Question 1

In the context of the United States Senate, who has the constitutional power to expel a senator from office for serious misconduct?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Legislative bodies in many democratic systems have internal powers to discipline their own members, including censure, suspension, and expulsion. In the United States, the Constitution grants each House of Congress the authority to manage its own membership and rules. This question focuses on the United States Senate and asks who has the power to expel a senator from office for serious misconduct, a topic covered in comparative politics and civics sections. Given Data / Assumptions: The question explicitly mentions senators and expulsion from office. Options include the President, Supreme Court, the Senate itself, and the House of Representatives. We assume the context of the United States Constitution, especially Article I. The focus is on expulsion, not on criminal prosecution or impeachment of executive officials. Concept / Approach: Article I of the United States Constitution states that each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behaviour, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member. This clause applies separately to both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Therefore, a senator can only be expelled by the Senate itself, not by the President, the Supreme Court, or the other House. Expulsion is a serious penalty and requires a high threshold of two thirds of the Senators present and voting, reflecting its gravity. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify that the question is about internal discipline of senators, not about criminal trials or impeachment of a President.Step 2: Recall the constitutional provision that each House of Congress sets its own rules and may expel members by a two thirds vote.Step 3: Understand that this means the Senate deals with discipline of its own members, while the House of Representatives deals with its members.Step 4: Recognise that neither the President nor the Supreme Court has direct constitutional authority to expel a senator from office.Step 5: Select the option that states that the Senate itself, by a two thirds vote, can expel a senator. Verification / Alternative check: Historical examples confirm this interpretation. On a few occasions, the United States Senate has expelled members, often in connection with serious disloyalty or corruption. In each case, the Senate debated the matter and then voted on expulsion. Courts may convict a senator of a crime, and voters may remove them in an election, but expulsion as a legislative sanction is an internal decision of the Senate. The President has no role in expelling senators, and the House of Representatives cannot directly remove members of the Senate, which is a separate chamber. Why Other Options Are Wrong: The President of the United States acting alone: The President is the head of the executive branch and does not have authority to remove legislators from office. The Supreme Court of the United States through judicial review: Courts may interpret laws and review actions, but they do not expel members of Congress as a legislative disciplinary measure. The House of Representatives acting by simple majority: The House may discipline its own members, but it has no power to remove senators, who belong to a separate chamber. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes assume that because the President is powerful or because the Supreme Court can declare laws unconstitutional, they must also control all high level offices. Another mistake is to generalise impeachment rules, which apply to executives and judges, to legislators. In fact, the United States Constitution creates a separation of powers and also a separation between the two Houses of Congress. Each House manages its own membership. Remember that expulsion of a senator is an internal Senate matter requiring a two thirds vote of that body alone. Final Answer: Under the United States Constitution, a senator can be expelled only by the Senate itself, acting by a two thirds vote of its members.

Question 2

In August 2018, who was elected as the Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, the upper house of the Indian Parliament?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The position of Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha is an important parliamentary office in India. While the Vice President of India is the ex officio Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, the Deputy Chairman is elected by the members of the House from among themselves and presides in the absence of the Chairman. This question asks about a specific person who was elected to this post in August 2018, a fact that has appeared in current affairs and polity based general knowledge questions. Given Data / Assumptions: The office in question is the Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha. The time frame is August 2018. Options include M. Venkaiah Naidu, Harivansh Singh, Nitish Kumar, and Hari Prasad. We assume awareness that M. Venkaiah Naidu was then serving as Vice President and therefore ex officio Chairman of the Rajya Sabha. Concept / Approach: The Deputy Chairman is elected by the Rajya Sabha from among its members. On 9 August 2018, Harivansh, a first time member belonging to the Janata Dal United, was elected Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha. In many question banks his name appears as Harivansh Singh. He succeeded P. J. Kurien. Venkaiah Naidu, named in one of the options, was the Chairman, not the Deputy Chairman. Nitish Kumar and Hari Prasad were not elected to this specific parliamentary office at that time. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that M. Venkaiah Naidu became Vice President of India in 2017 and therefore serves as Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, not Deputy Chairman.Step 2: Remember that in August 2018, Rajya Sabha members held an election to fill the post of Deputy Chairman.Step 3: Identify Harivansh, often written as Harivansh Singh in question banks, as the member who won that election.Step 4: Note that Nitish Kumar was then serving as Chief Minister of Bihar and not as Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha.Step 5: Compare the options and choose Harivansh Singh as the correct answer. Verification / Alternative check: News reports from August 2018 widely covered the election, noting that Harivansh won against the opposition candidate B. K. Hariprasad. The presence of the name Hari Prasad in the options is likely a reference to this opposition candidate, but he did not win the election. Reference books on current affairs for that year also list Harivansh as the newly elected Deputy Chairman. These multiple sources confirm that the correct answer is Harivansh Singh, not any of the other names listed. Why Other Options Are Wrong: M. Venkaiah Naidu: He was the Vice President and therefore the ex officio Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, not the Deputy Chairman. Nitish Kumar: He is a senior political leader and Chief Minister of Bihar, but he was not elected as Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha. Hari Prasad: This name closely resembles that of B. K. Hariprasad, who contested the Deputy Chairman election in 2018 but lost to Harivansh. Common Pitfalls: Because both the Chairman and Deputy Chairman are presiding officers of the Rajya Sabha and their names appear together in news reports, aspirants often mix them up. Another confusion arises from similar sounding names, such as Harivansh and Hariprasad. A simple memory aid is to remember that Venkaiah Naidu was the Chairman as Vice President, while Harivansh from Janata Dal United was the Deputy Chairman elected in 2018. Keeping these roles and names clearly separated helps avoid error in such questions. Final Answer: The leader elected as Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha in August 2018 was Harivansh Singh.

Question 3

According to the commonly used sanctioned strength in Indian polity questions, how many judges including the Chief Justice were provided for in the Supreme Court of India under the traditional Supreme Court Number of Judges Act?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The sanctioned strength of the Supreme Court of India has changed over time as Parliament amended the relevant law to respond to growing caseloads. Many traditional general knowledge and polity questions refer to a specific number that was for a long period the standard sanctioned strength of the Supreme Court, including the Chief Justice of India. This question asks you to recall that commonly cited number from the traditional Supreme Court Number of Judges Act as it appeared in many exam syllabi. Given Data / Assumptions: The question is about the sanctioned number of judges in the Supreme Court of India, including the Chief Justice. Options given are 25, 28, 31, and 35. We assume the context of classic multiple choice questions that referred to the earlier statutory strength that remained in place for many years. The focus is on recognising the number historically used in standard polity questions. Concept / Approach: The Supreme Court Number of Judges Act has been amended several times to change the sanctioned strength of the Court. For a long period that many exam books discuss, the Supreme Court could have up to 30 judges plus the Chief Justice, giving a total strength of 31. This figure became the standard answer in numerous general knowledge compilations. Although Parliament has since amended the law further, the traditional figure tested in legacy questions is 31 judges including the Chief Justice of India. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that the Supreme Court Number of Judges Act specifies the maximum number of judges of the Supreme Court.Step 2: Remember that for many years, the law provided for 30 other judges plus the Chief Justice, making a total of 31.Step 3: Compare this historically important number with the options: 25, 28, 31, and 35.Step 4: Recognise that 31 matches the widely taught traditional sanctioned strength used in many examination questions.Step 5: Select 31 judges including the Chief Justice as the correct option in this context. Verification / Alternative check: To verify, you can look at older editions of Indian polity textbooks and competitive exam guides that list the composition of the Supreme Court. They commonly state that the Supreme Court consists of the Chief Justice of India and not more than 30 other judges, making a total of 31. While recent amendments may adjust this figure, the question as typically framed in general knowledge banks corresponds to the earlier statutory number of 31. This repeated usage in exam literature confirms that 31 is the expected answer when these four options are presented. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 25 judges including the Chief Justice: This number does not match the long standing statutory strength commonly cited in exam oriented polity material. 28 judges including the Chief Justice: Although the strength has changed at different times, 28 is not the classic figure that appears in most standard objective questions. 35 judges including the Chief Justice: This is higher than the traditional number referred to in such questions and was not the widely taught strength during the period most of these questions were framed. Common Pitfalls: Learners sometimes mix up different numbers due to changes in the law or due to reading multiple sources. Another source of confusion is failing to note whether the question explicitly includes the Chief Justice in the count. In many exam questions the phrase used is judges including the Chief Justice. A good strategy is to link the traditional figure of 31 with the phrase 30 plus 1 and to remember that this was the long standing sanctioned strength used in older polity questions, even though actual numbers may be updated by later amendments. Final Answer: According to the traditionally cited sanctioned strength in many polity questions, the Supreme Court of India had 31 judges including the Chief Justice under the earlier Supreme Court Number of Judges Act provisions.

