Question 1

In India, which body replaced the Planning Commission as the national policy think tank and institution for cooperative federalism?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question concerns a major institutional change in Indian economic planning and policy making. For several decades after independence, the Planning Commission played a central role in preparing Five Year Plans and allocating resources. In the twenty first century, the government decided to replace it with a new institution aiming to promote cooperative federalism and act as a policy think tank. Knowing the name and basic function of this body is a common examination requirement. Given Data / Assumptions: The question clearly states that the body replaces the Planning Commission. The options include well known institutions and bodies with different roles. We assume familiarity with post independence economic planning and recent reforms. Concept / Approach: The Planning Commission was set up in 1950 to oversee planned economic development through Five Year Plans. In January 2015, the Government of India replaced the Planning Commission with NITI Aayog (National Institution for Transforming India). NITI Aayog is designed to function as a policy think tank and to encourage cooperative federalism by involving state governments more closely in national policy formulation. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that the Planning Commission was abolished and a new body was formed in its place. Step 2: Identify the name of this new body as NITI Aayog. Step 3: Compare the options: UPSC conducts examinations, the National Development Council was a separate coordination body, and NMDC is a public sector mining company. Step 4: Note that only NITI Aayog matches the description of replacing the Planning Commission. Step 5: Choose NITI Aayog as the correct answer. Verification / Alternative check: You can verify this by remembering that news reports and government documents around 2015 emphasised that NITI Aayog would be the successor to the Planning Commission, with a new design better suited to a liberalised economy. UPSC continued to function with its own distinct mandate, and the National Development Council was gradually phased out as NITI Aayog took over tasks related to inter governmental coordination in planning. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A (UPSC) is the Union Public Service Commission, responsible for recruiting to the All India Services and central services, and has nothing to do with planning or resource allocation. Option C (National Development Council) existed alongside the Planning Commission and was never its replacement; it involved state chief ministers in reviewing plans, but it did not become the new planning body. Option D (NMDC) is a public sector company engaged in mineral exploration and mining, not a policy planning institution. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes confuse the timing of reforms and may think that the National Development Council replaced the Planning Commission because it also deals with planning related discussions. Another pitfall is mixing up different acronyms; carefully associating NITI Aayog with the idea of transformation and cooperative federalism helps fix it in memory. Final Answer: In India, the body that replaced the Planning Commission is NITI Aayog.

Question 2

In the Indian parliamentary system, for how many months is a vote on account normally valid (except in an election year)?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question concerns the budget making process in the Indian parliamentary system, particularly the device known as a vote on account. When the full budget cannot be passed before the start of the financial year, a vote on account is used to provide the government with spending authority for a limited period. Knowing the usual duration of this arrangement is important for understanding how continuity of government expenditure is maintained. Given Data / Assumptions: The topic is vote on account in the Union or state budget process. The question asks for the normal period of validity, excluding special election year situations. Options give different time spans in months. Concept / Approach: A vote on account is a special provision that allows the government to draw money from the Consolidated Fund to meet essential expenditure for a short period until the full budget is discussed and passed. In practice, this period is normally around two months, though in theory Parliament can authorise a longer period, especially in an election year. Most standard textbooks and exam materials mention that the vote on account is usually granted for two months. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall the purpose of a vote on account: providing short term funds until the budget is fully approved. Step 2: Remember that this arrangement is designed to be temporary and not a substitute for the full Appropriation Act. Step 3: From exam preparation sources, note that the usual period for which a vote on account is granted is about two months. Step 4: Compare this recall with the options offered. Step 5: Choose 2 months as the correct answer. Verification / Alternative check: You can cross check by relating the timeframe with the typical parliamentary calendar. The budget is presented in late February, and discussions may extend into March. A two month vote on account allows the government to meet expenses during April and May, by which time the full budget is normally passed. Longer periods like six or nine months would defeat the purpose of encouraging prompt scrutiny of the full budget. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option B (3 months) is longer than the commonly accepted period and is not generally cited in standard explanations. Option C (6 months) would make the temporary arrangement so long that detailed budget scrutiny could be delayed without pressure. Option D (9 months) is clearly excessive for a temporary vote on account and does not match authoritative descriptions of usual practice. Common Pitfalls: Students may confuse the maximum period Parliament may legally authorise with what is considered normal. Another common mistake is to think of vote on account as a simple fraction of the financial year, leading them to guess three or six months. Focusing on the idea of a very short bridge period before the full Appropriation Act is passed helps fix the two month duration in memory. Final Answer: In the Indian parliamentary system, a vote on account is normally valid for about 2 months, except in special situations such as an election year.

Question 3

Which of the following leaders was not a member of the Indian Constituent Assembly that framed the Constitution of India?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question belongs to the topic of the framing of the Constitution of India and tests knowledge of key personalities involved in the Constituent Assembly. Many prominent leaders participated, but some well known figures were not members. Being able to distinguish between members and non members of the Constituent Assembly is a favourite area for objective questions in Indian polity. Given Data / Assumptions: The institution concerned is the Constituent Assembly of India, which drafted the Constitution. The options list four prominent leaders of the national movement. The question asks for the leader who was not a member of this body. Concept / Approach: The Constituent Assembly included many notable figures such as Dr. Rajendra Prasad, Jawaharlal Nehru, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, K. M. Munshi and others. Acharya J. B. Kriplani also served as a member. Jayaprakash Narayan, although an important socialist leader and freedom fighter, was not a member of the Constituent Assembly. Therefore, identifying his name among the options allows us to answer correctly. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel played a crucial role in the Constituent Assembly and in integrating princely states. Step 2: Remember that K. M. Munshi was a member of the Drafting Committee and actively involved in constitutional debates. Step 3: Recognise that Acharya J. B. Kriplani was an important Congress leader and also part of the Assembly. Step 4: Recall that Jayaprakash Narayan, although a major socialist figure, did not serve as a Constituent Assembly member. Step 5: Therefore, choose Jayaprakash Narayan as the correct answer. Verification / Alternative check: A simple way to verify is to connect each name to their known roles in constitution making. Patel and Munshi are regularly mentioned in standard polity textbooks in the context of the Constituent Assembly and the Drafting Committee. Jayaprakash Narayan is usually discussed more in relation to socialist politics and mass movements, including the later Total Revolution movement, rather than as a constitution framer. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A (Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel) is wrong because he was a key member of the Assembly and a major figure in nation building. Option B (Acharya J. B. Kriplani) is incorrect as he was indeed a member and also a senior Congress leader at that time. Option D (K. M. Munshi) is also incorrect because he served on the Drafting Committee and made significant contributions to the text of the Constitution. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes assume that any famous leader of the freedom struggle must have been part of the Constituent Assembly. This leads to confusion when questions ask about leaders who were not members. It is important to memorise at least a short list of non members like Jayaprakash Narayan and Mahatma Gandhi for exam purposes. Final Answer: Among the leaders listed, Jayaprakash Narayan was not a member of the Indian Constituent Assembly.

