial Standing Committees in the Indian Parliament.
Identify that while most financial committees draw members from both Houses, the Committee on Estimates is unique.
Lok Sabha exercises primary authority over financial matters, budget examination, and expenditure estimates.
2
Verify the exact numerical composition of the Committee on Estimates.
It has 30 members, and all 30 are elected from the Lok Sabha annually using single transferable vote.
Rajya Sabha has no representation in the Estimates Committee.

Anahtar Kavram

Composition of Parliamentary Financial Committees
Soru 203Soru →

Match the Articles under Part IX of the Constitution of India in List I with their corresponding constitutional provisions in List II.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

Article 243D
Article 243G
Article 243I
Article 243K

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

Article 243D matches with Reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Women; Article 243G matches with Powers, authority, and responsibilities of Panchayats; Article 243I matches with Constitution of State Finance Commission to review financial position; Article 243K matches with Superintendence, direction, and control of elections by State Election Commission.
Article 243D governs the reservation of seats for vulnerable categories and women; Article 243G relates to the powers, authority, and functions of Panchayats; Article 243I details the State Finance Commission; and Article 243K establishes the State Election Commission.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Determine the constitutional scope of Article 243D
Article 243D specifically provides for mandatory seat reservations for SCs, STs, and women at all three levels of Panchayati Raj institutions.
Ensures social inclusion and political representation of vulnerable groups.
2
Determine the constitutional scope of Article 243G
Article 243G outlines the legislative framework for devolving powers and responsibilities to Panchayats regarding matters listed in the Eleventh Schedule.
Establishes Panchayats as functional units of self-governance.
3
Determine the constitutional scope of Article 243I
Article 243I mandates the periodic constitution of a State Finance Commission by the Governor every five years.
Secures fiscal devolution, grants-in-aid, and financial autonomy for local bodies.
4
Determine the constitutional scope of Article 243K
Article 243K establishes an independent State Election Commission headed by a State Election Commissioner to conduct elections to Panchayats.
Guarantees free, fair, and regular elections at the local level.

Anahtar Kavram

Constitutional Provisions of Part IX under the 73rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1992
Soru 204Soru →

Match List-I (Constitutional Articles concerning the Union Executive) with List-II (Respective Specific Provisions) and select the correct matching code:

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

Article 74(1)
Article 75(1A)
Article 77(3)
Article 78(b)

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

Article 74(1) corresponds to the President's power to require reconsideration of ministerial advice; Article 75(1A) corresponds to the 15% numerical limit on the Council of Ministers relative to Lok Sabha membership; Article 77(3) corresponds to the President making rules for government business allocation; and Article 78(b) corresponds to the Prime Minister's duty to furnish administrative information to the President.
Article 74(1) establishes the aid and advice rule with the reconsideration proviso added by the 44th Amendment. Article 75(1A) fixes the 15% Lok Sabha ceiling on the Council of Ministers under the 91st Amendment. Article 77(3) grants the President authority to make rules of business allocation. Article 78(b) specifies the PM's obligation to supply administrative information requested by the President.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Examine Article 74(1) and its constitutional modifications.
Article 74(1) governs the Council of Ministers aiding and advising the President. The 44th Amendment Act added the specific proviso allowing the President to request a one-time reconsideration.
This differentiates the advice mechanism under Article 74(1) from general administrative provisions.
2
Analyze Article 75(1A) regarding cabinet size limitations.
Article 75(1A) was introduced via the 91st Constitutional Amendment Act, 2003 to limit the total number of ministers (including the PM) to 15% of the total strength of the Lok Sabha.
This establishes a structural ceiling on executive size to prevent oversized cabinets.
3
Distinguish between Article 77(3) and Article 78(b).
Article 77(3) concerns formal Government of India rules of business made by the President, whereas Article 78(b) establishes the Prime Minister's specific communication obligation to inform the President.
Differentiating institutional rules of business from personal duties of the Prime Minister resolves the remaining pair matches.

Anahtar Kavram

Constitutional Articles governing the Union Executive, Ministerial Responsibility, and Executive Business Conduct
Soru 205Soru →

Which of the following statements correctly describes the constitutional distinction regarding enforceability and judicial remedies between Fundamental Rights (Part III) and Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV) under the Constitution of India?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Fundamental Rights are justiciable and guaranteed by judicial remedies under Article 32, while Directive Principles are non-justiciable and cannot be directly enforced by any court as declared in Article 37.

