Question 1

In a constitutional democracy like India, which branch of government is primarily responsible for enforcing laws?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: A modern democratic state is usually organised into three main branches of government legislative, executive, and judicial each with its own primary function. Understanding which branch makes laws, which enforces them, and which interprets them is a basic concept in political science and Indian polity. This question focuses on identifying the branch that is mainly responsible for enforcing laws. Given Data / Assumptions: The question asks about enforcing or implementing laws, not making or interpreting them. The branches listed include legislative, executive, and judicial, and an option suggesting that all play the same role. We assume the standard separation of functions as explained in most civics and polity texts. Concept / Approach: In simple terms, the legislature makes the laws, the executive enforces or implements the laws, and the judiciary interprets the laws and settles disputes. While there is some overlap, the primary responsibility for carrying laws into effect lies with the executive branch. This includes the President, Prime Minister, Council of Ministers, and the administrative machinery at various levels. Therefore, to answer this question, we must recall the classic division of powers and match enforcement with the executive. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify the three main branches of government and their typical roles.Step 2: Recall that the legislative branch makes or passes laws.Step 3: Recall that the judicial branch interprets laws and settles disputes arising under them.Step 4: Understand that the executive branch implements and enforces laws through various departments, police, and administration.Step 5: Select the executive branch as the primary branch responsible for enforcing laws. Verification / Alternative check: To verify, think of real life examples. When a new traffic law is passed, it is the police and transport authorities under the executive that enforce it. Courts only become involved when someone challenges a fine or alleges violation of rights. Likewise, tax laws are enforced by tax departments, not by the legislature or courts directly. These examples clearly show that enforcement is an executive function even though it is based on laws made by the legislature and subject to review by the judiciary. Why Other Options Are Wrong: The judicial branch primarily interprets law and adjudicates disputes; it does not go out and implement laws. The legislative branch frames and passes laws but does not operate the machinery that enforces them. The option all of the above equally is incorrect because the branches have distinct primary roles, even though they interact. The Election Commission is a constitutional body with specific responsibilities regarding elections, not a general law enforcement branch. Common Pitfalls: Some learners assume that because courts punish wrongdoers, the judiciary must be enforcing laws. However, punishment and adjudication come after the enforcement actions taken by the executive, such as investigation and prosecution. Others think that since Parliament is supreme in law making, it must also enforce laws. Keeping the basic formula legislature makes, executive enforces, judiciary interprets in mind helps avoid these errors. Final Answer: Executive branch

Question 2

On which date was the Constitution of India formally adopted by the Constituent Assembly?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The Constitution of India went through several important dates in its journey from drafting to enforcement. One key date is when the Constituent Assembly formally adopted the final text of the Constitution. Another is when it came into force and India became a republic. Examinations often test whether you can distinguish between these dates. This question asks about the adoption date, not the enforcement date. Given Data / Assumptions: The question is specifically about the date the Constitution was adopted by the Constituent Assembly. The options include well known national dates, such as Independence Day and Republic Day. We assume familiarity with the timeline of the Constituent Assembly. Concept / Approach: The Constituent Assembly of India completed and formally adopted the Constitution on 26 November 1949. However, most of its provisions came into effect later, on 26 January 1950, which is celebrated as Republic Day. 15 August 1947 is the date of independence, and 9 December 1946 is the date when the Assembly first met. Therefore, we must distinguish adoption, enforcement, and other important milestones, and pick the date that matches adoption specifically. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that the Constitution was adopted on 26 November 1949 by the Constituent Assembly.Step 2: Remember that it came into force on 26 January 1950, which is celebrated as Republic Day.Step 3: Note that 15 August 1947 marks independence and is not the adoption date of the Constitution.Step 4: Recall that 9 December 1946 is when the Constituent Assembly first met, not when it adopted the final Constitution.Step 5: Choose 26 November 1949 as the correct answer. Verification / Alternative check: A simple verification method is to memorise three linked events: the first meeting of the Constituent Assembly on 9 December 1946, adoption of the Constitution on 26 November 1949, and its coming into force on 26 January 1950. Standard polity textbooks and many exam notes present these three dates together. When you see this sequence, it becomes clear which date corresponds to adoption. Cross checking with this timeline confirms that 26 November 1949 is correct. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 26 January 1950 is the date when the Constitution came into effect and India became a republic, but it is not the adoption date asked in the question. 15 August 1947 is the day India became independent from British rule, not the day the Constitution was adopted. 9 December 1946 is the date of the first meeting of the Constituent Assembly, a starting point rather than the end of the drafting process. 2 October 1949 has no special connection with the adoption of the Constitution. Common Pitfalls: Many students automatically choose 26 January 1950 for any question about the Constitution because it is a famous national holiday. Others may confuse independence and republic dates. To avoid these mistakes, it is helpful to remember that adoption happened in November 1949 and enforcement in January 1950, with independence earlier in August 1947. Keeping these three dates distinct is essential for answering polity questions accurately. Final Answer: 26 November 1949

Question 3

How many non permanent members does the United Nations Security Council have at any given time?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The United Nations Security Council is one of the most powerful organs of the United Nations system. It is responsible for maintaining international peace and security. The Council has both permanent and non permanent members, and its composition is a frequent subject of general knowledge questions. Knowing the exact number of non permanent members is important for exams related to international organisations and current affairs. Given Data / Assumptions: The question asks about the number of non permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. We assume that the structure is the one in force since the expansion from eleven to fifteen members in total. The permanent members are a fixed group of five countries. Concept / Approach: The United Nations Security Council consists of fifteen members in total. Out of these, five are permanent members with veto power, and the other ten are non permanent members elected by the General Assembly for two year terms. These non permanent seats are allocated by region and rotate among the member states. To answer the question, we subtract the five permanent members from the total of fifteen to arrive at ten non permanent members. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that the Security Council has a total of fifteen seats.Step 2: Remember that there are exactly five permanent members with veto power.Step 3: Subtract the five permanent members from the total of fifteen members.Step 4: 15 minus 5 equals 10, which represents the number of non permanent members.Step 5: Choose 10 as the correct answer from the options given. Verification / Alternative check: Verification can be done by recalling the list of permanent members, commonly remembered as the group of five major World War Two victors, and then recalling that the Council was expanded to a fifteen member body with ten non permanent seats. Standard general knowledge and international relations textbooks consistently describe the Security Council as a five plus ten structure, confirming that ten is the correct number of non permanent members. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Five is the number of permanent members, not non permanent members. Fifteen is the total number of members on the Security Council. Twenty and eight are not part of the widely known composition and do not match the established structure of the Council. Therefore, these options do not answer the specific question about non permanent members. Common Pitfalls: Some learners confuse the total membership of fifteen with the number of non permanent members and may mistakenly choose fifteen. Others may recall only that there are five permanent members and guess randomly. A simple way to avoid confusion is to memorise the structure explicitly as five permanent plus ten non permanent equals fifteen members in total. Final Answer: 10