Question 4

How many members were included in the Constitution Drafting Committee of India headed by Dr. B. R. Ambedkar?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question focuses on a very specific but important fact about the Constitution Drafting Committee of India. The Committee, chaired by Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, was responsible for preparing the draft of the Constitution which was then debated and finalised by the Constituent Assembly. Knowing the number of its members is a standard objective question in Indian polity. Given Data / Assumptions: The body in question is the Constitution Drafting Committee. It was headed by Dr. B. R. Ambedkar. The options provide different numbers of members. Concept / Approach: The Drafting Committee was set up on 29 August 1947. It had seven members, including Dr. B. R. Ambedkar as chairman, and other members such as K. M. Munshi and Alladi Krishnaswamy Ayyar. Remembering the number seven, along with the names of a few members, helps fix this fact for exams. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that the Drafting Committee is famous for its seven member composition. Step 2: Confirm that Dr. B. R. Ambedkar was its chairman. Step 3: Compare the remembered number with the options provided. Step 4: Identify seven as the correct count among the options. Step 5: Select option A, Seven, as the correct answer. Verification / Alternative check: You can verify this by recalling common exam mnemonics that list the seven members. Textbooks and coaching notes consistently describe the Drafting Committee as a seven member body, which strengthens confidence in this answer. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option B (Nine), option C (Eleven) and option D (Thirteen) are all incorrect because they exaggerate the size of the Drafting Committee and do not match the standard historical account of seven members. Common Pitfalls: A frequent mistake is to confuse the number of Drafting Committee members with the larger size of the Constituent Assembly itself or with other committees that had more members. Keeping in mind that the Drafting Committee was a small but highly influential group helps avoid this confusion. Final Answer: The Constitution Drafting Committee of India headed by Dr. B. R. Ambedkar had seven members.

Question 5

The Contingency Fund of India is placed at the disposal of which constitutional authority to meet unforeseen expenditure?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question belongs to the topic of public finance and the Indian Constitution. The Contingency Fund of India is a special fund meant for meeting unforeseen expenditures that cannot wait for the completion of normal budgetary procedures. Understanding who has authority over this fund is important for comprehending emergency financial powers within the system. Given Data / Assumptions: The fund in question is the Contingency Fund of India. It is used for urgent and unforeseen expenditure. The options name several high level authorities and institutions. Concept / Approach: The Contingency Fund of India is established by the Parliament under Article 267 of the Constitution. The Fund stands at the disposal of the President of India, who can authorise advances from it to meet unexpected expenditure pending authorisation by Parliament through regular Appropriation Acts. The actual custody and operation may involve the Finance Ministry, but constitutionally the Fund is placed at the disposal of the President. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that Article 267 provides for the Contingency Fund of India. Step 2: Remember that the Fund is described as being at the disposal of the President of India. Step 3: Compare this recall with the options: Prime Minister, President, Comptroller and Auditor General and Home Ministry. Step 4: Note that only the President matches the constitutional description. Step 5: Select President of India as the correct answer. Verification / Alternative check: You can verify this by recalling standard polity explanations: expenditure is initially met from the Contingency Fund with the President's authorisation, and later Parliament votes to replenish the Fund through the budget process. The Prime Minister heads the government but does not personally hold the Fund, and the Comptroller and Auditor General audits expenditure rather than operating funds. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A (Prime Minister of India) is incorrect because the Prime Minister leads the Council of Ministers but does not have constitutional custody of the Contingency Fund. Option C (Comptroller and Auditor General of India) is wrong because this office is responsible for auditing government accounts and ensuring legality of expenditure, not for directly operating emergency funds. Option D (Ministry of Home Affairs) deals with internal security and administration and has no special constitutional status over the Contingency Fund. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes confuse the practical role of the Finance Ministry and cabinet decisions with the formal constitutional wording that the Fund is at the disposal of the President. Another pitfall is to assume that the Prime Minister, as head of government, controls all financial instruments, which is not how the Constitution describes this specific fund. Final Answer: The Contingency Fund of India is placed at the disposal of the President of India to meet unforeseen expenditure pending parliamentary approval.

Question 6

Which commission's recommendations formed the basis for the Punjab Reorganisation Act that created the states of Punjab and Haryana?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question deals with the reorganisation of states in India, specifically the creation of the modern states of Punjab and Haryana. Various commissions have been appointed at different times to examine state boundaries and linguistic or administrative issues. Identifying the correct commission associated with the Punjab Reorganisation Act is a typical question in Indian polity and modern history. Given Data / Assumptions: The focus is on the Punjab Reorganisation Act, which led to the creation of Punjab and Haryana. Several commissions are listed as options. We assume some familiarity with the history of linguistic reorganisation and boundary commissions. Concept / Approach: The Shah Commission was appointed to look into reorganisation issues in the Punjab region, including demands for a Punjabi speaking state and a Hindi speaking state. Its recommendations formed the basis of the Punjab Reorganisation Act of 1966, which created the states of Punjab and Haryana and made Chandigarh a union territory. Other commissions such as the Dhar Commission were involved in earlier studies on linguistic states, but not specifically in this Act. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that the Punjab Reorganisation Act came into force in the 1960s, resulting in the creation of Punjab and Haryana. Step 2: Remember that the Shah Commission was set up to recommend how the region should be divided. Step 3: Compare this knowledge with the options, which include Dhar, Dass, Shah and Mahajan Commissions. Step 4: Identify the Shah Commission as the one whose report led directly to the Act. Step 5: Select Shah Commission as the correct answer. Verification / Alternative check: An alternative check is to associate the Dhar Commission with early discussions on linguistic states in the late 1940s, while the Shah Commission is remembered specifically in connection with Punjab and Haryana. The Mahajan Commission is often mentioned in connection with other boundary disputes, not with the main Punjab reorganisation. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A (Dhar Commission) is incorrect because it was an earlier commission that examined the question of linguistic states in general, not specifically the Punjab Haryana division. Option B (Dass Commission) does not match the well known historical account of how the Punjab Reorganisation Act was framed. Option D (Mahajan Commission) is associated with other boundary issues and is not the basis for the Punjab Reorganisation Act of 1966. Common Pitfalls: Students often confuse various commissions because of similar sounding names and overlapping time periods. A useful memory aid is to link Shah Commission with the reorganisation of Punjab and Haryana and with the controversy over Chandigarh as a shared capital and union territory. Final Answer: The recommendations of the Shah Commission formed the basis for the Punjab Reorganisation Act that created the states of Punjab and Haryana.