Cevap

Fundamental Rights are justiciable and guaranteed by judicial remedies under Article 32, while Directive Principles are non-justiciable and cannot be directly enforced by any court as declared in Article 37.
The statement identifying Fundamental Rights as justiciable under Article 32 and Directive Principles as non-justiciable under Article 37 correctly states Indian constitutional law. Article 37 explicitly declares that the provisions contained in Part IV shall not be enforceable by any court.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the enforceability of Part III (Fundamental Rights)
Part III rights are justiciable; Article 32 explicitly guarantees the right to move the Supreme Court for their enforcement.
Fundamental Rights act as judicial checks against State infringement.
2
Analyze the enforceability of Part IV (Directive Principles of State Policy)
Part IV principles are non-justiciable; Article 37 expressly states that Directive Principles shall not be enforceable by any court.
Directive Principles serve as socio-economic goals for governance rather than legally enforceable personal rights.
3
Synthesize the correct constitutional distinction
The key constitutional difference lies in direct judicial enforceability: Part III is justiciable whereas Part IV is non-justiciable.
This structural division balances individual civil liberties with socio-economic welfare aspirations.

Anahtar Kavram

Justiciability contrast between Part III (Fundamental Rights) and Part IV (DPSP) under Articles 32 and 37
Soru 206Soru →

Which of the following statements accurately reflects the constitutional boundary governing the Supreme Court's writ jurisdiction while entertaining a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) under Article 32 compared to a High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: The Supreme Court can entertain a PIL under Article 32 strictly for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights, whereas High Courts can entertain PILs under Article 226 for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights as well as ordinary legal rights.

Cevap

The Supreme Court can entertain a PIL under Article 32 strictly for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights, whereas High Courts can entertain PILs under Article 226 for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights as well as ordinary legal rights.
Article 32 provides a constitutional remedy exclusively for the enforcement of Part III Fundamental Rights. Consequently, any Public Interest Litigation (PIL) moved directly before the Supreme Court under Article 32 must demonstrate an infringement of a Fundamental Right. In contrast, Article 226 allows High Courts to issue writs for Fundamental Rights as well as 'for any other purpose', giving High Courts a broader jurisdictional scope for enforcing ordinary legal and statutory rights via PIL.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the constitutional scope of Article 32 for the Supreme Court.
Article 32 empowers the Supreme Court to issue writs solely for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Part III of the Indian Constitution.
The language of Article 32 explicitly restricts remedies to rights conferred by Part III.
2
Analyze the constitutional scope of Article 226 for High Courts.
Article 226 empowers High Courts to issue writs 'for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose'.
The phrase 'for any other purpose' extends High Court writ jurisdiction to non-fundamental legal and statutory rights.
3
Compare the scope of writ jurisdiction under both articles in the context of PIL.
High Court writ jurisdiction is subject-wise broader than Supreme Court writ jurisdiction, even though Supreme Court rulings carry nationwide territorial applicability under Article 141.
A PIL directly admitted in the Supreme Court must involve an alleged infringement of a Fundamental Right, whereas a High Court PIL can enforce statutory duties or legal rights.

Anahtar Kavram

Writ Jurisdiction and Constitutional Boundaries of Article 32 vs Article 226
Tahmini Süre:1m 30s
Soru 207Soru →

The Constitution of India explicitly outlines obligations of the Union towards the constituent States during crises. Which Article of the Constitution of India imposes a duty on the Union to protect every State against external aggression and internal disturbance, and to ensure that the government of every State is carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Article 355

Cevap

Article 355 of the Constitution of India imposes a specific duty on the Union to protect every State against external aggression and internal disturbance and to ensure that the government of every State is carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.
Article 355 under Part XVIII of the Indian Constitution enshrines the obligation of the Central Government to protect States against external aggression and internal disturbance, while also ensuring that State administration functions according to constitutional mandates.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the key constitutional provision being queried
The provision asks for the specific Article that lays down the affirmative duty of the Centre to protect States and maintain constitutional governance.
Understanding the distinction between emergency proclamations and protective duties is essential.
2
Evaluate the relevant Articles under Part XVIII (Emergency Provisions)
Article 355 explicitly declares: 'It shall be the duty of the Union to protect every State against external aggression and internal disturbance and to ensure that the government of every State is carried on in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution.'
This Article acts as the foundation and justification for federal intervention, including under Article 356.