Question 4

In political science, the term political culture refers to which of the following?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Political culture is a key concept in political science used to understand why political systems differ and why citizens in different countries think and behave differently in politics. It goes beyond formal institutions and laws and looks at the underlying beliefs, values, and emotional attachments that people have toward political authority, participation, and rights. This question asks you to select the best definition of political culture from among several related but distinct ideas. Given Data / Assumptions: The term under discussion is political culture. Options mention legal power distribution, party alliances, citizens attitudes, and written constitutional rules. We assume the standard textbook understanding of political culture as used in comparative politics. The focus is on the deeper layer of values and beliefs rather than on formal structures alone. Concept / Approach: Political culture refers to the pattern of orientations that individuals in a society have toward the political system, its institutions, and their own role in politics. It includes feelings about authority, attitudes toward laws, beliefs about what government should do, and expectations about rights and obligations of citizens. Scholars such as Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba analysed political culture in terms of cognitive, affective, and evaluative orientations. This is different from the constitutional structure or day to day party strategies, which are consequences and expressions of political culture rather than definitions of it. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recognise that political culture is primarily about people and their inner orientations, not only about formal legal texts.Step 2: Recall that it includes shared beliefs and values about authority, legitimacy, participation, and the role of government.Step 3: Examine each option. One option mentions citizens shared attitudes, values, beliefs, and orientations toward politics, which directly matches this description.Step 4: Other options talk about distribution of powers or written constitutional rules, which are formal aspects of a political system rather than its culture.Step 5: Option about party alliances refers to short term strategies and not the deeper pattern of beliefs held by society.Step 6: Select the option that describes shared attitudes, values, and beliefs about politics and the political system. Verification / Alternative check: Standard political science texts define political culture as the set of attitudes, beliefs, and sentiments that give order and meaning to a political process and provide underlying assumptions and rules that govern behaviour in the political system. Examples include whether people trust government, whether they value individual liberty more than order, and how strongly they identify with the nation. These features are distinct from institutional arrangements like federalism or the number of political parties, though those institutions may reflect and reinforce the culture. This separation confirms that the correct answer is the option that focuses on shared orientations rather than on legal structures. Why Other Options Are Wrong: The formal distribution of legal powers between the central and State governments: This describes the constitutional structure of a federal or unitary system, not political culture. The pattern of alliances formed between political parties before an election: This refers to party strategy and coalition politics, which may be influenced by culture but are not the definition of political culture. The written rules and articles contained in a country National Constitution: These are formal institutions and laws, while political culture concerns the beliefs and values through which citizens and leaders interpret and act on those rules. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes confuse political culture with political system or constitutional structure because all these terms describe politics at a broad level. It is helpful to remember that culture always points to ideas, values, and attitudes, while system points to institutions and rules. Another frequent mistake is to focus too narrowly on party politics, assuming that culture is only about which party is popular. The better approach is to think about how people feel about democracy, authority, and participation. These deeper patterns are the core of political culture. Final Answer: Political culture refers to the shared attitudes, values, beliefs, and orientations of people toward politics and the political system in which they live.

Question 5

Which statement best defines a communist form of government as it has traditionally been understood in political theory?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Communism is both an economic and political idea that has been implemented in various forms in different countries, especially during the twentieth century. In practice, so called communist States developed characteristic political structures. This question is not about the ideal theory of communism in books, but about how communist governments have commonly been organised in real life, especially in relation to political parties and control of the economy. Given Data / Assumptions: The question asks for a definition of a communist government. Options mention autocracy, one party rule, power concentrated in a single leader, and limited voting. We assume the context of real world communist regimes such as those in the former Soviet Union, China, and other socialist States. The focus is on political structure, particularly the role of a single party. Concept / Approach: In practice, most communist governments have been organised as one party States in which a communist party monopolises political power. The party controls the main state institutions, directs economic planning, and often manages social and cultural organisations. While there may be elections, they typically occur within the framework defined by the ruling party, without genuine competition from other parties. This is distinct from autocracy based purely on a hereditary monarch and from systems where limited voting exists but multiple parties operate. Therefore, the best short definition is that a communist government is led by one political party that controls the state and the major parts of the economy. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that communist States usually have a ruling communist party that dominates political life and does not share power with rival parties.Step 2: Think of examples such as the Communist Party of the Soviet Union or the Communist Party of China, which served as the central authority over state and economy.Step 3: Recognise that although a powerful party leader may exist, institutions and policies are formally channelled through the party rather than based on hereditary rule.Step 4: Review the options. One option explicitly mentions a government led by one political party that controls the state and economy, which matches real world patterns.Step 5: Other options refer to monarchy, absolute individual leadership, or limited voting without emphasising one party control.Step 6: Select the option that correctly highlights single party rule and economic control as defining features. Verification / Alternative check: Standard descriptions of communist systems in political science note that they are one party States with central planning of the economy. Constitutions of such countries often describe the communist party as the leading force of society and the State. While individual leaders like Stalin or Mao became extremely powerful, they acted within a party framework. There is no hereditary monarchy and voting, when it exists, usually takes place within lists approved by the party. These details confirm that single party leadership controlling state and economy is the most accurate brief definition among the options. Why Other Options Are Wrong: A communist government is an autocracy led by a single hereditary monarch: This describes monarchy, not communist party rule. A communist government gives all real power only to a single individual party leader for life: In practice some leaders became dominant, but the formal system is based on party control, not personal monarchy. A communist government allows only limited and purely symbolic voting without any party control: Limited voting may occur, but communist governments are defined by party control, not by absence of party influence. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes use the word communist loosely as a synonym for dictatorship in general. While many communist States have been authoritarian, what makes them distinct is the central role of a single ruling party and public ownership or control of key economic sectors. Another confusion is to mix communism with monarchy or pure military rule. Remember that the typical communist government is a one party system where the party directs both political and economic life, which is the core idea captured in the correct option. Final Answer: The statement that best defines a communist government is that it is led by one political party that controls the state and the main levers of the economy.