Question 7

Which pair of fundamental rights cannot be suspended even during an emergency under Article 359 of the Constitution of India?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question deals with the suspension of fundamental rights during a proclamation of emergency in India. Article 359 allows the President to suspend the right to move any court for the enforcement of certain fundamental rights during an emergency. However, the Constitution specifically protects some rights from such suspension. Understanding which rights remain fully protected is important for appreciating constitutional safeguards against state power, even in crises. Given Data / Assumptions: Article 359 is about suspension of the right to enforce fundamental rights during an emergency. Some fundamental rights cannot be suspended through such an order. The options list pairs of Articles from Part III of the Constitution. Concept / Approach: The Constitution has been amended to clarify that Articles 20 and 21, which deal with protection in respect of conviction for offences and protection of life and personal liberty, cannot be suspended even during an emergency. This was an important reform after the experience of the internal emergency of the 1970s. Other rights can be restricted more heavily, but these core protections must remain available. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall the subject matter of each article in the options. Step 2: Article 20 provides safeguards against ex post facto laws, double jeopardy and self incrimination. Step 3: Article 21 guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. Step 4: Remember that constitutional amendments and judicial interpretations have made it clear that Articles 20 and 21 cannot be suspended under Article 359. Step 5: Therefore, select the pair Articles 20 and 21 as the correct answer. Verification / Alternative check: You can verify this by recalling that after the emergency period of 1975 to 1977, the Forty Fourth Amendment strengthened fundamental rights protections. It provided that rights under Articles 20 and 21 shall not be suspended even during an emergency, reflecting lessons learned from past misuse of emergency powers. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A (Articles 14 and 15) concerns equality before the law and prohibition of discrimination; these can be restricted more heavily during an emergency than Articles 20 and 21. Option B (Articles 16 and 17) deals with equality of opportunity in public employment and abolition of untouchability, important rights but not singled out in Article 359 in the same way. Option D (Articles 24 and 25) relates to prohibition of child labour in factories and freedom of religion; again, these do not enjoy the explicit non suspension protection under Article 359 as Articles 20 and 21 do. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes assume that all fundamental rights can be suspended equally or, at the other extreme, that none can be restricted during emergency. It is important to remember the specific constitutional safeguard for Articles 20 and 21 and link it with the historical experience of emergency rule in India. Final Answer: The pair of fundamental rights that cannot be suspended even during an emergency under Article 359 consists of Articles 20 and 21.

Question 8

From the languages listed in the Eighth Schedule of the Constitution of India, which one is recognised as an official language of a state?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question tests knowledge of the Eighth Schedule of the Constitution of India and the relationship between scheduled languages and official state languages. While the Eighth Schedule lists languages recognised at the national level, some of these are also adopted as official languages by particular states. Knowing which languages have this dual status is helpful for exams in Indian polity and geography. Given Data / Assumptions: The languages in the options are Kashmiri, Urdu, Sindhi and Nepali. All of them are listed in the Eighth Schedule of the Constitution. The question asks which one is recognised as an official language of a state. Concept / Approach: A scheduled language is one listed in the Eighth Schedule. An official language of a state is designated under that state's own laws or constitution for use in administration and official communication. Kashmiri is a scheduled language and has been recognised for official use in the former state of Jammu and Kashmir under its regional arrangements. Exam oriented material based on earlier administrative arrangements often highlights Kashmiri as the relevant example in this set of options. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recognise that all four options are scheduled languages but not all are official languages of specific states in the same way. Step 2: Recall that Kashmiri has been associated with official status in the region of Jammu and Kashmir. Step 3: Sindhi is a scheduled language but is not usually cited as the official language of any particular Indian state. Step 4: Nepali and Urdu have important roles in some states, but standard exam keys for this specific question highlight Kashmiri. Step 5: Based on this commonly accepted exam convention, select Kashmiri as the correct answer. Verification / Alternative check: A quick verification is to recall typical objective questions from practice sets, where this combination of options is used and Kashmiri is given as the answer. While language policies may evolve and some languages may acquire additional recognition, exam questions usually follow the positions reflected in the sources on which they are based. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option B (Urdu) is a widely spoken language and has important roles in certain states, but this particular question and option set are framed to distinguish Kashmiri. Option C (Sindhi) is a scheduled language but is not associated with a specific state's official language status in the same clear way. Option D (Nepali) has official recognition in some contexts, but again, the typical exam key for this standard question points to Kashmiri within this specific option grouping. Common Pitfalls: A major pitfall is overcomplicating the question by trying to track every possible combination of state and language over time, which can change. In the context of standard objective questions, it is safer to rely on widely accepted exam references, which clearly treat Kashmiri as the intended correct answer here. Students should, however, also study broader language policy to understand the real world picture. Final Answer: From the languages listed, the one recognised as an official language of a state in the conventional exam context is Kashmiri.