Question 4

For the distribution of legislative powers between the Union and the States in India through Union, State, and Concurrent Lists, which of the following Articles of the Constitution mainly govern this scheme?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: India is a federal country with a division of powers between the Union and State governments. This division is mainly reflected in three lists the Union List, the State List, and the Concurrent List. The constitutional basis for this arrangement is found in specific Articles that define the extent and subject matter of the legislative powers of Parliament and State Legislatures. This question asks you to identify which Articles govern this distribution. Given Data / Assumptions: The focus is on the Articles that deal with legislative powers and the three lists. The options include various pairs of Articles dealing with unrelated topics. We assume familiarity with the basic structure of Part XI of the Constitution. Concept / Approach: Articles 245 and 246 of the Constitution of India are central to the distribution of legislative powers. Article 245 describes the extent of laws made by Parliament and State Legislatures, while Article 246 sets out the subject matter of laws made by Parliament and State Legislatures with reference to the Union, State, and Concurrent Lists in the Seventh Schedule. Other Articles listed in the options deal with very different subjects, such as the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court or service commissions. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that Part XI of the Constitution deals with the relations between the Union and the States, including legislative relations.Step 2: Remember that Article 245 defines the extent of laws that Parliament and State Legislatures can make.Step 3: Recall that Article 246 defines the subject matter of laws in relation to the Union, State, and Concurrent Lists.Step 4: Compare this with the other options, which refer to Articles dealing with different topics like Supreme Court powers or public service commissions.Step 5: Conclude that Articles 245 and 246 govern the distribution of legislative powers based on the three lists. Verification / Alternative check: To verify, open any standard polity textbook and look up the chapter on Union State legislative relations. You will consistently see Articles 245 and 246 discussed at the beginning of the chapter, along with references to the Seventh Schedule. Other Articles such as 141 and 142 relate to the powers of the Supreme Court to declare law and to pass certain orders, which are clearly not about legislative lists. This confirms that 245 and 246 are the correct Articles for this topic. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Articles 4 and 5 are linked with the admission or establishment of new states and citizenship at the commencement of the Constitution. Articles 56 and 57 refer to the term and eligibility of the President of India. Articles 141 and 142 relate to the binding nature of Supreme Court judgments and its power to do complete justice. Articles 320 and 321 deal with the functions of Public Service Commissions. None of these Articles govern the distribution of powers through Union, State, and Concurrent Lists. Common Pitfalls: Learners sometimes select Articles 141 and 142 because they have heard them mentioned in landmark Supreme Court cases, but these Articles are about judicial powers, not legislative distribution. Others may simply guess based on the numbers. A good approach is to connect Articles 245 and 246 firmly with the Seventh Schedule and the three lists, as this trio appears together frequently in exam materials. Final Answer: Articles 245 and 246

Question 5

How is the Constitution of India best described in terms of its flexibility and rigidity?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Constitutions around the world are often classified as rigid or flexible based on how easy or difficult it is to amend them. The Constitution of India uses different procedures for different types of amendments, making its character more complex than a simple rigid or flexible label. Understanding this mixed nature is important in Indian polity, as it explains how the Constitution can both protect its core structure and adapt to changing needs. Given Data / Assumptions: The question concerns the overall nature of the Constitution of India. We focus on the amendment process as provided in Article 368 and related provisions. The options include simple labels like rigid or flexible and a mixed description. Concept / Approach: A rigid constitution is one that can be amended only through a special, often difficult, procedure, whereas a flexible constitution can be changed by the ordinary law making process. The Constitution of India provides multiple methods for amendment. Some provisions can be amended by a simple majority in Parliament, similar to ordinary laws. Other provisions require a special majority of Parliament, and certain amendments further require ratification by at least half of the state legislatures. This varying level of difficulty shows that the Indian Constitution is partly rigid and partly flexible. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that Article 368 provides the primary procedure for constitutional amendment.Step 2: Recognise that some Articles can be amended by simple majority, for example relating to the creation of new states and certain schedules.Step 3: Note that many key provisions require a special majority of both Houses of Parliament.Step 4: Understand that still other provisions also need ratification by at least half of the state legislatures, such as changes affecting the federal structure.Step 5: Conclude that because the ease of amendment varies, the Constitution of India is correctly described as partly rigid and partly flexible. Verification / Alternative check: To verify, refer to standard polity sources that classify constitutions. They almost always mention that the British Constitution is a classic example of a flexible constitution, while the United States Constitution is often cited as rigid. When discussing India, these books routinely describe it as a unique blend of rigidity and flexibility. They emphasise that some amendments are easy and some are difficult, which confirms the mixed classification. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Calling the Constitution purely rigid ignores the many provisions that can be amended by simple majority. Calling it purely flexible ignores the special majority and ratification requirements that protect important features. Very rigid exaggerates the difficulty of amendment and does not reflect reality. Describing it as unwritten and completely flexible is completely incorrect because the Indian Constitution is a written document and has a defined amendment procedure. Common Pitfalls: Some learners, after reading about the basic structure doctrine and difficult amendment procedures, assume the Constitution must be very rigid. Others focus on frequent amendments and mistakenly see it as fully flexible. The best way to avoid these extremes is to remember that different parts of the Constitution follow different amendment routes, resulting in a balanced description partly rigid and partly flexible. Final Answer: Partly rigid and partly flexible