Anahtar Kavram

Duty of the Union to Protect States (Article 355)
Tahmini Süre:45s
Soru 208Soru →

With reference to the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) of India following the Protection of Human Rights (Amendment) Act, 2019, consider the following statements:

1. The tenure of the Chairperson and Members of the Commission was revised from 5 years to 3 years, or until they attain the age of 70 years, whichever is earlier, with eligibility for re-appointment.
2. The high-level Selection Committee for recommending the appointment of the Chairperson includes the Prime Minister, Speaker of Lok Sabha, Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha, Union Home Minister, and Deputy Chairman of Rajya Sabha, but excludes the Leader of Opposition in Rajya Sabha.
3. The 2019 amendment expanded the ex-officio members of the Commission to include the Chairperson of the National Commission for Backward Classes, the Chairperson of the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights, and the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: 1 and 3 only

Cevap

The correct combination includes statements 1 and 3 only.
The combination containing statements 1 and 3 is correct. The 2019 Amendment to the Protection of Human Rights Act reduced tenure from 5 years to 3 years (or 70 years of age) with re-appointment eligibility, and added the Chairpersons of NCBC, NCPCR, and Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities as ex-officio members. Statement 2 is false because the Leader of Opposition in Rajya Sabha is explicitly part of the six-member selection committee.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze Statement 1 regarding statutory tenure changes
Statement 1 is correct. The Protection of Human Rights (Amendment) Act, 2019 reduced the tenure of the Chairperson and Members from 5 years to 3 years (or 70 years of age) and retained eligibility for re-appointment.
Verify statutory amendments to the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.
2
Evaluate Statement 2 regarding Selection Committee composition
Statement 2 is incorrect. The Selection Committee consists of six members: the Prime Minister (Chair), Speaker of Lok Sabha, Union Home Minister, Leaders of Opposition in BOTH Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, and the Deputy Chairman of Rajya Sabha. It does not exclude the Leader of Opposition in Rajya Sabha.
Examine statutory provisions under Section 4(1) of the Protection of Human Rights Act.
3
Analyze Statement 3 regarding ex-officio members expansion
Statement 3 is correct. The 2019 amendment added the Chairpersons of NCBC, NCPCR, and the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities as ex-officio members alongside existing ones (NCST, NCSC, NCW, NCM).
Verify the expanded statutory representation under Section 3(3) of the Act.

Anahtar Kavram

Statutory composition, tenure rules, and appointment committee members of the National Human Rights Commission under the 2019 Amendment Act.
Soru 209Soru →

Under the constitutional framework of India, what is the exact legal position when a State Legislature re-passes an Ordinary Bill that was returned on the direction of the President of India after being reserved by the Governor under Article 200?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: The President is under no constitutional obligation to assent to the Bill and may still withhold assent even after it has been re-passed by the State Legislature.

Cevap

The President is under no constitutional obligation to assent to the Bill and may still withhold assent even after it has been re-passed by the State Legislature.
Under Article 201 of the Constitution of India, when a Governor reserves a Bill for the consideration of the President, the President can either assent to the Bill or withhold assent. If the President directs the Governor to return the Bill to the State Legislature, the Legislature has six months to reconsider it. If the Bill is passed again by the State Legislature, it is presented to the President again, but the President is under no constitutional obligation to assent to it and may still withhold assent.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Examine Article 200 of the Indian Constitution
Article 200 empowers the Governor to assent, withhold assent, return a non-Money Bill, or reserve a Bill for the consideration of the President.
Understanding the entry point of Presidential reservation for state legislation.
2
Examine Article 201 regarding Bills reserved for the President's consideration
When a Bill is reserved, the President may assent or declare that assent is withheld. The President may also direct the Governor to return the Bill to the House(s) of the State Legislature along with a message.
Analyzing the scope of Presidential powers over state lawmaking.
3
Analyze the legal consequence of re-passage by the State Legislature
The State Legislature must reconsider the Bill within six months. If passed again with or without amendment, it is presented again to the President. However, unlike the Governor under the proviso to Article 200, the President is NOT constitutionally bound to give assent under Article 201.
Differentiating between Gubernatorial obligations and Presidential discretion under the Indian Constitution.