Question 6

In most modern constitutional democracies, which document is regarded as the supreme law of the land, taking precedence over ordinary statutes and government actions?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: In constitutional democracies, there is usually a hierarchy of laws. At the top of this hierarchy stands a basic law that defines governmental powers, structures, and rights of citizens. This supreme law controls all ordinary legislation and executive actions. This question asks you to identify that supreme law in most constitutional systems, including countries like India and the United States, where judicial review is used to enforce it. Given Data / Assumptions: The question is about the supreme law of the land. Options include the Constitution, the Senate, any Bill, and a claim that all are equally supreme. We assume a system with a written or clearly identifiable fundamental law. The focus is on which document or source of authority stands above all others in legal terms. Concept / Approach: In most constitutional democracies, the Constitution is the highest legal authority. It is called the supreme law because all other laws must conform to it. Parliaments and legislatures pass Bills that become Acts, but if those Acts conflict with the Constitution, courts can declare them invalid. Institutions such as the Senate or other legislative chambers are created and guided by the Constitution and cannot legally override its provisions. Therefore, when the question asks what is the supreme law of the land, the correct answer is the Constitution, not any ordinary law or institution. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that the Constitution sets out the framework for government, including the powers of the legislature, executive, and judiciary.Step 2: Understand that ordinary laws, including Acts passed by Parliament or Congress, derive their validity from the Constitution.Step 3: Note that when a conflict arises between an ordinary law and the Constitution, courts are expected to uphold the Constitution and may strike down the conflicting law.Step 4: Examine the options. One option clearly names the Constitution, while others mention the Senate or any Bill.Step 5: Recognise that legislative bodies and Bills are subordinate to the Constitution and cannot be equally supreme with it.Step 6: Choose the option that identifies the Constitution as the supreme law. Verification / Alternative check: Look at Article 13 of the Constitution of India or similar provisions in other countries. They state that laws inconsistent with or in derogation of the fundamental rights shall be void, indicating that constitutional rights and principles override ordinary statutes. Courts routinely review laws in the light of constitutional provisions. In the United States, the Supreme Court established judicial review in the case of Marbury v. Madison, emphasising that the Constitution is superior to ordinary legislation. These examples show that the Constitution has higher status than legislative bodies or Bills. Why Other Options Are Wrong: The Senate or upper house of the legislature: This is an institution created by the Constitution. It must operate within constitutional boundaries and cannot claim equal legal supremacy. Any Bill introduced in the legislature: A Bill is only a proposal. Even after it becomes an Act, it remains subject to the Constitution. All of the above are equally supreme: There is a clear hierarchy in which the Constitution is above all ordinary institutions and laws, so they are not equally supreme. Common Pitfalls: A common confusion is to think that Parliament or the legislature is absolutely supreme and can do anything. In a parliamentary democracy with a written constitution and judicial review, legislative supremacy is limited by the Constitution. Another mistake is to treat any important institution, such as the Senate or Supreme Court, as itself the supreme law rather than as a body created by that law. Remember that the Constitution is the ultimate source of authority, and all other institutions are its creatures. Final Answer: In most constitutional democracies, the Constitution is regarded as the supreme law of the land, standing above ordinary laws and government actions.

Question 7

Under the Constitution of India, which Article specifically deals with the President Special Address to both Houses of Parliament at the beginning of the first session after each general election and at the first session of each year?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The Constitution of India lays down detailed rules about how Parliament is summoned, prorogued, and addressed by the President. One important constitutional provision relates to the President Special Address at the beginning of certain sessions. This address outlines the policies and programmes of the government and allows members to hold a discussion on them. The question tests whether you can correctly identify the Article of the Constitution that deals specifically with this Special Address requirement. Given Data / Assumptions: The subject is the President Special Address to Parliament. The options are Articles 87, 86, 85, and 84 of the Constitution of India. We assume awareness that not all these Articles relate to the same topic. The focus is on the Article that mandates the Special Address at the beginning of certain sessions. Concept / Approach: Article 87 of the Constitution of India deals explicitly with the special address by the President. It provides that the President shall address both Houses of Parliament assembled together at the commencement of the first session after each general election to the Lok Sabha and at the commencement of the first session of each year. Article 86 deals with the right of the President to address and send messages to Parliament more generally. Article 85 deals with summoning, prorogation, and dissolution of the Lok Sabha, and Article 84 relates to qualifications for membership of Parliament. Therefore, the correct Article for the Special Address is Article 87. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that Article 87 mentions the President Special Address to both Houses at specific times.Step 2: Remember that this address occurs at the first session after each general election to the Lok Sabha and at the first session of each year.Step 3: Distinguish this from Article 86, which gives the President a general right to address one or both Houses and to send messages.Step 4: Note that Article 85 deals with summoning and prorogation of Parliament and dissolution of the Lok Sabha, not the content of the Special Address.Step 5: Recognise that Article 84 is about qualifications of Members of Parliament and is unrelated to presidential addresses.Step 6: Conclude that Article 87 is the correct Article related to the President Special Address requirement. Verification / Alternative check: Standard Indian polity textbooks list Article 87 under headings such as Special Address and President Address to Parliament. They explain that this Article originally required the President to address at the commencement of every session, but this was later modified by a constitutional amendment to the current arrangement of the first session of the year and the first session after general elections. The same books treat Article 86 separately as dealing with a general right of address and messages. This clear separation confirms that Article 87 is the one that directly answers the question. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Article 86: It deals with the right of the President to address either House and send messages but does not set out the mandatory Special Address at specific sessions. Article 85: It concerns the summoning and prorogation of Parliament and the dissolution of the Lok Sabha, not the content or requirement of the President address. Article 84: It lays down qualifications for membership of Parliament and is unrelated to presidential addresses or sessions. Common Pitfalls: Learners often confuse Articles 86 and 87 because both involve the President speaking to Parliament. A good way to remember is that Article 87 is about the Special Address at the start of certain sessions, while Article 86 describes a general right to address and send messages at any time. Keeping a simple mental map of Articles 84 to 87 together helps: 84 is qualifications, 85 is summoning and prorogation, 86 is general address, and 87 is the Special Address requirement. Final Answer: The Article of the Constitution of India that relates specifically to the President Special Address at the beginning of certain sessions is Article 87.