Question 6

What is the most essential feature of the parliamentary form of government as adopted in India?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: There are two major models of democratic government parliamentary and presidential. India follows the parliamentary system at the Union and state levels. While this system has many features, such as a nominal head of state and a real head of government, one feature is considered most essential and distinguishes it clearly from the presidential system. This question asks you to identify that key feature. Given Data / Assumptions: The question is about the parliamentary form of government, not the presidential form. We assume a basic understanding of how the Council of Ministers operates in relation to the legislature. The options include sovereignty of Parliament, written Constitution, executive accountability, independent judiciary, and direct election of head of state. Concept / Approach: In a parliamentary system, the real executive (the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers) is drawn from the legislature and remains in office only as long as it enjoys the confidence of the lower house. This makes the executive collectively responsible to the legislature, which can remove it through a vote of no confidence. This accountability is the core feature of parliamentary government. Other features, such as a written Constitution or independent judiciary, can also exist in presidential systems or other forms of government and are therefore not uniquely parliamentary. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that in India the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers must enjoy the confidence of the Lok Sabha.Step 2: Understand that the Lok Sabha can remove the government by passing a vote of no confidence.Step 3: Recognise that this arrangement means the executive is accountable to the legislature, which is the hallmark of the parliamentary system.Step 4: Compare this with the presidential system, where the executive has a fixed term and is not directly removable by the legislature in the same way.Step 5: Conclude that accountability of the executive to the legislature is the most essential feature. Verification / Alternative check: Textbooks on comparative government consistently list collective responsibility of the Council of Ministers to the lower house of Parliament as the defining feature of the parliamentary system. They contrast this with the separation of powers and fixed tenure of the executive in presidential systems. They may also mention other features, but they make clear that without legislative accountability, a system cannot truly be called parliamentary. This confirms that executive accountability is the correct choice. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Sovereignty of Parliament is a feature of systems like the United Kingdom, but in India parliamentary sovereignty is limited by the written Constitution and judicial review. A written Constitution is common to many systems, including presidential ones, so it is not unique to parliamentary government. An independent judiciary is important but exists in both parliamentary and presidential systems. Direct election of the head of state by the people is a feature of many presidential systems, not of India, where the President is elected indirectly. Common Pitfalls: Some learners are attracted to phrases like sovereignty of Parliament and independent judiciary because they sound powerful and important, but they forget to check whether the feature is unique to parliamentary government. Others focus on the presence of a written Constitution, which also does not distinguish the systems. Anchoring your understanding on the idea that the government must retain the confidence of the legislature will help you consistently identify the most essential parliamentary feature. Final Answer: Accountability of the executive to the legislature

Question 7

In the Constitution of India, the detailed procedure and method for amending the Constitution is laid down in which Article?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Every living Constitution needs a mechanism for change so that it can adapt to new circumstances. The Constitution of India provides a specific article that describes how it can be amended. This procedure varies in difficulty depending on the type of provision being changed. Knowing which Article contains this method of amendment is a basic but important fact in Indian polity. Given Data / Assumptions: The question asks for the Article that provides the method of constitutional amendment. Options list a variety of Articles dealing with different subjects. We assume familiarity with the idea that some Articles are frequently mentioned in the context of amendments. Concept / Approach: Article 368 of the Constitution of India is the central provision that lays down the procedure for amending the Constitution. It describes how amendments can be initiated, the types of majority required in Parliament, and when ratification by state legislatures is necessary. Other Articles listed in the options deal with topics such as emergency provisions or language of courts and have nothing to do with the amendment process itself. Therefore, recognising Article 368 as the amendment article is key to solving this question. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that discussions about the amendment of the Constitution always focus on Article 368.Step 2: Remember that this Article sets out the special majority requirements and, in some cases, the need for state ratification.Step 3: Examine the options and confirm that Article 368 appears among them.Step 4: Recognise that Articles 348, 358, 378, and 280 refer to other matters such as language of courts, emergency provisions, transitional arrangements, and the Finance Commission.Step 5: Select Article 368 as the correct answer. Verification / Alternative check: To verify, consult any standard polity book under the chapter Constitutional Amendment. It will inevitably cite Article 368 as the main provision and discuss various amendment cases and doctrines in relation to it. Constitutional amendments are often referenced by the phrase amendment under Article 368, reinforcing the association. This consistent usage across study materials confirms that Article 368 is the correct Article for this question. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Article 348 deals with the language to be used in the Supreme Court and High Courts and for Acts and Bills, not with amendment procedure. Article 358 is connected with the suspension of certain Fundamental Rights during an emergency. Article 378 contains transitional provisions from the time when the Constitution came into force. Article 280 deals with the Finance Commission. None of these Articles provides the method for constitutional amendment, so they cannot be correct here. Common Pitfalls: Some candidates confuse Articles 356, 358, and 368 because they all appear in discussions of high level constitutional issues such as emergencies or central state relations. Others may not remember the exact article number and guess. A good strategy is to remember a small set of key Articles like 32, 356, 368, and 370 as anchors for important topics. Associating 368 firmly with amendments will help you avoid errors in the exam. Final Answer: Article 368

Question 8

Which one of the following types of liberty is not specifically mentioned in the Preamble to the Constitution of India?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The Preamble to the Constitution of India proclaims that the Constitution secures certain types of liberty to all citizens. These include liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith, and worship. However, not every conceivable type of liberty is explicitly named in the Preamble. Recognising exactly which liberties are mentioned is a common exam question that helps check how closely you have read the constitutional text. Given Data / Assumptions: The question asks about liberty specifically mentioned in the Preamble. We assume the standard English text of the Preamble currently in force. The options include forms of liberty such as thought, expression, belief, and economic liberty. Concept / Approach: The Preamble clearly states that the Constitution secures liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith, and worship. It does not specifically use the phrase economic liberty, even though economic justice appears earlier as an objective. Economic liberty may be implied in the overall goals of justice and opportunity, but it is not directly mentioned in the liberty phrase itself. Therefore, by matching the exact words used in the Preamble, we can find which option is not explicitly mentioned as a type of liberty there. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall the liberty portion of the Preamble, which reads liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship.Step 2: List out the explicit liberties named thought, expression, belief, faith, and worship.Step 3: Compare each option with this list to see which ones match exactly.Step 4: Notice that liberty of thought, liberty of expression, and liberty of belief are clearly present, and liberty of faith and worship is also present in combined form.Step 5: Observe that economic liberty does not appear as a phrase in the Preamble, making it the correct answer. Verification / Alternative check: To verify, you can read the Preamble carefully from any reliable source. You will see that it mentions justice social, economic and political and then separately mentions liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship. Economic appears only as an aspect of justice and not as a separate liberty word. This direct reading of the constitutional text is the safest way to confirm which liberties are and are not explicitly named. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Liberty of thought is explicitly included in the Preamble. Liberty of expression is also mentioned. Liberty of belief is part of the phrase liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship. Liberty of faith and worship is explicitly present within the same phrase. Because all of these appear in the Preamble in some form, they cannot be the correct answer to a question asking which liberty is not mentioned. Common Pitfalls: Some learners confuse the mention of economic justice with economic liberty and think that economic liberty must also be present. Others may not recall the exact wording of the Preamble and may assume that only one or two liberties are listed. A good practice is to learn the liberty phrase as a complete set of five linked words thought, expression, belief, faith, and worship so that you can easily identify any outsider such as economic liberty. Final Answer: Economic liberty