Anahtar Kavram

Presidential veto and reservation of state bills under Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution of India
Soru 210Soru →

Consider the following statements regarding Parliamentary Committees in India:

1. The Estimates Committee consists of 30 members, all of whom are elected solely from the Lok Sabha.
2. A Minister is eligible to be elected as a member of the Public Accounts Committee if nominated by the Speaker.
3. By convention, the Chairman of the Estimates Committee is invariably appointed from the main Opposition party.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: 1 only

Cevap

The statement specifying that the Estimates Committee consists of 30 members elected solely from the Lok Sabha is the only correct statement.
The statement describing the Estimates Committee as having 30 members, all elected from the Lok Sabha, is accurate. Rajya Sabha members are not included in the Estimates Committee. Ministers are barred from all three financial committees, and the Chairman of the Estimates Committee is customarily chosen from the ruling party.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Examine Statement 1 regarding the membership structure of the Estimates Committee.
The Estimates Committee has 30 members, and all 30 are drawn exclusively from the Lok Sabha (Rajya Sabha has no representation). Statement 1 is correct.
To evaluate the house-wise composition of the parliamentary financial committee.
2
Examine Statement 2 regarding the eligibility of Ministers for parliamentary committee membership.
A Minister cannot be elected as a member of the Public Accounts Committee, Estimates Committee, or Committee on Public Undertakings. If a member is appointed as a Minister after election to the committee, they cease to be a member from the date of such appointment. Statement 2 is incorrect.
To assess the rule of separation between executive ministers and legislative scrutiny bodies.
3
Examine Statement 3 regarding the chairmanship convention of the Estimates Committee.
The Chairman of the Estimates Committee is appointed by the Speaker from amongst its members, and by convention, is invariably drawn from the ruling party. It is the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) whose Chairman has been appointed from the Opposition party by convention since 1967. Statement 3 is incorrect.
To distinguish between leadership conventions of different financial committees.

Anahtar Kavram

Composition, restrictions on minister membership, and chairmanship conventions of Parliamentary Financial Committees.
Soru 211Soru →

With reference to the Fundamental Duties under Part IV-A (Article 51A) of the Constitution of India, which of the following statements are correct?

Geçerli olan tümünü seçin

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: They were incorporated into the Constitution of India upon the recommendation of the Swaran Singh Committee through the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976.; Fundamental Duties are non-justiciable in nature, meaning there is no direct provision in the Constitution for their judicial enforcement, although Parliament may enact laws to implement them.

Cevap

The correct statements are that Fundamental Duties were incorporated via the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976 based on the Swaran Singh Committee recommendations, and that Fundamental Duties are non-justiciable but Parliament can enact legislation for their enforcement.
Fundamental Duties were added to the Indian Constitution under Article 51A (Part IV-A) by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976, following recommendations of the Swaran Singh Committee. Furthermore, Fundamental Duties are non-justiciable by themselves; however, Parliament is empowered to enforce them by enacting appropriate statutory laws.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Evaluate the historical origin and amendment details of Fundamental Duties in Part IV-A.
The Swaran Singh Committee (1976) recommended the inclusion of Fundamental Duties. The 42nd Amendment Act added 10 duties in Article 51A (Part IV-A). The committee suggested 8 duties, but Parliament added 10 and rejected certain recommendations (such as duty to pay taxes).
To verify the accuracy of statements regarding the Swaran Singh Committee recommendations and the 42nd Amendment Act.
2
Analyze the legal and constitutional enforceability of Fundamental Duties.
Fundamental Duties are non-justiciable (they carry no constitutional sanction for breach directly), but Parliament has the legislative competence to enforce them through specific statutes.
To establish judicial enforceability and the role of parliamentary legislation.
3
Examine writ jurisdiction under Article 226 regarding Fundamental Duties.
High Courts cannot issue writs to enforce Fundamental Duties directly against private persons unless a valid law enacted by Parliament/State Legislature has been infringed.
To determine the legal scope of judicial writs regarding duties.

Anahtar Kavram

Constitutional origin, committee recommendations, non-justiciable nature, and parliamentary enforcement mechanisms of Fundamental Duties (Article 51A).
Tahmini Süre:1m 30s
Soru 212Soru →

With reference to the 73rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1992, which of the following is a compulsory (mandatory) provision that state governments are constitutionally bound to implement in their Panchayati Raj legislation?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Providing mandatory reservation of not less than one-third of the total number of seats for women in Panchayats across all levels.