Question 9

Who was sworn in as the first Chief Minister of the state of Telangana after its formation as the twenty ninth state of India?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question is about contemporary Indian political history and focuses on the creation of the state of Telangana. When a new state is formed, the identity of its first Chief Minister becomes an important factual point for exams. Telangana was created as the twenty ninth state of India, and students are expected to remember who led its first government. Given Data / Assumptions: The state in question is Telangana. It was formed as the twenty ninth state of India. The options list prominent political leaders associated with Andhra Pradesh and Telangana politics. Concept / Approach: Telangana was formed on 2 June 2014 after a long political and social movement. K. Chandrashekar Rao, also known as KCR, led the Telangana movement and his party, the Telangana Rashtra Samithi, won the assembly elections held around the time of state formation. He was sworn in as the first Chief Minister of Telangana. Other leaders in the options played different roles but were not the first Chief Minister of Telangana. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that Telangana became a separate state in 2014. Step 2: Remember that the Telangana Rashtra Samithi, led by K. Chandrashekar Rao, formed the first government. Step 3: Identify K. Chandrashekar Rao among the options as the leader associated with the Telangana statehood movement and its first government. Step 4: Note that R. Krishnaiah and K. Jana Reddy are other political figures, while N. Chandrababu Naidu became Chief Minister of the residuary state of Andhra Pradesh after bifurcation. Step 5: Select K. Chandrashekar Rao as the correct answer. Verification / Alternative check: Another way to verify is to recall news coverage from 2014, which repeatedly showed K. Chandrashekar Rao taking oath as the first Chief Minister of the new state in Hyderabad. Chandrababu Naidu, in contrast, took oath as Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh, not Telangana. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A (R. Krishnaiah) is a political leader and activist but was not the first Chief Minister of Telangana. Option C (K. Jana Reddy) is a senior Congress leader from the region, but he did not become the first Chief Minister of the new state. Option D (N. Chandrababu Naidu) did become Chief Minister in 2014, but of the reorganised Andhra Pradesh, not of Telangana. Common Pitfalls: Students may confuse the leadership of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh immediately after bifurcation, especially because both states held elections around the same time. Remembering that K. Chandrashekar Rao led the Telangana movement and became the first Chief Minister of Telangana helps avoid this confusion. Final Answer: The first Chief Minister of the state of Telangana was K. Chandrashekar Rao.

Question 10

According to the Census of 2011, what was the approximate population of the state of Telangana?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question examines knowledge of basic demographic facts about the state of Telangana. Population data from the Census of India is frequently used in competitive exams for geography and general studies. Telangana as a separate state was formed later, but population figures for its territory are derived from the 2011 Census. Given Data / Assumptions: The question refers specifically to Census 2011 data. The territory corresponds to the present state of Telangana. Options provide rounded population figures in millions. Concept / Approach: The 2011 Census recorded the population of the area that would become Telangana at a little over 3.5 crore, which is about 35 million people. For objective questions, figures are often rounded to the nearest whole million. Therefore, remembering that Telangana's population is around 3.5 crore (35 million) in 2011 is sufficient to pick the correct option. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that 1 crore equals 10 million. Step 2: Remember that the population of Telangana around 2011 is slightly above 3.5 crore. Step 3: Convert 3.5 crore to 35 million. Step 4: Compare this with the options 35, 38, 45 and 48 million. Step 5: Select 35 million as the closest and correct rounded figure. Verification / Alternative check: You can verify the figure by relating it to the approximate populations of other states: Telangana is smaller than large states like Uttar Pradesh or Maharashtra but larger than many north eastern states. Its population of around 35 million fits this comparative pattern and aligns with standard data used in exam materials. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option B (38 million) overstates the population by several million and does not match the widely cited 3.5 crore figure. Option C (45 million) and option D (48 million) are even larger overestimates and do not align with official statistics for the region at that time. Common Pitfalls: A common pitfall is confusing crore and million conversions or mixing up population figures of neighbouring states such as Andhra Pradesh or Karnataka. Another mistake is to assume steady population growth and apply later estimates to earlier census years. Exam questions typically want the exact or rounded census figure for the specified year. Final Answer: According to the Census of 2011, the approximate population of Telangana was about 35 million people.

Question 11

On which date was Telangana formally created as the twenty ninth state of India?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question is part of recent Indian political history and concerns the creation of Telangana as a separate state. The exact date of state formation is a factual detail that is frequently asked in competitive exams, especially in questions related to federalism and reorganisation of states. Given Data / Assumptions: The state in question is Telangana. It was created as the twenty ninth state of India. Options list specific dates in 2014. Concept / Approach: The Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act provided for the creation of the new state of Telangana. The formal date on which Telangana came into existence as a separate state is 2 June 2014. On that day, the state officially came into being and the first government took office. Remembering this date as an important milestone in recent Indian federal history is helpful for exams. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that Telangana was created in mid 2014. Step 2: Remember that the widely reported date of state formation is 2 June 2014. Step 3: Compare this date with the options: 30 April, 7 May, 12 May and 2 June 2014. Step 4: Identify 2 June 2014 as the exact match. Step 5: Select 2 June 2014 as the correct answer. Verification / Alternative check: You can verify this by recalling news coverage and official celebrations marking 2 June as Telangana Formation Day. The other dates in April and May may relate to earlier steps in the legislative process but not to the official date of statehood. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A (30 April 2014), option B (7 May 2014) and option C (12 May 2014) do not correspond to the formal state formation date and are included as distractors. They may be near in time to legislative or administrative events but are not the recognised statehood date. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes confuse the date when the reorganisation Act was passed or notified with the date when it actually came into effect. Another common error is to remember only the month and not the exact day, leading to guesswork among nearby dates. Fixing 2 June firmly in memory as Telangana Formation Day helps avoid this problem. Final Answer: Telangana was formally created as the twenty ninth state of India on 2 June 2014.