Question 9

Under which of the following conditions can a person be granted citizenship of India according to the provisions relating to birth, parentage, or ordinary residence?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Citizenship in India can be acquired through various modes such as birth, descent, registration, and naturalisation. The original Constitution and subsequent laws specify conditions under which a person can be considered a citizen. This question presents three broad conditions related to birth in India, parentage in India, and ordinary residence in India, and asks which combination of these can provide a basis for granting citizenship. Given Data / Assumptions: Condition 1: A person is born in India. Condition 2: Either of the person parents was born in India. Condition 3: The person has been an ordinary resident of India for not less than five years. The question asks which combination of these conditions can be used for granting citizenship under the general constitutional and legal framework. Concept / Approach: Under the Constitution and the Citizenship Act, citizenship can be acquired by birth (being born in India under certain periods and conditions), by descent (when parents were born in India or are citizens), and by naturalisation or registration (which usually requires a period of ordinary residence in India). Therefore, all three conditions mentioned in the question reflect recognised bases for citizenship. Although specific cut off dates and detailed requirements apply in practice, as a broad multiple choice concept question, the correct understanding is that each of the three conditions represents a valid pathway to citizenship. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Consider condition 1. The Constitution originally provided citizenship by birth for those born in India, subject to certain time based conditions later refined by law.Step 2: Consider condition 2. Citizenship by descent covers persons whose parents were born in India or are Indian citizens, again subject to legal conditions.Step 3: Consider condition 3. Citizenship by registration or naturalisation requires a period of ordinary residence in India, with five years often cited as the minimum period under certain categories.Step 4: Recognise that all three conditions describe recognised legal routes to becoming a citizen.Step 5: Select the option that includes 1, 2 and 3 as valid conditions. Verification / Alternative check: To verify, you can look at standard summaries of the Citizenship Act, which list the modes of acquiring citizenship. You will find separate headings for citizenship by birth, citizenship by descent, and citizenship by registration or naturalisation based on residence. Each of the three conditions in the question maps to one of these modes, confirming that all are legitimate pathways and that the combination 1, 2 and 3 is the correct answer in a conceptual sense. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Options that include only 1 and 2 or only 2 and 3 exclude one valid basis for citizenship and are therefore incomplete. The option suggesting that Supreme Court approval is necessary for each case is not in line with the normal legal process, which is administered by the executive authorities under the Citizenship Act, not directly by the Supreme Court. None of the above is wrong because the three conditions do in fact represent valid routes to citizenship. Common Pitfalls: Some learners focus heavily on recent changes in citizenship law and become uncertain about the basic traditional modes of citizenship, leading them to underestimate the breadth of the original provisions. Others may incorrectly assume that only one or two of the conditions are valid. To avoid confusion, it is helpful to remember that birth, descent, and residence based naturalisation are globally common ways of acquiring citizenship and are all recognised in Indian law in some form. Final Answer: 1, 2 and 3

Question 10

Which Article of the Constitution of India originally accorded special status to the state of Jammu and Kashmir?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: For many years after independence, the state of Jammu and Kashmir enjoyed a special constitutional status within the Union of India. This status was provided by a specific Article in the Constitution, which contained unique provisions regarding autonomy, separate laws, and the application of the Indian Constitution to that state. Although the legal position has changed in recent times, exams frequently ask which Article originally granted this special status. Given Data / Assumptions: The question asks about the Article that accorded special status to Jammu and Kashmir. The options list several Articles dealing with different subjects. We assume awareness of the historical provision, regardless of later changes. Concept / Approach: Article 370 of the Constitution of India was the provision that granted special autonomous status to Jammu and Kashmir. It specified that the provisions of the Indian Constitution would apply to the state with certain exceptions and modifications and that the state would have its own Constitution and considerable autonomy. Other Articles in the list serve very different purposes, such as dealing with public services, elections, President rule, or special provisions for other states, but none are as closely identified with Jammu and Kashmir as Article 370. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that Article 370 is widely known and discussed as the special status provision for Jammu and Kashmir.Step 2: Recognise that this Article provided for a separate Constitution for the state and limited application of some central laws.Step 3: Compare this with the other Articles offered in the options.Step 4: Note that Article 311 deals with dismissal, removal, and reduction in rank of civil servants, Article 324 deals with the Election Commission, Article 356 with President rule in states, and Article 371 with special provisions for other states but not specifically Jammu and Kashmir in the same original sense.Step 5: Conclude that Article 370 is the correct answer. Verification / Alternative check: To verify, refer to any traditional polity textbook or older constitution commentary, which will list Article 370 as the provision regarding the special status of Jammu and Kashmir. It is so widely cited that general readers also frequently associate the number 370 with Jammu and Kashmir. Even when discussing changes to the state status, public and legal discussions have focused on Article 370, which firmly confirms the association. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Article 311 protects civil servants by specifying safeguards in disciplinary actions and is not related to the status of any state. Article 324 establishes the Election Commission and deals with supervision of elections. Article 356 deals with President rule and emergency in states, not with a permanent special status. Article 371 provides special provisions for various other states, particularly in the north east and some western regions, but historically the most famous special status of Jammu and Kashmir is linked to Article 370, not 371. Common Pitfalls: Some learners confuse Article 370 with 371 because both involve special provisions for states. Others may be aware of Article 356 due to its use in imposing President rule and may mistakenly think it refers to a special status. The best way to avoid confusion is to remember that 370 was historically tied specifically to Jammu and Kashmir, while 371 is a series of clauses giving limited special provisions to several other states. Final Answer: Article 370