Question 8

Which Government of India Act first introduced the system of dyarchy (dual government) at the centre level in British India?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: During British rule, the constitutional development of India proceeded through a series of Acts passed by the British Parliament. Two important milestones were the introduction of dyarchy in the provinces and later the proposal of dyarchy at the centre. Dyarchy means a dual system of government in which certain subjects are reserved to officials while others are transferred to Indian ministers. This question asks which specific Act introduced dyarchy at the central or federal level, an important detail in the evolution of Indias constitutional history. Given Data / Assumptions: The question is about dyarchy at the centre, not in the provinces. Options include the Government of India Acts of 1919 and 1935, the Indian Independence Act 1947, and the Indian Councils Act 1909. We assume awareness that different Acts introduced reforms at different levels of government. The focus is on identifying the Act that proposed or introduced dyarchy at the central or federal level. Concept / Approach: The Government of India Act 1919 introduced dyarchy in the provinces of British India. Under this scheme, provincial subjects were divided into reserved and transferred categories. However, dyarchy at the centre was not part of the 1919 Act. The Government of India Act 1935 went further and proposed the establishment of an all India Federation and introduced the idea of dyarchy at the centre, dividing federal subjects into reserved and transferred categories under the control of the Governor General and responsible ministers respectively. Although the federation under the 1935 Act was never fully implemented, the Act itself is the one that introduced dyarchy at the centre level. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that the Government of India Act 1919 is associated with dyarchy in the provinces, not at the centre.Step 2: Understand that the Indian Councils Act 1909, also called the Morley Minto Reforms, focused on enlarging legislative councils and introducing separate electorates, not dyarchy.Step 3: Note that the Indian Independence Act 1947 ended British rule and partitioned India but did not introduce dyarchy.Step 4: Recognise that the Government of India Act 1935 proposed an all India Federation and introduced dyarchy at the federal or central level.Step 5: Compare options and select Government of India Act 1935 as the correct answer. Verification / Alternative check: Standard Indian history and polity texts list the main features of the Government of India Acts. For 1919 they emphasise dyarchy in the provinces and the enlargement of provincial autonomy. For 1935 they list federal court, provincial autonomy, and dyarchy at the centre as key features. The Indian Independence Act 1947 is always described in terms of partition and independence. A careful reading of these summaries confirms that dyarchy at the centre is linked specifically with the Government of India Act 1935, not with the other Acts mentioned in the options. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Indian Independence Act 1947: This Act granted independence and created the Dominions of India and Pakistan. It did not introduce dyarchy at any level. Indian Councils Act 1909: Also called the Morley Minto Reforms, it expanded legislative councils and introduced separate electorates for Muslims but had no dyarchy provision. Government of India Act 1919: It introduced dyarchy in provinces, not at the centre. The question is specifically about dyarchy at the centre. Common Pitfalls: Because students often memorise that dyarchy was introduced by the 1919 Act, they sometimes overlook the important detail that this was at the provincial level only. When a question asks about dyarchy at the centre, the correct reference changes to the 1935 Act. Another confusion is to see any Government of India Act and assume that they all did the same thing. To avoid this, it helps to link key features with each Act: separate electorates with 1909, provincial dyarchy with 1919, and centre level dyarchy and federation with 1935. Final Answer: The system of dyarchy at the central or federal level in British India was introduced by the Government of India Act 1935.

Question 9

In which of the following legislative houses is the Chairperson not a member of that house, but instead holds office in an ex officio capacity?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Presiding officers play a crucial role in the functioning of legislative bodies. In most cases, the Speaker or Chairman is elected from among the members of the house and therefore is also a member of that body. However, there is an important exception in the Indian parliamentary system, which this question highlights. Knowing this exception helps you better understand the relationship between the executive and the legislature under the Constitution. Given Data / Assumptions: The question asks in which house the Chairperson is not a member of that house. Options include Rajya Sabha, State Legislative Assembly, State Legislative Council, and Lok Sabha. We assume familiarity with the roles of the Vice President and the presiding officers of State legislatures. The focus is on membership status, not on how each presiding officer is elected. Concept / Approach: In India, the Vice President of India is ex officio Chairman of the Rajya Sabha under the Constitution. The Vice President is elected by an electoral college consisting of members of both Houses of Parliament but is not a member of either house. Nevertheless, in the Rajya Sabha, the Vice President presides as Chairman. In contrast, the Speaker of the Lok Sabha is elected from among its members and continues to be a member. Similarly, the Speaker of a Legislative Assembly and the Chairman of a Legislative Council are members of their respective houses. Therefore, Rajya Sabha is the house where the presiding officer is not a member of the house. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that the Vice President of India is the ex officio Chairman of the Rajya Sabha.Step 2: Note that the Vice President is not a member of either the Lok Sabha or the Rajya Sabha but is elected separately by an electoral college.Step 3: Understand that in the Lok Sabha, the Speaker is elected from among members and remains a member of the House of the People.Step 4: Similarly, in State legislatures, the Speakers and Chairmen are chosen from among members and continue to belong to those houses.Step 5: Compare the options and identify Rajya Sabha as the unique case where the Chairperson is not a member of that house. Verification / Alternative check: Constitutional provisions support this reasoning. Articles 64 and 89 of the Constitution specify that the Vice President shall be the ex officio Chairman of the Council of States (Rajya Sabha). The election of the Vice President is described separately and does not involve membership of Parliament. On the other hand, Article 93 about the Lok Sabha and corresponding State provisions make it clear that the Speaker and Deputy Speaker or Chairman and Deputy Chairman are members of the bodies they preside over. Standard polity books also highlight this point as a frequently asked exam question. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Legislative Assembly of a State: The Speaker is elected from among the members of the Assembly and remains a member. Legislative Council of a State: The Chairman is chosen from among members of the Council, so the presiding officer is also a member. Lok Sabha (House of the People): The Speaker is a member elected by the House; the post does not go to someone outside the membership. Common Pitfalls: Students often assume that because all presiding officers are selected by the house, they must also be members of that house. The Rajya Sabha is a special case because the Constitution links its Chairmanship to the office of the Vice President. Another confusion is to mix the role of the Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, who is indeed a member of the house, with the Chairman, who is not. Remembering that the Vice President is outside the ordinary membership of Parliament yet presides over the Rajya Sabha is critical for correctly answering this question. Final Answer: The legislative house in which the Chairperson is not a member of that house is the Rajya Sabha (Council of States), whose Chairman is the Vice President of India in an ex officio capacity.

Question 10

Who among the following leaders served as the first Speaker of the Lok Sabha, the lower house of the Parliament of independent India?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The office of the Speaker of the Lok Sabha is one of the most important positions in the Indian parliamentary system. The Speaker presides over the proceedings of the House, maintains order, and represents the Lok Sabha in its relations with the President and the Rajya Sabha. Knowing who served as the first Speaker after the adoption of the Constitution is a basic but significant fact in the study of Indian polity and political history. Given Data / Assumptions: The question asks for the first Speaker of the Lok Sabha. Options include M. A. Ayyangar, N. Sanjiva Reddy, Ganesh Vasudev Mavalankar, and Sardar Hukam Singh. We assume this refers to the Lok Sabha constituted after the Constitution of India came into force on 26 January 1950. The focus is on identifying the correct person among these prominent parliamentary figures. Concept / Approach: Ganesh Vasudev Mavalankar is widely recognised as the first Speaker of the Lok Sabha. He had earlier served as Speaker of the Constituent Assembly (Legislative) and continued in a similar role when the provisional Parliament began functioning. After the first general elections of 1951 to 1952, he became the first Speaker of the newly formed Lok Sabha. Later Speakers included M. A. Ayyangar and Sardar Hukam Singh, and N. Sanjiva Reddy eventually served both as Speaker and as President of India, but none of them were the first Speaker. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that the first general elections were held in 1951 to 1952, and the first Lok Sabha was constituted thereafter.Step 2: Identify the first person to serve as Speaker of this Lok Sabha, which was Ganesh Vasudev Mavalankar.Step 3: Remember that M. A. Ayyangar succeeded Mavalankar as Speaker.Step 4: Note that Sardar Hukam Singh served as Speaker later, and N. Sanjiva Reddy served as Speaker of the Lok Sabha many years afterwards and later became President.Step 5: Compare the options and select Ganesh Vasudev Mavalankar as the correct answer. Verification / Alternative check: Historical records of the Lok Sabha and official Parliament publications confirm that Ganesh Vasudev Mavalankar was the first Speaker of the Lok Sabha. Lists of Speakers on the official Parliament website start with his name in that position. Many Indian polity books also explicitly mention his name when outlining the early leadership of the Lok Sabha. These consistent references establish without doubt that he was the first Speaker and that the others in the options served later in the chronological sequence. Why Other Options Are Wrong: M. A. Ayyangar: He served as Speaker of the Lok Sabha after Mavalankar and was therefore not the first. N. Sanjiva Reddy: He became Speaker in a later Lok Sabha and subsequently became President of India, but he was not the first Speaker. Sardar Hukam Singh: He is remembered as another important Speaker, but his tenure also came later, not at the beginning of the Lok Sabha era. Common Pitfalls: Because several early Speakers are frequently mentioned in exam materials, candidates sometimes mix up their order. Ayyangar and Hukam Singh are close in time to Mavalankar, and N. Sanjiva Reddy is known from later history as both Speaker and President, which can cause confusion. A helpful memory tip is to associate the initials G. V. Mavalankar with the idea of the very first Lok Sabha Speaker and to recall that Ayyangar followed him, not the other way around. This mental sequence helps avoid errors in questions about early parliamentary offices. Final Answer: The first Speaker of the Lok Sabha in independent India was Ganesh Vasudev Mavalankar.