Question 12

In the Lok Sabha of India, what minimum number of members (quorum) must be present for the House to be able to hold a valid sitting and transact business?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The Indian Parliament follows clear constitutional and rule based provisions regarding how many members must be present for a sitting of the Lok Sabha to be valid. This minimum required presence is known as the quorum. Understanding the idea of quorum is important because it shows how Parliament balances continuity of work with the practical reality that all members are not present at every moment. This question tests your knowledge of the specific quorum requirement for the Lok Sabha under the Constitution and the Rules of Procedure. Given Data / Assumptions: The question is about the Lok Sabha, the lower house of the Indian Parliament. It asks for the minimum number or proportion of members required to hold a valid sitting. Options include different fractions and a fixed number of members. We assume the House is functioning under normal conditions and that its total membership is as defined in law at that time. Concept / Approach: The concept of quorum ensures that a small handful of members cannot conduct business and pass decisions in the absence of a reasonable presence of the House. Article 100 of the Constitution of India allows Parliament to fix its own quorum, and the Rules of Procedure of the Lok Sabha provide that the quorum shall be one tenth of the total number of members of the House, including the presiding officer. If at any time there is no quorum, it is the duty of the presiding officer to either adjourn the House or suspend the sitting until there is a quorum. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that quorum refers to the minimum number of members who must be present to validate the proceedings of a legislative body.Step 2: For the Lok Sabha, the quorum is specified in its Rules of Procedure rather than as a fixed number in the Constitution.Step 3: The rule clearly states that one tenth of the total membership of the House constitutes the quorum.Step 4: Compare each option with this rule. One fourth, fifty per cent, or a fixed minimum of 100 members do not match the one tenth requirement.Step 5: Conclude that the correct option is one tenth of the total membership of the House. Verification / Alternative check: A simple way to verify is to apply the one tenth rule to a notional full strength of 545 members. One tenth of 545 is 54.5, which means that at least 55 members including the presiding officer would be needed. This figure is often mentioned in exam preparation material when explaining quorum. In contrast, a requirement of one fourth or fifty per cent would be much higher and would make daily functioning difficult. No authoritative source mentions a fixed minimum like 100 members for quorum in the Lok Sabha. Why Other Options Are Wrong: One-fourth of the total membership of the House: This is a larger fraction than the actual requirement and does not match the Rules of Procedure. Fifty per cent of the total strength of the Lok Sabha: A simple majority presence is not required for quorum; this is much higher than what the rules prescribe. At least 100 members present in the House: Quorum is defined as a fraction, not a fixed number such as 100, so this option is not correct. Common Pitfalls: Many learners confuse quorum with the requirement for passing ordinary bills, which often needs a simple majority of those present and voting, not of the entire House. Another frequent error is to assume that a large number is needed for legitimacy, such as one fourth or half membership. It is better to memorise the specific fraction of one tenth for both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha and remember that this is a minimum presence rule, not a voting requirement. Final Answer: The Lok Sabha requires a quorum of one tenth of the total membership of the House to hold a valid sitting and transact business.

Question 13

Under the Constitution of India, which authority has the power to increase the number of judges in the Supreme Court by law?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The Supreme Court of India has a sanctioned strength that may change over time as the workload of the Court increases and as Parliament decides to expand or adjust the bench. Knowing which authority can legally increase the number of judges is a core part of understanding how the higher judiciary is structured under the Constitution. This question focuses on the relationship between the Constitution, Parliament, and the executive in determining the size of the Supreme Court. Given Data / Assumptions: The subject is the Supreme Court of India. The question asks who holds the power to increase the number of its judges. Options include the Prime Minister, the President, Parliament, and the Ministry of Law and Justice. We assume the constitutional framework provided mainly by Article 124 and the Supreme Court specific legislation. Concept / Approach: Article 124 of the Constitution of India lays down the basic framework for the Supreme Court. It provides for a Chief Justice of India and such number of other judges as Parliament may by law prescribe. The key phrase here is that Parliament may by law increase or decrease the number of judges. The President formally appoints judges, but the number of posts that may exist is fixed through legislation passed by Parliament, such as the Supreme Court Number of Judges Act and its amendments. Neither the Prime Minister nor the Ministry of Law and Justice can change the sanctioned strength on their own without such a law. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify the relevant constitutional provision, which is Article 124.Step 2: Note the wording that the Supreme Court shall consist of a Chief Justice and such number of other judges as Parliament may by law prescribe.Step 3: Understand that this means Parliament must pass or amend a statute to change the number of judges.Step 4: Recognise that the President only appoints judges to positions that already exist by law, and does not decide how many positions there will be.Step 5: Compare the options and select Parliament of India as the authority with the legal power to increase the number of judges. Verification / Alternative check: To verify, you can look at examples where the number of judges was increased in the past. Each such increase was carried out through an amendment to the Supreme Court Number of Judges Act passed by Parliament. Only after Parliament had changed the law could the executive branch fill the additional posts. News reports about such changes clearly mention Parliament amending the law as the legal basis, which confirms that Parliament is the correct answer rather than the executive authorities mentioned in the other options. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Prime Minister of India: The Prime Minister may play a political or advisory role, but does not have independent constitutional authority to alter the sanctioned strength of the Supreme Court. President of India: The President appoints judges but does so within the limit fixed by law. The President cannot, by personal order, create new judgeships. Ministry of Law and Justice: This ministry may draft bills and advise the government, but it cannot itself change the law. Only Parliament can pass the required amendment. Common Pitfalls: Candidates often confuse the appointing authority with the authority that decides how many posts exist. Because the President appoints judges and the Law Ministry is closely associated with judicial matters, it is easy to think they control the number of judges. However, these appointments can only be made to posts that have been created by law passed in Parliament. A useful way to remember this is that structural changes usually come from Parliament, while individual appointments are carried out by the President acting on advice. Final Answer: The power to increase the number of judges in the Supreme Court of India lies with the Parliament of India, which can do so by passing an appropriate law.

Question 14

In the Indian Parliament, the Chairperson of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) of the Lok Sabha is formally appointed by which authority?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The Public Accounts Committee, commonly known as the PAC, is one of the most important financial committees of the Indian Parliament. It examines how public money granted by Parliament has actually been spent and whether expenditure has conformed to the authority of law. A key feature of this committee is the manner in which its Chairperson is appointed and the convention that this Chairperson usually comes from the opposition. This question tests whether you know who formally appoints the Chairperson of the PAC in the Lok Sabha context. Given Data / Assumptions: The committee under discussion is the Public Accounts Committee of Parliament. The question asks who appoints its Chairperson. Options include the Prime Minister, Speaker of the Lok Sabha, President, and Union Finance Minister. We assume the standard practice followed in the Lok Sabha for financial committees. Concept / Approach: Financial committees of Parliament, including the Public Accounts Committee, the Estimates Committee, and the Committee on Public Undertakings, are constituted every year. Their members are elected by the members of the Lok Sabha (and in some cases also Rajya Sabha) according to proportional representation. However, the Chairperson of the Public Accounts Committee is appointed by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha. By convention, the Chairperson is usually from the main opposition party to strengthen financial oversight, but the formal power of appointment rests with the Speaker and not with the executive branch. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify that the Public Accounts Committee is a parliamentary committee that reports mainly to the Lok Sabha.Step 2: Recall that members of the committee are elected from among the members of Parliament, but the Chairperson is not elected by the committee itself.Step 3: Know that the Speaker of the Lok Sabha has the authority to appoint the Chairperson of the PAC.Step 4: Recognise that the Prime Minister and the Finance Minister are members of the executive and do not directly appoint committee chairpersons for Lok Sabha committees.Step 5: Select the option that names the Speaker of the Lok Sabha as the appointing authority. Verification / Alternative check: To verify, you can look at official notifications when a new PAC is constituted. These notifications typically state that the Speaker has appointed a particular member as Chairperson. Standard polity textbooks and parliamentary procedure manuals also mention that the Speaker appoints the Chairperson and that it is convention, not law, that the Chairperson comes from the opposition. This confirms that the correct answer is the Speaker of the Lok Sabha, not any member of the executive or the President. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Prime Minister of India: The Prime Minister leads the government but does not control the internal organisation of Lok Sabha committees. President of India: The President is the head of the Union but plays no direct role in appointing committee chairpersons in the Lok Sabha. Union Finance Minister: The Finance Minister provides budget proposals that the PAC later scrutinises. Allowing the Finance Minister to appoint the PAC Chairperson would undermine the principle of independent oversight. Common Pitfalls: A common mistake is to assume that all important posts in the financial system are filled by the executive. Students also sometimes confuse the role of the Prime Minister or Finance Minister with that of parliamentary presiding officers. Remember that parliamentary committees are instruments of the legislature, and therefore their leadership is normally decided by the presiding officers such as the Speaker or the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, not by the executive branch. Keeping this separation clear helps avoid confusion in similar questions. Final Answer: The Chairperson of the Public Accounts Committee of Parliament is formally appointed by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha.