Question 11

Which of the following is an example of government corruption in public administration?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Government corruption refers to the misuse of public office for private gain. It weakens trust in public institutions, wastes public resources, and undermines development and justice. Recognising what actions count as corruption helps citizens understand which behaviours are harmful and illegal. This question asks you to identify which listed actions are examples of government corruption in the context of public administration. Given Data / Assumptions: The focus is on actions taken by government officials or public authorities. Options include embezzlement of tax revenue, cronyism in awarding contracts, and accepting bribes. We assume a standard definition of corruption as misuse of public power for private benefit. Concept / Approach: Embezzlement of tax revenue means diverting public money for private use, which directly fits the definition of corruption. Awarding contracts only to friends and associates, known as cronyism, involves favouritism and often leads to misuse of public funds and unfair competition. Accepting bribes is one of the most obvious forms of corruption, where officials exchange public decisions for private payments. All three actions involve abusing public office for personal or group gain, so they all count as government corruption. Therefore, the most accurate option is the one that includes all of these actions. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Examine option a, embezzlement of tax revenue. This clearly involves a public official misusing public funds, which is corruption.Step 2: Examine option b, awarding public contracts only to friends and associates. This is cronyism, a form of favouritism that misuses official power and often leads to financial and ethical wrongdoing.Step 3: Examine option c, accepting bribes in exchange for official favours. This is a textbook example of corruption.Step 4: Recognise that all three of these behaviours involve misuse of public office for private or partisan benefit.Step 5: Conclude that all of the above is the correct answer. Verification / Alternative check: To verify, compare these behaviours with standard definitions given by international organisations and anti corruption agencies. They usually list bribery, embezzlement, nepotism, and cronyism as classic forms of corruption. Embezzling revenue, favouring friends in public contracts, and taking bribes are all prominently mentioned as corrupt practices. Strict enforcement of anti corruption laws, by contrast, works against corruption rather than constituting it, confirming that the first three actions fit the concept while the last does not. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Choosing only one of the three corrupt actions would ignore the fact that the others are also clearly corrupt. Embezzlement alone is not the only example, nor is cronyism or bribery alone. Strict enforcement of anti corruption laws is actually an example of good governance and the opposite of corruption. Therefore, any option that does not include all three corrupt actions is incomplete or incorrect for this question. Common Pitfalls: Some learners may focus only on obvious bribery and overlook more subtle forms such as cronyism or embezzlement. Others may think that awarding contracts to friends is simply unfair but not necessarily corruption, forgetting that it misuses public power. A clear understanding that corruption covers a wide range of behaviours from direct theft to hidden favouritism helps you correctly identify all relevant examples in such questions. Final Answer: All of the above

Question 12

In a modern constitutional democracy, what key principle prevents any one branch of government from becoming too powerful and dominating the others?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: In any modern constitutional democracy, including systems like that of the United States, it is essential to prevent the concentration of power in a single branch of government. The question tests understanding of the fundamental mechanism that keeps the legislative, executive, and judicial branches from becoming too powerful and overriding the others. This is a core principle of constitutional design and is widely discussed in political science and civics. Given Data / Assumptions: We are considering a constitutional democracy with three main branches of government. Each branch has distinct functions, such as making laws, executing laws, and interpreting laws. The concern is about stopping one branch from becoming too powerful. The options mention institutions and mechanisms like elections, legislatures, and structural principles. Concept / Approach: To answer this question, we recall that separation of powers divides government into branches, but the specific mechanism that prevents any one branch from dominating is called checks and balances. Under this principle, each branch has certain powers to limit or check the actions of the others. For example, the executive may veto legislation, the legislature may override a veto or impeach officials, and the judiciary may review the constitutionality of laws. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify that the problem is about preventing excessive power in a single branch of government. Step 2: Recall that separation of powers divides powers among branches, while checks and balances provides mutual control between them. Step 3: Examine the options and locate the term that directly expresses mutual control among branches, namely checks and balances. Step 4: Confirm that other options mention institutions or events that do not systematically restrain all branches in the same way. Verification / Alternative check: In standard civics textbooks, the phrase used to describe the mechanism that limits each branch is checks and balances. This term is specifically defined as the system that allows each branch to amend, veto, or review actions of the others. Separation of powers is related, but it is the structural division, not the ongoing interactive control. Therefore, checks and balances is the most accurate answer. Why Other Options Are Wrong: State governments: State governments may provide federal level checks, but they do not systematically balance all three national branches. Regular presidential elections every four years: Elections limit the executive but do not directly restrain the legislature and judiciary. Members of the legislature: Legislators can check the executive and judiciary in some ways, but they are only one branch, not the whole balancing mechanism. Separation of powers: This principle divides powers, but without checks and balances, one branch might still accumulate influence over time. Common Pitfalls: A common confusion is to treat separation of powers and checks and balances as identical. They are closely linked but not the same. Separation of powers deals with how authority is divided, while checks and balances describe how branches interact and restrain each other. Another pitfall is to assume that elections alone prevent tyranny; while vital, they are not sufficient to keep all branches within constitutional limits. Final Answer: Checks and balances