Question 11

In the Indian Constitution, the concept of 'judicial review' has been borrowed from which country's constitution?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Judicial review is one of the most important concepts in modern constitutional law. It empowers courts to examine whether laws and executive actions are consistent with the Constitution. In the context of the Indian Constitution, the idea of giving the higher judiciary the power of judicial review was not created in isolation but was consciously borrowed from foreign constitutional models. This question tests your understanding of the specific country whose constitutional practice inspired India's provision for judicial review. Given Data / Assumptions: We are dealing with the concept of judicial review under the Indian Constitution. The task is to identify the foreign constitutional source from which this idea was borrowed. Options mention the United States of America, the United Kingdom, Canada and Ireland. We assume a basic awareness of different constitutional models around the world. Concept / Approach: Judicial review means the power of the judiciary, especially higher courts, to declare legislative or executive acts unconstitutional if they violate the basic law of the land. The classic, textbook model of judicial review comes from the United States of America, where the Supreme Court asserted this power in the famous case Marbury v. Madison (1803), even though the term is not expressly mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. The framers of the Indian Constitution carefully studied various constitutions, including those of the USA, UK, Canada and Ireland, and selectively adopted features. While parliamentary sovereignty and some conventions came from the United Kingdom, the specific institution of strong judicial review was clearly taken from the American system. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that judicial review refers to the superior courts' power to test the validity of laws and executive actions against the Constitution. Step 2: Identify which country is historically famous for establishing judicial review through its Supreme Court – this is the United States of America. Step 3: Note that the United Kingdom follows parliamentary sovereignty, where courts traditionally could not strike down Acts of Parliament as unconstitutional. Step 4: Canada and Ireland have important constitutional provisions, but they were not the primary models for India's adoption of judicial review. Step 5: Therefore, the Indian framers borrowed the strong form of judicial review mainly from the constitutional practice of the United States of America. Verification / Alternative check: A quick cross-check can be done by remembering that many other Indian constitutional features also have clearly identified sources. For example, fundamental rights and judicial review come largely from the United States; parliamentary system and cabinet responsibility come from the United Kingdom; directive principles of state policy are influenced by the Irish Constitution; and the federal structure with a strong center draws from Canada. This pattern confirms that judicial review is associated with the American model. Standard Indian polity textbooks also mention the U.S. as the primary source of this idea, which verifies our answer. Why Other Options Are Wrong: United Kingdom: The UK model is based on parliamentary supremacy, so courts traditionally could not invalidate Acts of Parliament, making it an unsuitable source for judicial review as adopted in India. Canada: While the Canadian Constitution influenced India's federal structure, it was not the principal source for India's judicial review provisions. Ireland: Ireland mainly inspired the Directive Principles of State Policy, not the doctrine of judicial review. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes confuse the sources of different constitutional features because many countries influenced the Indian Constitution. A common mistake is to associate judicial review with the United Kingdom simply because India follows a parliamentary system similar to the UK. Another error is to think that any country with a written constitution and courts must have been the source. The key is to remember which country is historically famous for pioneering judicial review and inspiring other democracies. Mixing up the sources of directive principles, parliamentary system, and federalism can also lead to incorrect answers. Final Answer: The concept of judicial review in the Indian Constitution has been borrowed from the constitutional practice of the United States of America.

Question 12

In the Constitution of India, the powers, authority and responsibilities of urban municipalities are listed in which one of the following Schedules?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Municipalities are vital institutions of urban local self-government in India. Their functions, authority and responsibilities needed clear constitutional backing, which was provided through the 74th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1992. This amendment inserted a specific Schedule into the Constitution to list the functions of municipalities. The question checks whether you can correctly identify which Schedule contains this important list of municipal functions and responsibilities. Given Data / Assumptions: The subject is the powers, authority and responsibilities of municipalities in India. The question asks specifically about the relevant Schedule of the Constitution. Options include the Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh and Twelfth Schedules. We assume awareness of the basic structure of the Constitution and key amendments like the 73rd and 74th. Concept / Approach: The 73rd Amendment Act, 1992 dealt with Panchayats in rural areas and introduced the Eleventh Schedule, which lists the subjects for Panchayats. The 74th Amendment Act, 1992 dealt with municipalities in urban areas and introduced the Twelfth Schedule. The Twelfth Schedule lists 18 functions such as urban planning, regulation of land use, water supply, public health, sanitation, slum improvement, urban poverty alleviation and more. Therefore, remembering which Schedule corresponds to which level of local self-government is the key approach to solving this question correctly. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that the Eleventh Schedule is linked to the 73rd Amendment and Panchayats in rural areas. Step 2: Recall that the Twelfth Schedule is linked to the 74th Amendment and municipalities in urban areas. Step 3: Note that the powers, authority and responsibilities of municipalities are therefore in the Twelfth Schedule. Step 4: Eliminate other options: Ninth Schedule mainly deals with laws placed beyond judicial review (originally for land reforms), and the Tenth Schedule deals with anti-defection provisions. Step 5: Conclude that the correct answer must be the Twelfth Schedule. Verification / Alternative check: An alternative way to remember this is to link the numbers with the type of local body: 11 (Eleventh) looks like two parallel lines, reminding you of rural roads and villages, while 12 (Twelfth) can be associated with town clocks striking twelve in cities. Moreover, standard polity reference books clearly state that the Twelfth Schedule lists 18 functions for municipalities. Checking any authoritative Constitution summary will confirm this association, so our answer is reliable. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Ninth Schedule: Introduced by the First Amendment mainly to protect certain laws (especially agrarian reforms) from judicial review; it is unrelated to municipalities. Tenth Schedule: Contains the anti-defection law applicable to Members of Parliament and state legislatures; it does not deal with local bodies. Eleventh Schedule: Deals with the powers and responsibilities of Panchayats, not municipalities, and is tied to rural governance under the 73rd Amendment. Common Pitfalls: A frequent mistake is confusing the Eleventh and Twelfth Schedules because both were inserted around the same time and deal with local self-government. Students often misremember which Schedule is for Panchayats and which is for municipalities. Another pitfall is ignoring the specific mention of municipalities in the question and guessing based solely on partial memory. Careful reading of the words “municipalities” and “urban” in explanations helps avoid such errors. Final Answer: The powers, authority and responsibilities of municipalities are listed in the Twelfth Schedule of the Constitution of India.