Cevap

Providing mandatory reservation of not less than one-third of the total number of seats for women in Panchayats across all levels.
Under Article 243D(3) of Part IX of the Indian Constitution, reserving not less than one-third of the total seats for women (including seats reserved for SC/ST women) in every Panchayat is a compulsory requirement that every state must adopt.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the framework of the 73rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1992.
The 73rd Amendment classifies its provisions into compulsory (mandatory for all states) and voluntary (at the discretion of state legislatures).
To identify which requirements states must legally enforce versus which ones are optional.
2
Evaluate the statutory nature of women's reservation under Article 243D.
Article 243D(3) mandates that not less than one-third of the total seats to be filled by direct election in every Panchayat shall be reserved for women.
This confirms that gender reservation is a binding constitutional mandate.
3
Distinguish voluntary provisions such as OBC reservations, MP/MLA representation, and taxation powers.
Articles 243D(6), 243C(3), and 243H empower state legislatures to make enabling laws, but do not make them constitutionally mandatory.
This rules out optional features that depend entirely on state-level legislation.

Anahtar Kavram

Compulsory vs Voluntary Provisions of 73rd Constitutional Amendment Act
Tahmini Süre:1m 0s
Soru 213Soru →

Consider the following statements regarding the effect of the dissolution of the Lok Sabha on pending bills in the Parliament of India:

1. A bill passed by both Houses of Parliament but pending the assent of the President does not lapse.
2. A bill pending in the Rajya Sabha that has not been passed by the Lok Sabha lapses upon dissolution.
3. A bill passed by the Lok Sabha but pending in the Rajya Sabha does not lapse if the President has notified an intention to summon a joint sitting prior to the dissolution.

Which of the statements given above are correct?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: 1 and 3 only

Cevap

The correct combination of statements is '1 and 3 only'.
Statements 1 and 3 are constitutionally accurate. Under the Indian Constitution, a bill awaiting presidential assent has passed through both legislative chambers and is unaffected by the dissolution of the lower house. Additionally, Article 108(5) explicitly protects a bill from lapsing if the President announced an intention to hold a joint sitting prior to dissolution. Conversely, statement 2 is incorrect because Article 107(4) explicitly specifies that a bill pending in the Rajya Sabha that has not been passed by the Lok Sabha does not lapse.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze statement 1 regarding bills pending presidential assent.
Statement 1 is correct. When a bill has been passed by both Houses and is awaiting assent from the President, it is no longer pending in either House. Therefore, the dissolution of the Lok Sabha does not cause it to lapse.
Article 107 applies to bills pending in the Houses. Bills awaiting presidential assent or returned by the President for reconsideration do not lapse.
2
Analyze statement 2 regarding bills originating and pending in the Rajya Sabha.
Statement 2 is incorrect. Under Article 107(4), a bill pending in the Rajya Sabha which has not been passed by the Lok Sabha does NOT lapse upon dissolution of the Lok Sabha.
Since the Lok Sabha has not yet considered or acted on the bill, the legislative process in the lower house has not officially begun for that bill.
3
Analyze statement 3 regarding joint sitting notifications prior to dissolution.
Statement 3 is correct. Under Article 108(5), if the President has notified an intention to summon a joint sitting of both Houses before the Lok Sabha is dissolved, the bill does not lapse.
The notification of a joint sitting freezes the legislative deadlock process and overrides the standard lapsing rule under Article 107(5).

Anahtar Kavram

Effect of Dissolution of Lok Sabha on Pending Parliamentary Business (Articles 107 & 108)
Tahmini Süre:1m 30s
Soru 214Soru →

Match the Constitutional Articles related to the State Executive and Legislature in List-I with their corresponding provisions in List-II:

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

Article 161
Article 164(4)
Article 169
Article 213

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

Article 161 matches with the power of the Governor to grant pardons; Article 164(4) matches with the six-month legislature election mandate for ministers; Article 169 matches with the provision for abolition or creation of Legislative Councils; and Article 213 matches with the Governor's power to promulgate Ordinances.
Article 161 details Gubernatorial clemency power; Article 164(4) mandates election within six months for ministers; Article 169 regulates the creation/abolition of Legislative Councils; and Article 213 grants Ordinance-making power to the Governor during legislative recess.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the scope of Article 161
Article 161 deals with the judicial/clemency powers of the Governor, including pardons, reprieves, and remissions.
This establishes state executive pardoning authority.
2
Analyze ministerial tenure rules under Article 164(4)
Article 164(4) limits non-legislator ministership to six consecutive months without getting elected.
This enforces parliamentary accountability at the state level.
3
Evaluate bicameral legislative changes under Article 169
Article 169 details how Parliament may create or abolish a Legislative Council following a special resolution by the Legislative Assembly.
This governs state upper house institutional changes.
4
Determine executive legislative power under Article 213
Article 213 empowers the Governor to promulgate ordinances during legislative recess.
This allows emergency law-making by the Governor.