Question 13

In the context of elections in the United States, which political process is essential for redistricting legislative constituencies?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Redistricting is the process of redrawing the boundaries of electoral districts. In the United States, this is usually done after new population data are collected. The question asks which political or governmental process is necessary for redistricting to take place in a fair and informed way, and it tests knowledge of how representation is adjusted according to population changes. Given Data / Assumptions: Redistricting adjusts legislative district boundaries. Redistricting is based on population changes over time. The options include census, gerrymandering, filibuster, general elections, and impeachment. The focus is on what is necessary rather than merely associated or problematic. Concept / Approach: In the United States, the Constitution requires a population count, or census, every ten years. The data from the census provide the official numbers used to apportion seats in the House of Representatives and to redraw district lines within states. While gerrymandering describes manipulation of this process, the census itself is the indispensable starting point, because without reliable population data there is no objective basis for redistricting. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recognise that redistricting adjusts representation according to population. Step 2: Identify which option directly concerns population counting at regular intervals. Step 3: Note that the census is the official government process of counting the population and collecting demographic data. Step 4: Confirm that other options describe political tactics or events but are not required conditions for redistricting to occur. Verification / Alternative check: Civics and government references clearly state that congressional and many state legislative districts are redrawn based on the decennial census. Apportionment of seats relies on these official figures. Without census data, there would be no agreed basis for adjusting district boundaries. Therefore, census is correctly identified as the necessary process underlying redistricting. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Gerrymandering: This is the manipulation of district boundaries for partisan advantage. It may occur during redistricting, but it is not a necessary process and is often criticised as unfair. Filibuster: This is a legislative tactic in some upper houses and has no direct role in drawing district maps. General elections: Elections happen after districts are drawn; they do not themselves create or redraw districts. Impeachment proceedings: These concern removal of officials and are unrelated to redistricting. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes confuse gerrymandering with redistricting and think that gerrymandering is a required feature of drawing districts. In fact, gerrymandering is an abuse of redistricting rather than a core requirement. Another pitfall is to assume that elections adjust representation by themselves, but election results always occur within the district boundaries that have already been set using census data. Final Answer: Census

Question 14

In the Constitution of India, separation of the judiciary from the executive in the public services of the State is specifically enjoined by which provision?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The Indian Constitution seeks to create an independent judiciary that is free from executive influence, especially in matters of justice delivery and criminal prosecution. The question asks where this idea of separating the judiciary from the executive is expressly mentioned. Understanding this helps learners connect constitutional text with institutional design and the rule of law principle. Given Data / Assumptions: The focus is on the separation of the judiciary from the executive. The phrase is known to be associated with a specific article in the Constitution. Options mention Directive Principles, Supreme Court decisions, the Seventh Schedule, the Preamble, and Fundamental Rights. We assume basic familiarity with the structure of the Constitution of India. Concept / Approach: Article 50 of the Constitution is part of the Directive Principles of State Policy. It directs the State to take steps to separate the judiciary from the executive in the public services of the State. Although Directive Principles are not justiciable, they are fundamental in the governance of the country and guide legislative and administrative action. This specific directive clearly links separation of powers to the independence of the judiciary at the subordinate court level. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that Article 50 deals with separation of judiciary from executive. Step 2: Recognise that Article 50 is placed in Part IV of the Constitution. Step 3: Part IV is titled Directive Principles of State Policy, not Fundamental Rights or Schedules. Step 4: Match this information with the options to identify Directive Principles of State Policy as the correct choice. Verification / Alternative check: Standard polity texts clearly state that Article 50, under Directive Principles, enjoins separation of the judiciary from the executive. While Supreme Court decisions have strengthened judicial independence, the explicit textual direction is found in Part IV, not in the Preamble or Seventh Schedule. This confirms that the correct provision is the Directive Principles of State Policy. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Judicial decisions of the Supreme Court: Judicial pronouncements interpret and expand constitutional principles but do not themselves constitute the original textual directive. Provisions in the Seventh Schedule: This Schedule divides subjects between Union and States; it does not directly address judicial independence. The Preamble: It mentions justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity but does not explicitly talk about separation of judiciary and executive. Fundamental Rights chapter: These rights protect individuals against State action but do not contain Article 50 or the specific directive in question. Common Pitfalls: Learners sometimes assume that any important principle must come from Fundamental Rights or the Preamble. However, important structural and governance directives are often placed in the Directive Principles. Another mistake is to underplay the constitutional importance of Directive Principles because they are non justiciable, even though they strongly influence policy and judicial interpretation. Final Answer: Directive Principles of State Policy

Question 15

According to the Preamble of the Constitution of the United States, which of the following goals is not explicitly mentioned as a purpose of the Constitution?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The Preamble of the Constitution of the United States sets out several high level purposes for which the Constitution was established, such as forming a more perfect union and securing liberty. The question asks which of the listed goals is not explicitly named in the text of the Preamble. This checks careful reading and recall of the exact words used, which is an important skill in constitutional studies. Given Data / Assumptions: We are dealing with the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States, not that of India. The Preamble mentions several purposes, including justice and domestic tranquility. Options include economic equity, domestic tranquility, justice, common defence, and general welfare. We assume basic familiarity with the standard wording of the Preamble. Concept / Approach: The well known wording of the United States Preamble includes phrases like establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, and promote the general welfare. It does not use the phrase economic equity. While economic fairness may be an implied value in some policies, it is not quoted in the Preamble. Therefore, we must identify the option that does not occur in the authoritative text. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall or quickly reconstruct the text of the Preamble of the United States Constitution. Step 2: Identify phrases that definitely appear, such as domestic tranquility, justice, common defence, and general welfare. Step 3: Notice that there is no explicit reference to economic equity as a phrase or primary goal. Step 4: Match this observation with the options and select economic equity as the goal not specified in the Preamble. Verification / Alternative check: If you look at any reliable copy of the United States Constitution, the Preamble reads that it aims to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty. The absence of economic equity from this carefully balanced list makes option economic equity the correct answer beyond doubt. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Domestic tranquility: This phrase appears explicitly and refers to internal peace and order. Justice: Establish justice is one of the first purposes listed. Common defence: Provide for the common defence is clearly mentioned. General welfare: Promote the general welfare appears as a distinct purpose. All of these are integral parts of the Preamble and therefore cannot be the correct choice in this question. Common Pitfalls: A typical mistake is to read economic concepts like equity or equality into the Constitution without checking the exact language. Another pitfall is mixing up various constitutions and assuming that all important sounding values must be present in the Preamble. Good exam technique requires matching each option against the actual text rather than relying on vague memory of themes. Final Answer: Economic equity