Question 13

Articles 5 to 11 of the Constitution of India deal with which fundamental subject relating to the people of India?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Every group of Articles in the Constitution of India deals with a particular theme or subject. Articles 5 to 11 appear right at the beginning of the Constitution and are crucial for defining the relationship between individuals and the Indian state. This question tests whether you know which subject these Articles focus on, which is essential knowledge for any serious student of Indian polity and competitive exams. Given Data / Assumptions: We are asked about Articles 5 to 11 of the Indian Constitution. Options mention the Union and its territory, citizenship, fundamental duties and the Union Executive. We assume familiarity with the broad structure of the Constitution and its Parts. No special numerical calculation is involved; it is a conceptual recall question. Concept / Approach: The Constitution is divided into Parts and Articles. Part I (Articles 1 to 4) deals with the Union and its territory. Immediately after that, Articles 5 to 11 are grouped under the heading “Citizenship.” These Articles define who was considered a citizen of India at the commencement of the Constitution and provide for laws relating to citizenship. Fundamental Duties are found much later in Part IV-A (Article 51A), and the Union Executive is dealt with from Article 52 onwards. Thus, knowing the sequence of Parts and Articles helps to quickly identify the correct subject. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that Articles 1 to 4 fall under Part I, titled “The Union and its Territory.” Step 2: Remember that the next group, Articles 5 to 11, falls under the heading “Citizenship.” Step 3: Fundamental Duties are contained in Article 51A, so they cannot be covered by Articles 5 to 11. Step 4: The Union Executive (President, Vice-President, Council of Ministers etc.) begins from Article 52, which again is much later. Step 5: Therefore, the only correct subject for Articles 5 to 11 is citizenship. Verification / Alternative check: Another way to confirm this is to recall that even in many standard polity books, the chapter sequence follows the Constitution: first “Union and its Territory,” then “Citizenship,” and then “Fundamental Rights.” Citizenship as a topic is always introduced with reference to Articles 5 to 11. Checking any reliable summary or bare act of the Constitution will clearly show the heading “Citizenship” above Article 5, which validates the answer. Why Other Options Are Wrong: The Indian Union and its territory: This is covered in Articles 1 to 4, not Articles 5 to 11. Fundamental Duties: These are contained in Article 51A under Part IV-A and were added by the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976, so they do not relate to Articles 5 to 11. Union Executive: This begins from Article 52 onwards and deals with the President, Vice President and Council of Ministers, not with citizenship. Common Pitfalls: Many learners confuse citizenship with fundamental rights because both topics deal with individuals and their relationship with the state. Another common mistake is not remembering the exact Article ranges and guessing by intuition. Some also mix up the order of Parts I, II and III. To avoid these errors, it helps to memorize the basic structure: Part I (Articles 1–4, Union and its territory), Part II (Articles 5–11, Citizenship), and Part III (Articles 12–35, Fundamental Rights). Final Answer: Articles 5 to 11 of the Constitution of India deal with the subject of Citizenship.

Question 14

Under which Article of the Constitution of India must the 'Annual Financial Statement' (Union Budget) be laid before Parliament every year, generally before 31 March?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The Union Budget is one of the most important annual events in the functioning of the Government of India. In constitutional language, it is referred to as the “Annual Financial Statement.” The Constitution clearly specifies under which Article this statement must be presented to Parliament. This question checks whether you can correctly recall that Article and connect it with the budgetary process in Indian polity. Given Data / Assumptions: The term used is “Annual Financial Statement,” which is the constitutional name for the Union Budget. The question asks for the specific Article number of the Constitution. Options include Articles 16, 31, 112 and 124. We assume basic familiarity with key Article numbers commonly tested in exams. Concept / Approach: The Annual Financial Statement is mandated by Article 112 of the Constitution of India. It sets out the estimated receipts and expenditures of the Government of India for a financial year. Articles 16 and 31 relate to other subjects (equality of opportunity in public employment and right to property, respectively, though Article 31 was later repealed). Article 124 deals with the establishment of the Supreme Court. Recognizing that Article 112 is the only Article among the given options associated with financial statements makes it easier to answer correctly. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify that “Annual Financial Statement” is the constitutional term for the Union Budget. Step 2: Recall that the Union Budget is dealt with in Part V of the Constitution, under the chapter relating to the Union. Step 3: Remember that Article 112 specifically mandates the President to cause the Annual Financial Statement to be laid before both Houses of Parliament. Step 4: Note that Article 16 deals with equality of opportunity, Article 31 (now repealed) dealt with the right to property, and Article 124 deals with the Supreme Court. Step 5: Conclude that Article 112 is the correct Article for the Annual Financial Statement. Verification / Alternative check: You can verify your memory by recalling that several related Articles also exist near Article 112, such as those dealing with demands for grants and appropriation bills. Most standard polity guides explicitly say “Article 112 – Annual Financial Statement (Union Budget).” This consistent association in multiple sources confirms that Article 112 is correct. None of the other options are even remotely associated with the Budget or government finances, providing an additional cross-check. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Article 16: Concerns equality of opportunity in matters of public employment, not the budget. Article 31: Originally dealt with the right to property but has been repealed as a fundamental right and is unrelated to the Annual Financial Statement. Article 124: Deals with the establishment and composition of the Supreme Court of India and has no connection with the budget process. Common Pitfalls: Some students confuse Article numbers because many important provisions lie in the same general numeric range. Another mistake is to forget the exact Article number and guess from memory, leading to confusion between Article 110 (Money Bills), Article 112 (Annual Financial Statement) and Articles dealing with other institutions. To avoid this, it helps to deliberately memorize a small list of “must-know Articles,” including 110 for Money Bills, 112 for the Annual Financial Statement and 123 for Ordinances. Final Answer: The Annual Financial Statement (Union Budget) must be laid before Parliament under Article 112 of the Constitution of India.

Question 15

Which one of the following towns does not fall within the Delhi National Capital Region (NCR)?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The National Capital Region (NCR) is a planning region around Delhi that includes parts of several neighbouring states. Questions about which towns or districts fall inside or outside the NCR are common in geography and polity-based general knowledge exams. This question checks your awareness of the composition of the Delhi NCR and whether you can identify the town that does not belong to this region among the given options. Given Data / Assumptions: We are given four towns: Panipat, Rohtak, Khurja and Mathura. All four are located in northern India, in states adjoining Delhi. The question asks which one does not fall within the National Capital Region. We assume an understanding that NCR includes select districts of Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan along with Delhi. Concept / Approach: The NCR is defined by the National Capital Region Planning Board Act and subsequent notifications that include specific districts around Delhi. Panipat and Rohtak (both in Haryana) and Khurja (in Bulandshahr district of Uttar Pradesh) have been included in the NCR due to their proximity and connectivity to Delhi. Mathura, although in western Uttar Pradesh and relatively close to Delhi, has historically not been part of the NCR under the original and commonly tested definitions in many exam syllabi. Therefore, knowing which districts and towns are part of the NCR helps to identify the odd one out. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that several districts of Haryana, such as Panipat and Rohtak, are officially part of the Delhi NCR. Step 2: Remember that Khurja, a town in Bulandshahr district of Uttar Pradesh, lies within the NCR region according to planning board notifications. Step 3: Check the status of Mathura in your memory or study notes; it is not listed as a district included in the NCR in the standard competitive exam references. Step 4: Since Panipat, Rohtak and Khurja are all in the notified NCR area, Mathura becomes the only town among the options that does not fall within the NCR. Step 5: Mark Mathura as the correct answer. Verification / Alternative check: You can verify this by looking at a typical list of NCR districts from standard geography or polity books, which commonly mention districts like Gurgaon, Rohtak, Sonipat, Panipat, Ghaziabad, Gautam Buddha Nagar, Bulandshahr (containing Khurja) and others. Mathura usually does not appear in that list in exam-oriented material. Even if later administrative proposals consider including more districts, most exam questions are framed using the commonly accepted NCR composition at the time of syllabus setting, where Mathura is considered outside the NCR. This cross-check supports Mathura as the correct answer. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Panipat: A district in Haryana that is officially within the National Capital Region, so it is not the correct answer. Rohtak: Another important district of Haryana included in the NCR due to its proximity and linkages with Delhi. Khurja: A town in Bulandshahr district of Uttar Pradesh, which is one of the districts included in the NCR; hence Khurja falls within the NCR. Common Pitfalls: A major pitfall is assuming that all towns in western Uttar Pradesh are either inside or outside the NCR without checking the actual notified list. Another common mistake is to misremember Khurja or Panipat as being outside the NCR simply because they are not as frequently mentioned as cities like Gurgaon or Ghaziabad. Some students also confuse NCR with other regional development concepts, which can lead to incorrect answers. Careful reading of standard NCR district lists helps prevent such errors. Final Answer: Among the given options, Mathura is the town that does not fall within the Delhi National Capital Region (NCR).