Anahtar Kavram

Constitutional provisions governing the State Executive (Governor, CM, Ministers) and State Legislature powers
Soru 215Soru →

Which of the following procedural and operational provisions correctly distinguish a Proclamation of National Emergency (Article 352) from President's Rule (Article 356) under the Constitution of India?

Geçerli olan tümünü seçin

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: A Proclamation of National Emergency must be approved by both Houses of Parliament within one month from its issue, whereas President's Rule must be approved within two months.; A resolution approving a Proclamation of National Emergency requires a special majority in both Houses of Parliament, whereas President's Rule requires a simple majority.

Cevap

The correct statements are that National Emergency requires parliamentary approval within one month whereas President's Rule allows two months, and that National Emergency approval demands a special majority while President's Rule requires only a simple majority.
The statements highlighting the approval timeframe (one month for National Emergency vs two months for President's Rule) and majority requirements (special majority for National Emergency vs simple majority for President's Rule) are constitutionally accurate according to the modifications introduced by the 44th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1978.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze timeframes for parliamentary approval for Articles 352 and 356.
National Emergency requires approval within 1 month (44th Amendment Act, 1978), while President's Rule requires approval within 2 months.
Constitutional provisions under Article 352(4) and Article 356(3) specify distinct statutory deadlines for initial legislative ratification.
2
Evaluate the majority requirements for parliamentary ratification.
National Emergency requires a special majority in each House of Parliament, while President's Rule requires only a simple majority.
The 44th Amendment Act introduced the special majority requirement for National Emergency to prevent misuse, whereas President's Rule follows standard simple majority approval.
3
Examine revocation procedures and executive impacts on State Government.
Revocation of either emergency by the President does not require prior parliamentary approval. Furthermore, State Executive is dismissed under President's Rule, but remains active (though subject to central direction) during National Emergency.
Confusing the status of the state ministry or the procedure for revoking emergency proclamations violates procedural rules under Articles 352 and 356.

Anahtar Kavram

Procedural and Operational Differences between National Emergency (Article 352) and President's Rule (Article 356)
Tahmini Süre:2m 0s
Soru 216Soru →

Match the non-constitutional statutory bodies listed in List-I with their respective statutory tenure and re-appointment provisions under Indian law listed in List-II, and select the correct matching pair configuration.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

Central Vigilance Commission (CVC)
National Human Rights Commission (NHRC)
National Green Tribunal (NGT)
Central Information Commission (CIC)

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The correct alignment pairs the Central Vigilance Commission with a 4-year term or 65-year age cap and bar on further employment; the National Human Rights Commission with a 3-year term or 70-year age cap and re-appointment eligibility; the National Green Tribunal with a 5-year fixed term and bar on re-appointment; and the Central Information Commission with tenure as prescribed by Central Government rules.
Each non-constitutional statutory body operates under specific provisions set by its governing Act of Parliament. The Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 establishes a 4-year tenure with an age cap of 65 and a complete ban on subsequent state or central government employment. The Protection of Human Rights (Amendment) Act, 2019 lowered the NHRC tenure to 3 years with an upper age limit of 70 while permitting re-appointment. The National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 sets a 5-year tenure with a complete prohibition on re-appointment. The RTI (Amendment) Act, 2019 replaced the original fixed 5-year term of the CIC with terms prescribed by Central Government rules.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the statutory provisions governing the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC).
Under the CVC Act, 2003, the Vigilance Commissioner serves a unique 4-year term or until age 65 and cannot accept further employment under the Central or State Government.
Identify the distinct 4-year tenure rule applicable specifically to CVC.
2
Analyze the statutory provisions of the Protection of Human Rights Act for the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC).
The 2019 Amendment reduced the tenure from 5 years to 3 years (or 70 years of age) and permitted re-appointment.
Distinguish NHRC's reduced 3-year tenure and 70-year age cap from other bodies.
3
Examine the tenure rule under the National Green Tribunal (NGT) Act, 2010.
Section 7 mandates a 5-year fixed term with a strict prohibition on re-appointment.
Identify NGT's unique 5-year non-renewable tenure structure.
4
Evaluate the statutory framework for the Central Information Commission (CIC).
The RTI (Amendment) Act, 2019 empowered the Central Government to notify tenure terms by rules (currently 3 years) rather than keeping a fixed statutory 5-year term.
Confirm the flexible executive-prescribed tenure mechanism introduced by the 2019 amendment.