Question 15

Under Article 123 of the Constitution of India, what is the legal effect of an ordinance issued by the President when Parliament is not in session?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The Constitution of India allows the President to issue ordinances when Parliament is not in session and immediate action is necessary. This power is contained in Article 123 and is often described as a form of law making by the executive in special circumstances. However, many learners get confused about the exact legal status of such ordinances. This question tests whether you know how strong an ordinance is and how it compares to an ordinary Act of Parliament. Given Data / Assumptions: The question concerns ordinances issued by the President of India. It specifically asks about their legal force and effect. The options compare ordinances with Acts of Parliament and link them to different types of emergencies. We assume normal constitutional operation and the standard interpretation of Article 123. Concept / Approach: Article 123 states that when both Houses of Parliament are not in session and the President is satisfied that immediate action is required, the President may promulgate an ordinance. The key part is that an ordinance shall have the same force and effect as an Act of Parliament. However, this power is temporary and conditional. The ordinance must be laid before both Houses of Parliament when they reassemble and will cease to operate at the expiration of six weeks from the reassembly unless it is approved and converted into an Act or is earlier disapproved. Thus, ordinances are powerful tools that function like Acts for a limited time but are subject to parliamentary control. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall the wording of Article 123, which explicitly says that an ordinance has the same force and effect as an Act of Parliament.Step 2: Note that this equality in force does not mean that ordinances are permanent or free from control by Parliament.Step 3: Understand that ordinances are temporary measures that must be laid before Parliament and will lapse if not approved within a specified time frame.Step 4: Compare the options to find the one that recognises both the equal legal force and the temporary, conditional nature of ordinances.Step 5: Select the option that states that an ordinance has the same force and effect as an Act of Parliament but is temporary and must be approved by Parliament. Verification / Alternative check: Standard polity textbooks and bare constitutional text both confirm that ordinances are treated as having the same force and effect as Acts. Court decisions have also emphasised that this does not make the President a parallel legislature, because ordinances are subject to strict time limits and to judicial review. Whenever Parliament meets, it can approve, modify, or reject the ordinance. If Parliament takes no action, the ordinance still automatically lapses after the six week period from reassembly. This consistent interpretation confirms that the correct answer describes both the equality of legal force and the temporary character. Why Other Options Are Wrong: It has lower legal status than an Act of Parliament: This is incorrect because the Constitution explicitly states that the legal force is the same as that of an Act. It is valid only during a National Emergency: Ordinances can be issued whenever Parliament is not in session and urgent action is needed, not only in emergencies. It applies only during a Financial Emergency: Financial Emergency is a distinct constitutional provision and does not limit the general ordinance making power of the President. Common Pitfalls: Many learners either overestimate or underestimate the power of ordinances. Some think ordinances are weaker than Acts and do not carry full legal force, while others assume that once an ordinance is issued it cannot be easily removed. The correct understanding is in between: ordinances are as strong as Acts while they operate, but they are temporary, subject to parliamentary approval, and open to judicial review. Remember the two key ideas together, equal force and temporary nature, to answer questions on this topic accurately. Final Answer: An ordinance issued by the President of India under Article 123 has the same force and effect as an Act of Parliament, but is temporary and must be laid before Parliament for approval.

Question 16

Literally and in political science usage, bureaucracy refers to a system of government in which real administrative power is exercised mainly by which group?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The term bureaucracy is commonly used in everyday speech, often with a negative tone, but it has a precise meaning in political science and public administration. It originally comes from the French word for desk or office combined with the idea of rule, and it describes a system of government in which officials play a central role. This question tests whether you understand the literal and conceptual meaning of bureaucracy and can distinguish it from rule by elected leaders or other elites. Given Data / Assumptions: The question asks what bureaucracy literally means as a system of government. Options include government by elected representatives, officials, landlords, or nominated representatives. We assume the standard academic understanding of the term as used in political science. The focus is on who actually runs the administration in a bureaucratic system. Concept / Approach: Bureaucracy literally refers to rule or authority exercised from an office or desk. In modern political systems, bureaucracy means an administrative system managed by full time, salaried officials who are appointed rather than elected. These officials implement laws, frame detailed rules, deliver public services, and manage day to day operations of government. While elected representatives set broad policies and pass legislation, bureaucrats translate those decisions into concrete action. Therefore, when we say bureaucracy is government by officials, we mean that the administrative machinery is largely controlled and run by professional civil servants. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Break down the word bureaucracy into its roots, with bureau referring to an office and cracy meaning rule or power.Step 2: Understand that the concept focuses on the role of offices and officials rather than on public votes or hereditary positions.Step 3: Recognise that bureaucrats are appointed civil servants who work in government departments on a full time basis.Step 4: Compare this idea with each option. Government by elected representatives describes democracy or representative government rather than bureaucracy as such.Step 5: Landlords and nominated representatives may have influence, but they are not what the term bureaucracy specifically points to.Step 6: Conclude that the most accurate and literal description is government by appointed officials and career civil servants. Verification / Alternative check: Standard public administration texts define bureaucracy as an organisation of non elected officials who implement policies and manage public administration. Max Weber, a key theorist, described bureaucracy as a rational legal form of organisation based on rules, hierarchy, and merit based recruitment. None of these descriptions focus on election or hereditary ownership. Governments of many countries, including India, depend heavily on civil servants in the Indian Administrative Service, Police Service, and other services, which are clear examples of bureaucratic institutions. These references confirm that the real meaning is rule by officials in the administrative sense. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Elected representatives of the people: This describes representative democracy and legislative institutions rather than bureaucracy, which is about non elected administrators. A group of powerful landlords and feudal elites: This suggests oligarchy or feudal rule, not bureaucracy. Nominated representatives in the upper house: This refers to specific legislative arrangements but does not capture the administrative idea of bureaucracy. Common Pitfalls: The term bureaucracy is often used loosely to mean any government activity. Learners sometimes confuse political leadership with administrative machinery and think that elected leaders are the main part of bureaucracy. Another mistake is to associate bureaucracy only with delay and red tape, which are negative by products rather than the core definition. To avoid confusion, always remember that bureaucracy in its literal and academic sense refers to the system of government by appointed officials who work in formal offices under a hierarchy and a set of rules. Final Answer: Bureaucracy literally means a system of government run mainly by appointed officials and career civil servants rather than by elected politicians or hereditary elites.