Question 16

Under the United States Constitution, which of the following matters concerning the Supreme Court is not directly specified in the text and is therefore left to Congress to decide?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Article three of the United States Constitution establishes the judicial branch. It lays down the existence of a Supreme Court and allows Congress to create lower courts. However, not every detail about the Supreme Court is written into the Constitution. This question asks which important aspect of the Court is not fixed by the text and is instead left for Congress to determine by ordinary legislation. Given Data / Assumptions: The Constitution clearly creates a Supreme Court. It describes judicial tenure and some protections for judges. It gives Congress power to establish inferior courts. The options refer to number of justices, existence of the Court, tenure, salaries, and power to establish lower courts. Concept / Approach: To answer, we must separate what is explicitly written from what is left open. The Constitution states that there shall be one Supreme Court, that judges shall hold office during good behaviour, that they shall receive a compensation which shall not be diminished while they are in office, and that Congress may from time to time ordain and establish inferior courts. The text does not state how many justices the Supreme Court must have. Historically, Congress has changed the number by statute, which confirms that this detail is left to Congress. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall the main clauses of Article three regarding the Supreme Court. Step 2: Identify which options track those clauses exactly, such as existence, tenure, salary protection, and power to create lower courts. Step 3: Notice that the number of justices is not specified in the text; the Constitution does not say nine or any other figure. Step 4: Conclude that the exact number of justices is the issue left open for Congress and therefore is the correct answer. Verification / Alternative check: Historically, Congress has passed several Judiciary Acts that have changed the size of the Supreme Court, demonstrating that the number of justices is a matter of legislation. If the Constitution had fixed the number, Congress could not change it by ordinary law. This practical history verifies that the number of justices is not a constitutional constant but a statutory decision. Why Other Options Are Wrong: That there shall be a Supreme Court: This is explicitly provided in Article three. That federal judges hold office during good behaviour: This phrase appears in the judicial tenure clause. That Congress may establish inferior federal courts: This is also stated in Article three, giving Congress power to ordain and establish lower courts. That judges shall receive a salary that cannot be reduced while in office: Salary protection is clearly written to safeguard judicial independence. Because these matters are directly specified, they are not the unanswered question. Common Pitfalls: Many learners know there are nine justices and incorrectly assume this number must be written into the Constitution. In reality, nine is simply the current statutory number. Another pitfall is failing to distinguish between constitutional text and practices that have developed over time, such as the rule of four or lifetime tenure interpreted through good behaviour. Only the text itself determines what is fixed and what is flexible. Final Answer: The exact number of justices on the Supreme Court

Question 17

In India, what was the adult voting age between the years 1950 and 1987, before it was lowered by the 61st Constitutional Amendment?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The right to vote is a central element of any democracy. In India, the age at which citizens gain the right to vote has not always been the same. This question tests knowledge of the historical adult franchise age before it was reduced by a key constitutional amendment. Knowing this helps students understand how the Indian democratic system has expanded participation over time. Given Data / Assumptions: The time period in question is from 1950 to 1987. The 61st Constitutional Amendment later changed the voting age. We are looking for the adult voting age before this amendment. The options list 16, 18, 21, 24, and 25 years. Concept / Approach: When the Constitution of India came into effect in 1950, it granted universal adult franchise to citizens who had attained the age of 21. This age applied for several decades. The 61st Constitutional Amendment Act, which came into force in 1988, reduced the voting age from 21 to 18 years. Therefore, throughout the period 1950 to 1987, the voting age remained 21. To answer correctly, we link the historical timeline of amendments with the age mentioned in the original Constitution. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that universal adult franchise was introduced in 1950 at a particular age threshold. Step 2: Remember that the 61st Amendment reduced the age from 21 to 18 years. Step 3: Note that the period 1950 to 1987 is before this amendment took effect. Step 4: Conclude that during that period, the adult voting age was 21 years. Verification / Alternative check: Standard polity references and NCERT textbooks confirm that originally voters had to be at least 21 years old. The Statement of Objects and Reasons for the 61st Amendment specifically mentions that the voting age would be lowered from 21 to 18 to involve youth more actively in political processes. This confirms that the correct historical age for the period in question is 21 years, not 18 or any other figure. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 18 years: This became the voting age only after the 61st Amendment, not between 1950 and 1987. 16, 24, and 25 years: These ages have never been the standard voting ages in the Indian Constitution. They may appear in other legal contexts, such as age of majority or eligibility for certain offices, but they are not linked with the right to vote in Indian national and state elections. Common Pitfalls: A frequent mistake is to project present conditions backwards and assume that 18 years has always been the voting age. Another pitfall is confusion between the age for voting and the age for contesting elections, which is usually higher. For example, the minimum age to contest for the Lok Sabha is 25 years. Keeping these distinctions clear is essential for answering polity questions accurately. Final Answer: 21 years

Question 18

The Poona Pact of 1932 was signed between Mahatma Gandhi and which one of the following leaders?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The Poona Pact is an important event in modern Indian history, especially in the context of representation of the depressed classes. It involved crucial negotiations between Mahatma Gandhi and Dr B. R. Ambedkar about separate electorates and reserved seats for depressed classes. This question checks whether the learner can correctly identify the leader who signed the pact with Gandhi in 1932. Given Data / Assumptions: The event referred to is the Poona Pact of 1932. The Pact concerned electoral arrangements for depressed classes under British rule. The options list major leaders of the freedom movement and British administration. We assume basic knowledge of key personalities associated with social justice issues in India. Concept / Approach: The background of the Poona Pact lies in the Communal Award announced by the British government, which granted separate electorates to the depressed classes. Dr B. R. Ambedkar initially supported this arrangement. Mahatma Gandhi, however, opposed separate electorates for depressed classes and went on a fast unto death in the Yerwada jail in Poona. Negotiations ensued between Congress leaders and Dr Ambedkar, culminating in the Poona Pact, which replaced separate electorates with reserved seats in joint electorates. Therefore, the leader who signed the pact with Gandhi was Dr B. R. Ambedkar. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Connect the Poona Pact with the issue of depressed classes representation. Step 2: Recall that Dr B. R. Ambedkar was the principal spokesperson for the depressed classes. Step 3: Remember that Gandhi and Ambedkar reached a compromise, leading to reserved seats in joint electorates instead of separate electorates. Step 4: Select B. R. Ambedkar from the options as the correct co signatory with Gandhi. Verification / Alternative check: Historical accounts consistently state that the Poona Pact was an agreement between Mahatma Gandhi and Dr B. R. Ambedkar, signed on behalf of the depressed classes and the caste Hindu leadership. The exact terms included increased reservation of seats for depressed classes in provincial legislatures and a joint electorate system. No sources attribute the pact to figures like Jinnah, Lord Irwin, or Subhash Chandra Bose, which confirms that B. R. Ambedkar is the correct answer. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Muhammad Ali Jinnah: He was associated with Muslim League politics and later the Pakistan movement, not with the Poona Pact. Lord Irwin: He was a Viceroy earlier linked with the Gandhi Irwin Pact of 1931, a different agreement. Subhash Chandra Bose: He was a prominent nationalist leader but was not involved in negotiating this particular pact. Rajendra Prasad: He was a senior Congress leader but did not sign the Poona Pact with Gandhi as the main counterpart. Common Pitfalls: Learners sometimes confuse the Gandhi Irwin Pact with the Poona Pact and mistakenly choose Lord Irwin. Another pitfall is to associate any pact involving Gandhi with other famous leaders like Jinnah or Subhash Chandra Bose without examining the issue at stake. Remembering that Poona Pact is specifically about depressed classes representation helps anchor Dr Ambedkar as the correct counterpart. Final Answer: B. R. Ambedkar