Anahtar Kavram

Statutory Tenure, Age Caps, and Re-appointment Mandates of Non-Constitutional Bodies
Tahmini Süre:1m 30s
Soru 217Soru →

Match the special constitutional powers and procedural functions of the Houses of Parliament in List-I with their corresponding Constitutional Provisions / Articles in List-II:

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

Authorization to Parliament to create one or more All-India Services
Initiation of a resolution for the removal of the Vice-President of India
Final decision and certification on whether a Bill is a Money Bill
Exclusive approval of a National Emergency proclamation when Lok Sabha is dissolved

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

Authorization to create All-India Services matches Article 312; Initiation of a resolution for the removal of the Vice-President matches Article 67(b); Final decision on certifying a Money Bill matches Article 110(3); Exclusive approval of National Emergency during Lok Sabha dissolution matches Proviso to Article 352(4).
The correct pairings accurately reflect the specific constitutional balance of power between the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha: Article 312 reserves All-India Services creation resolutions to Rajya Sabha, Article 67(b) mandates that Vice-President removal resolutions originate in Rajya Sabha, Article 110(3) grants exclusive Money Bill certification powers to the Lok Sabha Speaker, and Article 352(4) proviso provides for emergency approval by Rajya Sabha when Lok Sabha stands dissolved.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the constitutional article empowering Rajya Sabha regarding All-India Services
Article 312 explicitly gives Rajya Sabha the exclusive federal power to initiate creation of All-India Services.
This federal safeguard protects state administrative cadres unless Rajya Sabha consents.
2
Examine the procedural rule for removing the Vice-President of India
Article 67(b) stipulates that a resolution for removal of the Vice-President must originate exclusively in the Rajya Sabha.
Because the Vice-President serves as the Presiding Officer of the Rajya Sabha, initiation power belongs solely to that House.
3
Determine the authority governing Money Bill certification
Article 110(3) confers unchallengeable and final authority on the Speaker of Lok Sabha to decide whether a bill is a Money Bill.
Lok Sabha holds primary financial power and accountability under the Indian parliamentary structure.
4
Analyze emergency powers when the lower house is dissolved
Under the proviso to Article 352(4), Rajya Sabha functions as the continuous constitutional watchdog approving emergency proclamations during Lok Sabha's dissolution within 30 days.
Rajya Sabha is a permanent body not subject to dissolution, maintaining legislative oversight in emergencies.

Anahtar Kavram

Exclusive and Special Powers of Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha under the Constitution of India
Soru 218Soru →

Consider the following statements regarding the constitutional remedies and writ jurisdictions under Article 32 and Article 226 of the Constitution of India:

1. The Supreme Court can issue writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights as well as for any other ordinary legal right.
2. The High Court can refuse to exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 if an adequate alternative legal remedy is available.
3. Article 32 is itself a Fundamental Right, whereas Article 226 is a constitutional provision conferring discretionary jurisdiction.

Which of the statements given above are correct?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: 2 and 3 only

Cevap

Statements 2 and 3 are correct. The writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 is limited to the enforcement of Fundamental Rights alone, making it narrower in purpose than the High Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 226, which extends to 'any other purpose' (ordinary legal rights). Moreover, because Article 32 is guaranteed as a Fundamental Right itself, the Supreme Court cannot refuse to exercise its jurisdiction, whereas the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary.
The correct option is the combination of statements 2 and 3. Under Article 32, the Supreme Court's power to issue writs is exclusively restricted to enforcing Fundamental Rights contained in Part III of the Constitution. In contrast, Article 226 empowers High Courts to issue writs for Fundamental Rights as well as 'for any other purpose' (enforcement of ordinary statutory and legal rights). Furthermore, because Article 32 is guaranteed as a Fundamental Right, the Supreme Court cannot refuse a petitioner seeking remedy for violation of Part III rights, whereas High Court writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze Statement 1
Statement 1 is incorrect.
Under Article 32, the Supreme Court can issue writs ONLY for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights (Part III). It cannot issue writs for ordinary legal rights, unlike High Courts under Article 226.
2
Analyze Statement 2
Statement 2 is correct.
High Court writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary in nature; hence, a High Court may refuse to grant writ relief if an efficacious alternative legal remedy exists.
3
Analyze Statement 3
Statement 3 is correct.
Article 32 is included in Part III of the Constitution and is itself a fundamental right to move the Supreme Court. Article 226 falls under Part VI and is a constitutional provision providing discretionary remedy.