Question 16

At the time of its formation as a separate State in June 2014, Telangana consisted of how many districts?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Telangana became the 29th State of India in June 2014, carved out of the north-western part of the former State of Andhra Pradesh. At the moment of its creation, the State had a specific number of districts, which later changed after administrative reorganisation. This question focuses on the original number of districts at the time of formation, which is an important factual detail often tested in competitive examinations on Indian polity and geography. Given Data / Assumptions: The question explicitly refers to the time of formation of Telangana in June 2014. We are asked about the number of districts at that time, not after later reorganisations. Options are 9, 10, 11 and 12 districts. We assume knowledge that district numbers can change due to later administrative decisions, but the question is about the initial situation. Concept / Approach: When Telangana was officially formed on 2 June 2014, it initially consisted of 10 districts that were previously part of Andhra Pradesh. These included districts such as Hyderabad, Warangal, Karimnagar, Nizamabad, Khammam, Nalgonda, Mahbubnagar, Medak, Adilabad and Rangareddy. Later, the State government reorganised and created several new districts, increasing the total count significantly. However, for exam purposes, questions often specifically mention “at the time of formation,” which points clearly to the original number of 10 districts. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Focus on the phrase “at the time of its formation in June 2014,” which limits us to the original administrative structure. Step 2: Recall that Telangana initially had 10 districts taken from the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh. Step 3: Remember that new districts were created later, but those changes are not relevant to this particular question. Step 4: Compare this recall with the options: 9, 10, 11 and 12; 10 districts matches the known fact. Step 5: Choose “10 districts” as the correct answer. Verification / Alternative check: You can verify this information by cross-checking basic Telangana State profiles in standard reference books or official government summaries, which consistently mention that Telangana was formed with 10 districts and later reorganised into a much larger number. Many exam-oriented guides also mention: “Telangana (formed 2014) – originally 10 districts; districts increased later through reorganisation.” This pattern across multiple sources confirms the accuracy of the 10-district figure at the time of formation. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 9 districts: There is no standard or official record stating that Telangana began with only 9 districts; this is an incorrect number. 11 districts: This overstates the initial number of districts; 11 districts came into play only in some other States or in later reorganisations elsewhere. 12 districts: This also exaggerates the initial figure for Telangana; the official original number was 10, not 12. Common Pitfalls: A common mistake is to confuse the original number of districts with the current number after new districts were created. Many students may have read news about Telangana increasing its number of districts and then misapply that information to questions that specifically refer to the time of formation. Another pitfall is not reading the time reference carefully and answering based on present-day administrative structures. Always pay careful attention to phrases like “at the time of formation” or “as of now” when dealing with such questions. Final Answer: At the time of its formation in June 2014, Telangana consisted of 10 districts.

Question 17

In the Indian Constitution, who appoints the Attorney-General of India, the highest law officer of the Union government?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The Attorney-General of India is the highest law officer of the Union and plays a crucial advisory role for the Government of India on legal matters. Knowing who appoints this constitutional authority is a fundamental aspect of Indian polity. This question checks your understanding of the relationship between the executive and key legal officers created under the Constitution. Given Data / Assumptions: The subject is the appointment of the Attorney-General of India. Options include the President, Prime Minister, Chief Justice of India and UPSC. We assume knowledge that the Attorney-General is mentioned in the Constitution (Article 76). There is no tricky numerical calculation; this is a direct conceptual recall question. Concept / Approach: Article 76 of the Constitution of India provides for the office of the Attorney-General of India. It clearly states that the President shall appoint a person who is qualified to be appointed a judge of the Supreme Court to be the Attorney-General of India. While the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers may advise or recommend names in practice, the constitutional authority that formally makes the appointment is the President. The Chief Justice of India and the Union Public Service Commission do not appoint the Attorney-General. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that Article 76 deals with the Attorney-General of India. Step 2: Note that the Article states the Attorney-General is appointed by the President of India. Step 3: Understand that the Prime Minister may recommend, but the formal constitutional appointment is by the President. Step 4: Recognize that neither the Chief Justice of India nor the UPSC has the power to appoint the Attorney-General. Step 5: Therefore, select “The President of India” as the correct answer. Verification / Alternative check: In standard Indian polity books, the Attorney-General is always presented as the “chief legal adviser to the Government of India,” appointed by the President under Article 76. If you quickly recall how other high constitutional offices are appointed, such as judges, CAG and Election Commissioners, you will notice that the President frequently appears as the appointing authority. Confirming this pattern through any reliable constitutional summary will verify that the President appoints the Attorney-General. Why Other Options Are Wrong: The Prime Minister of India: Although the Prime Minister may advise the President, the Prime Minister does not constitutionally appoint the Attorney-General. The Chief Justice of India: The Chief Justice has important judicial and advisory roles but does not appoint the Attorney-General. The Union Public Service Commission: UPSC conducts exams and advises on recruitment to services; it has no role in appointing the Attorney-General. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes confuse “recommending” and “appointing” authorities, assuming that because the government of the day recommends a name, the Prime Minister is the appointing authority. Another pitfall is to mix up the role of the Chief Justice in judicial appointments with appointments of legal officers. Carefully distinguishing between who advises and who formally appoints, as written in the Constitution, helps avoid these errors. Final Answer: The Attorney-General of India is appointed by the President of India.