Question 17

In democratic theory, what is the primary purpose of having a written or unwritten constitution for a country?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Most modern States operate under some form of constitution, whether written in a single document or spread across many laws and conventions. The constitution is often described as the basic law or the fundamental law of the land. This question asks about the core purpose of a constitution in democratic and constitutional systems, which is central to subjects like civics, political science, and Indian polity. Given Data / Assumptions: The question is about the main purpose of a constitution. Options mention replacing government, limiting government, giving absolute power, or defining a moral code. We assume the general democratic context in which constitutions are framed. The focus is on the core function, not on every incidental effect of a constitution. Concept / Approach: A constitution sets out the framework of government by defining key institutions such as the legislature, executive, and judiciary. It allocates powers and responsibilities among them and between different levels of government. Equally important, it usually enshrines rights and liberties of citizens and places clear limits on what government may or may not do. In this way, the constitution aims to prevent arbitrary rule and to ensure that public power is exercised according to agreed rules. Therefore, the essential purpose is to define and limit government power, not to grant absolute control or to act as a substitute for government itself. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recognise that the constitution is called the fundamental law that sets up the institutions of government.Step 2: Note that it provides a division of powers, checks and balances, and procedures for making and enforcing laws.Step 3: Observe that many constitutions, including the Constitution of India, contain fundamental rights that protect individuals against misuse of state power.Step 4: Compare this understanding with the options. Only one option mentions both defining government and limiting its powers.Step 5: Reject options that talk about giving absolute power or replacing government entirely, as these conflict with the idea of constitutionalism.Step 6: Select the option that describes the constitution as defining and limiting government power. Verification / Alternative check: To verify, consider how courts refer to the constitution. They treat it as a higher law that controls all ordinary laws and executive actions. If a law violates the constitution, courts can declare it invalid. This is only possible because the constitution sets limits on government power. Additionally, constitutional conventions and amendments processes show that the document guides, rather than replaces, the work of governments and legislatures. The presence of fundamental rights and directive principles further confirms that the constitution is designed to protect people from government excess, not to give government unrestricted authority. Why Other Options Are Wrong: To provide a complete substitute for government so that leaders are not needed: Government and its institutions still operate under the constitution; it does not replace them. To give the government absolute and unchecked power over citizens: Constitutionalism is about limited government, not unchecked authority. To impose a detailed moral and religious code on all people: Some constitutions contain value statements, but their main function is institutional, not purely moral or religious. Common Pitfalls: Some learners think that because constitutions are supreme laws, they automatically give the government more power. In reality, they define and organise power and provide mechanisms to check and balance that power. Others assume the constitution is mainly a list of rights or moral principles, ignoring its structural and limiting role. It is helpful to remember that constitutionalism means limited government under a higher law, and that limitation is the central idea behind having a constitution at all. Final Answer: The primary purpose of most constitutions is to define the structure of government and limit its powers through basic rules, so that public authority operates within clear legal boundaries.

Question 18

In a federal country like India or the United States, which of the following is a primary and day to day function of State governments?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: In a federal system, powers are divided between a central government and various State governments. Understanding which level of government is responsible for what kind of work is essential in civics and political science. This question focuses on the primary functions of State governments, particularly in relation to public safety and law enforcement, which are typical State responsibilities in many federations, including India and the United States. Given Data / Assumptions: The question asks for a primary function of State governments. Options include supervising federal officials, regulating parties and media, organising military forces, and enforcing public safety laws. We assume a standard division of powers where national defence and foreign policy are central functions, while policing and local public safety are State functions. The context is a general federal system, not a unitary State. Concept / Approach: In a typical federation, subjects that require nationwide coordination, such as defence, foreign affairs, and national currency, are assigned to the central government. Matters that are closer to the everyday life of citizens, such as police, public health, local infrastructure, and public safety, are assigned to State or provincial governments. In India, the State List in the Constitution includes police, public order, and public health, all of which are directly connected to public safety. Therefore, enforcing laws regarding public safety and maintaining law and order within the State is a core responsibility of State governments, not the central government. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall the basic principle of federalism, which divides powers between central and State levels of government.Step 2: Identify which functions are normally central, such as defence, foreign policy, and regulation of currency.Step 3: Recognise that State governments usually handle local administration, law and order, policing, and public safety issues.Step 4: Review the options. Supervising federal officials and controlling national media are central concerns, while organising a separate State military is not a standard State responsibility in a unified federal defence system.Step 5: Select the option that mentions enforcing laws regarding public safety and maintaining law and order, which fits typical State level responsibilities. Verification / Alternative check: In the Indian context, the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution lists police and public order in the State List, emphasising that these are State subjects. Similarly, in many other federations, State or provincial governments are responsible for local policing and public safety. When there are riots, traffic issues, or local crime, it is State police or local authorities that respond. The central government may assist in exceptional cases, but day to day law enforcement is clearly a State function. This consistent pattern confirms that the correct answer is the one referring to enforcing public safety laws within the State. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Supervising elected federal government officials at the national level: Federal officials are usually accountable to national institutions, not to State governments. Regulating political parties and controlling the national media: While States may have some regulatory powers, broad control of parties and national media is not their primary function. Organising a separate State military to replace national defence forces: National defence is handled by the central government, and State governments do not maintain separate competing armies in a modern federation. Common Pitfalls: Some learners confuse the visibility of national leaders with the actual distribution of powers. It may appear that the central government does everything, because it is highly visible, but routine public order and safety tasks are mostly handled by State governments and local bodies. Another mistake is to treat any authority at the State level, such as a reserve police force, as equivalent to a full military. Remember that the main daily role of State governments is to enforce laws within their territories, provide basic services, and maintain local order. Final Answer: A primary function of State governments in a federal system is to enforce laws regarding public safety and maintain law and order within the State.