Question 19

Who served as the Constitutional Adviser to the Constituent Assembly of India and guided the Drafting Committee in preparing the Constitution?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The framing of the Constitution of India involved not only the members of the Constituent Assembly and its Drafting Committee, but also an important Constitutional Adviser who prepared initial drafts and provided detailed legal guidance. This question asks for the name of that adviser, a key but sometimes overlooked figure in the constitution making process. Given Data / Assumptions: The body involved is the Constituent Assembly of India. We are looking for the Constitutional Adviser, not the Chairman of the Drafting Committee. The options list several prominent individuals active around that time. We assume familiarity with at least the main offices and names connected with constitution making. Concept / Approach: While Dr B. R. Ambedkar was the Chairman of the Drafting Committee, the role of Constitutional Adviser was played by B. N. Rau. He produced an initial draft of the Constitution and gave legal and comparative constitutional advice to the Assembly and its committees. His work shaped the early structure and many technical details, which were later debated and modified by the members. Therefore, to answer correctly, we must distinguish between the political leadership of the Drafting Committee and the advisory role of the Constitutional Adviser. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that the Chairman of the Drafting Committee was Dr B. R. Ambedkar, but the question is about the adviser, not the chairman. Step 2: Identify B. N. Rau as the person officially designated as Constitutional Adviser to the Assembly. Step 3: Confirm that other prominent names had different roles, such as presidency of the Assembly or membership of the Drafting Committee. Step 4: Choose B. N. Rau as the correct answer from the options provided. Verification / Alternative check: Historical records of the Constituent Assembly proceedings and official documents of the Government of India clearly mention B. N. Rau as the Constitutional Adviser. He prepared an initial draft known as the Draft Constitution of October 1947. The Drafting Committee under Ambedkar then reworked this document. Because this role is repeatedly and explicitly attributed to B. N. Rau, there is no ambiguity about the correct answer. Why Other Options Are Wrong: B. Shiva Rao: An important commentator and chronicler of the Constituent Assembly, but not its Constitutional Adviser. B. R. Ambedkar: Chairman of the Drafting Committee, not the Constitutional Adviser. Sachchidananda Sinha: The first temporary president of the Constituent Assembly. K. M. Munshi: A prominent member of the Drafting Committee, but not the designated adviser. Their contributions were significant but do not match the specific post referred to in the question. Common Pitfalls: The main confusion is between the roles of Ambedkar and B. N. Rau. Many aspirants, seeing a question about the Constitution, instinctively choose Ambedkar. To avoid this, always read whether the question refers to Drafting Committee chairmanship, presidency of the Assembly, or the advisory role. Each involved a different person and set of responsibilities in the constitution making process. Final Answer: B. N. Rau

Question 20

When was the first session of the Constituent Assembly of India held?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The Constituent Assembly of India was the body responsible for drafting the Constitution. Knowing the date of its first session is a basic factual detail in Indian polity and modern history. This date marks the formal beginning of the constitution making process which ultimately led to the adoption of the Constitution in 1949 and its coming into force in 1950. Given Data / Assumptions: The question is about the first session of the Constituent Assembly. We are not being asked about later sessions or adoption dates. Options include several dates around late 1946, mid 1947, and early 1948. We assume familiarity with the broad timeline of Indian independence and constitution framing. Concept / Approach: The first meeting of the Constituent Assembly took place in New Delhi on 9 December 1946. This was before India became independent in August 1947. The Assembly initially met under the Cabinet Mission Plan and later continued as the sovereign body after independence. Other dates, such as 26 November 1949 and 26 January 1950, are important for adoption and commencement of the Constitution, but they are not the first session date. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall the historical sequence: Cabinet Mission Plan, election of members, and first meeting of the Assembly. Step 2: Identify that the first sitting of the Assembly was in December 1946, not in 1947 or 1948. Step 3: From the given options, locate 9 December 1946 as the date that matches this fact. Step 4: Confirm that other dates refer to different events or are simply distractors. Verification / Alternative check: Standard history and polity sources agree that the Constituent Assembly held its first meeting on 9 December 1946, with Sachchidananda Sinha as the temporary president. On 11 December 1946, Dr Rajendra Prasad was elected permanent president. Because this chronology is well documented, we can confidently mark 9 December 1946 as the first session date. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 26 November 1946: This date is close but not the correct one and may confuse learners with 26 November 1949, the date of adoption of the Constitution. 16 August 1947: This is after independence, but the Assembly started earlier in 1946. 26 January 1948: This date has no direct connection with the first session. 11 December 1946: This is when Rajendra Prasad was elected president, not the first sitting of the Assembly itself. Common Pitfalls: Confusing the first session with the adoption or enforcement dates is a frequent error. Some aspirants memorise 26 November 1949 and 26 January 1950 but forget that the Assembly actually began work in 1946. Keeping a clear mental timeline of 9 December 1946 (first meeting), 26 November 1949 (adoption), and 26 January 1950 (commencement) helps avoid such confusion. Final Answer: 9 December 1946

Indian Politics Questions