Anahtar Kavram

Writ Jurisdiction Comparison (Article 32 vs Article 226)
Soru 219Soru →

Which of the following statements regarding the constitutional safeguards and administrative provisions of the Public Service Commissions in India are correct?

Geçerli olan tümünü seçin

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: The Chairman and members of a State Public Service Commission are appointed by the Governor of the state, but can be removed from office only by the President of India.; The administrative expenses of the Union Public Service Commission, including all salaries, allowances, and pensions of its members and staff, are charged on the Consolidated Fund of India.

Cevap

The correct statements are the statement regarding SPSC appointment by the Governor and removal by the President, and the statement asserting that UPSC administrative expenses are charged on the Consolidated Fund of India.
The statement specifying that SPSC members are appointed by the Governor but removable only by the President, and the statement highlighting that UPSC expenses are charged on the Consolidated Fund of India, are accurate statements under Articles 316, 317, and 322 of the Constitution of India.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Examine the appointment and removal authorities for State Public Service Commission members.
According to Article 316, the Governor appoints SPSC members. However, Article 317 stipulates that only the President of India has the power to remove them.
This constitutional provision ensures that state-level commissions maintain operational independence from local political executive pressure.
2
Analyze the procedural requirement for removing an SPSC member on grounds of misbehaviour.
Article 317(1) requires the President to refer the matter to the Supreme Court for an inquiry, not the State High Court.
The Supreme Court conducts the investigation and reports its findings to the President.
3
Evaluate the financial provisions governing the UPSC.
Article 322 explicitly states that the administrative expenses of the UPSC are charged on the Consolidated Fund of India.
Charged expenses are not subject to annual voting in Parliament, guaranteeing financial autonomy.
4
Verify the constitutional article mapping for the UPSC.
Public Service Commissions are governed by Articles 315–323. Article 324 governs the Election Commission of India.
Mapping Article 324 to UPSC is a common constitutional misquote.

Anahtar Kavram

Constitutional safeguards, removal mechanisms, and governing articles of Public Service Commissions (Articles 315-323)
Soru 220Soru →

Consider the following statements regarding the constitutional position and discretionary powers of the Governor of an Indian State:

1. The Governor is constitutionally bound to reserve any bill passed by the State Legislature for the consideration of the President if it endangers the constitutional position of the State High Court.
2. The validity of any action taken by the Governor cannot be questioned in court on the ground that the Governor ought or ought not to have acted in their discretion.
3. Unlike the President of India, the Constitution explicitly provides for the exercise of discretionary powers by the Governor in certain matters.

Which of the statements given above are correct?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: 1, 2, and 3

Cevap

Statements 1, 2, and 3 are all correct.
The correct answer identifies that all three statements are valid constitutional facts. Statement 1 aligns with the mandatory reservation clause of Article 200 regarding High Courts. Statement 2 reflects Article 163(2), which protects the Governor's decision on discretionary matters from judicial questioning. Statement 3 accurately notes the explicit textual presence of discretionary power in Article 163(1) for the Governor, which sets it apart from Article 74 regarding the President.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze Statement 1 regarding reservation of bills for the President.
Statement 1 is correct.
Under the second proviso to Article 200 of the Constitution of India, the Governor must reserve any bill which, in his opinion, would derogate from the powers of the High Court so as to endanger its constitutional position.
2
Analyze Statement 2 regarding judicial review of gubernatorial discretion.
Statement 2 is correct.
Article 163(2) specifies that if any question arises whether a matter falls within the Governor's discretion, the Governor's decision is final and anything done shall not be called into question in any court.
3
Analyze Statement 3 regarding textual comparison of discretion between Governor and President.
Statement 3 is correct.
Article 163(1) explicitly uses the clause 'except in so far as he is by or under this Constitution required to exercise his functions or any of them in his discretion', whereas Article 74 contains no explicit textual grant of discretionary powers to the President.

Anahtar Kavram

Constitutional Powers and Discretionary Jurisdiction of the Governor (Articles 163 and 200)
ÖncekiSayfa 11 / 16Sonraki
Indian Polity and Governance Alıştırma Soruları — State PSC Exam — Sayfa 11 | Examkin