Question 18

In India, the Governor of a State is appointed by which constitutional authority?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The Governor is the constitutional head of a State in India, similar in some respects to how the President is the head of the Union. Understanding how Governors are appointed is fundamental to grasping the federal structure and the balance of power between the Union and the States. This question checks whether you correctly remember the appointing authority for State Governors as stated in the Constitution. Given Data / Assumptions: The office in question is the Governor of a State. Options include direct election by people, appointment by the Chief Minister, appointment by the Prime Minister and appointment by the President. We assume an understanding that India is a “Union of States” with a strong central government. We are asked for the constitutional appointing authority, not the political process behind the scenes. Concept / Approach: Article 155 of the Constitution of India states that the Governor of a State shall be appointed by the President by warrant under his hand and seal. This means that, constitutionally, it is the President who appoints the Governor. While in practice the Union Council of Ministers headed by the Prime Minister advises the President, the formal appointing authority remains the President. Governors are not directly elected by the people, nor are they appointed by the State Chief Minister. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that the Governor is the nominal head of the State and is appointed, not elected. Step 2: Remember that Article 155 clearly states that the Governor is appointed by the President of India. Step 3: Note that direct elections for Governor do not exist in the Indian constitutional scheme. Step 4: Understand that the Chief Minister of a State does not appoint the Governor, though the Governor swears in the Chief Minister. Step 5: Therefore, choose “Appointed by the President of India” as the correct answer. Verification / Alternative check: This can be verified by any bare text of the Constitution or standard polity reference. Additionally, most news reports about Governor appointments mention that “the President appointed X as the Governor of Y State on the advice of the Union Government.” The recurring pattern of such language reinforces that the President is the constitutional appointing authority, confirming our answer. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Directly elected by the people of the State: India has no provision for direct election of Governors; this model is followed in some other federal systems, not in India. Appointed by the Chief Minister of the State: The Chief Minister has no constitutional power to appoint the Governor; rather, the Governor appoints the Chief Minister after elections. Appointed by the Prime Minister of India: In practice, the Prime Minister and Union Cabinet advise the President, but the Constitution names the President as the appointing authority. Common Pitfalls: A common mistake is to confuse de facto political influence with de jure constitutional authority. Some students also mix up the Indian system with foreign federal models where Governors or equivalent officials may be directly elected. Paying attention to the actual wording of Article 155 and remembering the formal role of the President in appointments helps avoid these errors. Final Answer: In India, the Governor of a State is appointed by the President of India.

Question 19

Who among the following recommends to the Parliament of India that the Legislative Council of a State should be created or abolished?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: In India, some States have a bicameral legislature consisting of a Legislative Assembly (Vidhan Sabha) and a Legislative Council (Vidhan Parishad), while others have only a Legislative Assembly. The Constitution lays down a special procedure for creating or abolishing a Legislative Council in a State. This question tests your understanding of which body initiates the recommendation to Parliament for such creation or abolition. Given Data / Assumptions: The subject is the creation or abolition of a State Legislative Council. Options include the President, the State Governor, the State Legislative Council and the State Legislative Assembly. We assume basic familiarity with bicameral and unicameral legislatures at the State level. We are concerned with the recommending authority, not the final law-making body. Concept / Approach: Article 169 of the Constitution of India deals with the creation and abolition of Legislative Councils in States. It states that Parliament may by law provide for the creation or abolition of a Legislative Council in a State if the Legislative Assembly of the State passes a resolution to that effect by a special majority. Thus, the process begins in the Legislative Assembly, which recommends such change to Parliament. The President and Governor have roles in assenting to laws, but not in making the initial recommendation. The Legislative Council itself also does not initiate its own creation or abolition. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that Article 169 governs the creation and abolition of State Legislative Councils. Step 2: Note that this Article requires a special resolution passed by the State Legislative Assembly, not any other body. Step 3: Understand that once the Assembly passes such a resolution, Parliament may enact a law to create or abolish the Council. Step 4: Recognize that the President only assents to the Parliamentary law and does not make the recommendation. Step 5: Conclude that the recommending body is the Legislative Assembly of the concerned State. Verification / Alternative check: You can verify this by recalling examples such as the abolition of the Legislative Council in some States or demands for creating new Councils. In news reports and polity books, it is always mentioned that the State Legislative Assembly first passes a resolution requesting creation or abolition. Only after this step does Parliament act. This real-world pattern supports the constitutional rule and confirms that the Assembly is the recommending authority. Why Other Options Are Wrong: The President of India: The President gives assent to laws passed by Parliament but does not make the initial recommendation to create or abolish a State Legislative Council. The Governor of the concerned State: The Governor is the nominal head of the State and acts on the advice of the Council of Ministers; however, the Constitution does not give the Governor the power to recommend the creation or abolition of a Legislative Council. The Legislative Council of the concerned State: The Council cannot recommend its own creation or abolition; the initiation must come from the Legislative Assembly. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes misinterpret “Parliament may provide by law” as meaning that Parliament also initiates the process without a State resolution. Others confuse the roles of the Governor and the President in giving assent with the power to recommend. The key is to distinguish between recommendation, law-making and assent, and to remember that the State Legislative Assembly is the starting point for changes in the existence of a Legislative Council. Final Answer: It is the Legislative Assembly of the concerned State that recommends to Parliament the creation or abolition of a State Legislative Council.

Question 20

In India, the Chief Election Commissioner can be removed from office in the same manner and on the same grounds as which of the following constitutional authorities?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) is responsible for supervising elections in India and must be independent and impartial. To protect this independence, the Constitution provides a specific process and standard for the removal of the CEC from office. This question asks you to identify which other high constitutional office shares the same stringent removal procedure as the CEC, highlighting how the Constitution safeguards certain key institutions. Given Data / Assumptions: The focus is on the removal procedure and grounds for the Chief Election Commissioner. Options include a Supreme Court judge, a High Court Chief Justice, the Comptroller and Auditor-General and the Attorney-General. We assume basic awareness that some office-holders have stronger security of tenure than others. The question compares the CEC's removal process to that of another office. Concept / Approach: Article 324 of the Constitution deals with the Election Commission. It states that the Chief Election Commissioner shall not be removed from office except in like manner and on the like grounds as a judge of the Supreme Court. This means that the CEC can only be removed by a special process of impeachment involving Parliament on grounds such as proved misbehaviour or incapacity, similar to a Supreme Court judge. While the Comptroller and Auditor-General also enjoys strong constitutional protection, the wording in Article 324 explicitly makes the removal standard identical to that of a Supreme Court judge. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that Article 324 establishes the Election Commission and mentions the security of tenure of the CEC. Step 2: Note the phrase that the CEC shall not be removed from office except in the same manner and on the same grounds as a judge of the Supreme Court. Step 3: Understand that this requires a special majority in both Houses of Parliament on grounds such as proved misbehaviour or incapacity. Step 4: Compare this directly with the options and identify “A Judge of the Supreme Court of India” as the matching office. Step 5: Therefore, select the option referring to a Supreme Court judge. Verification / Alternative check: An alternative check is to recall that in typical polity notes, the removal of the CEC is always described as being “in the same manner as a Supreme Court judge,” emphasizing the very high threshold. Many exam-preparation books list removal procedures for different offices in a comparative table, where the CEC and Supreme Court judge are explicitly paired. This repeated association across multiple learning resources confirms that the correct comparison is with a Supreme Court judge. Why Other Options Are Wrong: The Chief Justice of a High Court: Though also a high judicial office, the Constitution does not state that the CEC is removed in the same way as a High Court Chief Justice. The Comptroller and Auditor-General of India: The CAG has a similar level of security of tenure, but Article 324 explicitly compares the CEC's removal to that of a Supreme Court judge, not the CAG. The Attorney-General of India: The Attorney-General holds office during the pleasure of the President and does not enjoy the same stringent removal procedure as a Supreme Court judge or the CEC. Common Pitfalls: Students often confuse which officers enjoy removal protection similar to Supreme Court judges, especially between the CAG, CEC and judges themselves. Another common mistake is to pick the Comptroller and Auditor-General by intuition, assuming all watchdog institutions share identical procedures. The key is to remember the exact constitutional wording linking the CEC specifically to the removal procedure of a Supreme Court judge. Final Answer: The Chief Election Commissioner of India can be removed in the same manner and on the same grounds as a Judge of the Supreme Court of India.

Indian Politics Questions