Question 19

In a confederal system of government, where is most of the real political power located?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Political science distinguishes between unitary, federal, and confederal systems based on how power is distributed between central and regional authorities. While federal systems like India or the United States involve a division of powers, confederal systems place even greater emphasis on the sovereignty of the constituent units. This question checks whether you understand where real power lies in a confederal system and how it differs from a federal or unitary system. Given Data / Assumptions: The question is about a confederal system of government. Options suggest that power may be with the States, with the Centre, equally shared, or with nobody. We assume standard definitions used in comparative politics. The focus is on where real sovereignty and final decision making authority reside. Concept / Approach: In a confederation, independent States voluntarily come together and create a loose association for limited common purposes, such as defence or trade. The central body is usually weak and depends on the member States for implementation of its decisions. Importantly, member States retain the right to withdraw and keep most of their sovereign powers. This is different from a federation, where sovereignty is divided between national and State levels, and from a unitary system, where the centre holds most authority. Therefore, in a confederal system, most real power lies with the States or constituent units, and the centre has only those powers that the States choose to grant. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that in a unitary system, the central government is supreme and can create or abolish local units.Step 2: Remember that in a federal system, sovereignty is divided between central and State governments, each operating in its own sphere.Step 3: Understand that in a confederal system, the central authority is weaker than the member States and depends on them for power and resources.Step 4: Consider historical examples, such as early United States under the Articles of Confederation or loose regional unions, where States could ignore central decisions.Step 5: Compare the options and select the one that clearly states that power lies primarily with the States or constituent units. Verification / Alternative check: To verify, think of a confederation as a treaty based association. Independent States sign an agreement to cooperate but do not create a strong new sovereign body. The centre cannot usually act directly on citizens; it has to work through State governments. States may even keep the formal right to leave the confederation. This pattern shows that sovereignty remains with the member States. Federal systems like India differ, because the Union and the States derive power from a single Constitution, and citizens owe allegiance to both levels. This contrast confirms that in a confederation, the States are the true power holders. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Primarily with the Central or national government: This describes a unitary or highly centralised federation, not a confederation. Equally and permanently shared between the Centre and the States in all matters: This is closer to federalism, not confederalism, and even federations rarely have perfectly equal power sharing in all areas. With no level of government, because confederations do not exercise power: Confederations do exercise power, but mostly through the States rather than a strong central body. Common Pitfalls: Students often confuse federal and confederal systems because both involve multiple levels of government. A useful way to remember the difference is to focus on sovereignty and the right to withdraw. In federations, the Union usually has its own strong powers and States may not legally secede. In confederations, the central authority is more like an agent of the member States. Remembering that confederal systems keep real power with the States will help you answer such questions correctly. Final Answer: In a confederal system of government, most real political power is located with the States or constituent units, which retain most of their sovereignty while the central body remains relatively weak.

Question 20

In the context of early twentieth century United States history, which reform idea did the Progressive movement strongly support?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The Progressive movement in the United States emerged in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries as a response to the problems created by rapid industrialisation, urban growth, and the power of large corporations. Progressives were not a single unified party, but a broad coalition that sought to reform politics, regulate big business, and improve social conditions. This question asks you to identify which type of reform the Progressives strongly supported, a common theme in world and American history sections of general knowledge exams. Given Data / Assumptions: The question is about the Progressive movement, also called progressives, in the United States. Options range from more government regulation to complete laissez faire and even restoration of monarchy. We assume a basic understanding that Progressives were reformers who wanted to use government power to correct abuses. The focus is on their attitude toward big business and economic regulation. Concept / Approach: Progressives believed that unregulated capitalism had produced monopolies, unsafe working conditions, child labour, and political corruption. They did not usually oppose capitalism itself but wanted government to act as a referee to curb abuses. Key goals included antitrust laws to break up monopolies, food and drug safety regulations, labour protections, and political reforms like direct election of senators and secret ballots. Because of this, they supported greater government regulation of big business and measures to protect consumers and workers, rather than leaving the economy entirely to market forces. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that the Progressive movement arose partly in reaction to the power of trusts and large corporations in the Gilded Age.Step 2: Understand that Progressives favoured using laws and government agencies to restrain monopolies and improve working and living conditions.Step 3: Note that they supported measures such as antitrust prosecutions, pure food and drug laws, and workplace safety rules.Step 4: Compare this with the idea of laissez faire, which means minimal government interference in the economy and was associated with earlier policies that Progressives criticised.Step 5: Evaluate the options and identify the one that closely matches Progressive goals: greater regulation of big business and protection of consumers and workers. Verification / Alternative check: You can verify this by connecting the Progressive movement with specific leaders such as Theodore Roosevelt, who earned the nickname trust buster for using antitrust laws against large corporations. Progressives also supported legislation like the Pure Food and Drug Act and the Meat Inspection Act, which clearly reflect an emphasis on regulation and consumer protection. There is no historical evidence that Progressives wanted a return to monarchy or complete abolition of taxes on corporations. All standard history texts describe Progressives as reformers who wanted to make capitalism more fair by increasing government oversight. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Complete return to laissez faire policies with no regulation of industry: This describes the very approach that Progressives criticised as allowing monopolies and abuse. Restoration of absolute monarchy and hereditary titles in the United States: This is entirely against the democratic and republican values of the Progressive movement. Total abolition of all taxes on corporations and wealthy individuals: Progressives often favoured fairer taxation and sometimes supported income taxes on higher earners, not total exemption. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes confuse Progressive era reforms with later or more radical movements. For example, some may think Progressives wanted to end capitalism altogether, when in fact they generally wanted to regulate it, not replace it. Others may wrongly assume that any movement labelled reform is automatically anti tax or anti government. A good way to remember is that Progressives were reformers who believed government should be active in regulating big business and improving society, but they did not generally call for revolutionary change in the economic system itself. Final Answer: The Progressive movement strongly supported greater government regulation of big business and protection of consumers and workers in order to reduce abuses of unregulated industrial capitalism.

Indian Politics Questions