Question 1

The General Anti Avoidance Rule, often abbreviated as GAAR, was announced in the Union Budget 2012 to 2013 and later deferred. It was finally implemented in India from which date?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question belongs to the field of direct tax reforms and international taxation. The General Anti Avoidance Rule is a framework that allows tax authorities to deny tax benefits arising from transactions that are judged to be primarily tax avoidance arrangements rather than genuine commercial activities. In India, GAAR was proposed in the Union Budget 2012 to 2013 but its implementation was postponed multiple times after consultation with stakeholders. The question requires recalling the final date from which GAAR came into effect. Given Data / Assumptions: GAAR stands for General Anti Avoidance Rule. It was announced earlier and then deferred. The options list four possible implementation dates, all on 1 April of different years. Only one of these matches the final notified date for GAAR coming into force. Concept / Approach: Originally proposed to start in 2013, the implementation of GAAR was deferred to provide clarity and to avoid affecting genuine foreign investment. After revisions and guidelines, the government decided that GAAR provisions would apply from assessment year 2018 to 2019, corresponding to financial year 2017 to 2018. This means that the operational date for GAAR in terms of tax law became 1 April 2017. Therefore, among the four date options, 1 April 2017 is the correct answer. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that GAAR was postponed from its originally proposed start due to concerns from investors and industry. Step 2: Remember that after several deferments, the government fixed a final date for its introduction. Step 3: Link GAAR implementation with financial year 2017 to 2018, which begins on 1 April 2017. Step 4: Compare this with the four options and identify 1 April 2017 in the list. Step 5: Mark 1 April 2017 as the correct implementation date. Verification / Alternative check: If one remembers that GAAR started applying from assessment year 2018 to 2019, an easy way to verify is to subtract one year to get the previous financial year, which is 2017 to 2018, beginning on 1 April 2017. Budget speeches and Central Board of Direct Taxes circulars also mention that GAAR would be implemented from this date. Since the other options correspond either to earlier plans or to dates not associated with GAAR decisions, this cross check confirms that 1 April 2017 is correct. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 1 April 2015 and 1 April 2016 were considered at various points during discussions on implementation but do not represent the final adopted date. These years appear in early proposals or in media speculation but were later superseded. 1 April 2018 would be one year too late when compared with the actual enforcement timeline. Therefore, none of these dates match the official commencement of GAAR provisions in the Indian tax system. Common Pitfalls: Students often confuse announcement and implementation years. Because GAAR was first discussed in 2012 to 2013 and then deferred, some candidates incorrectly pick earlier years such as 2015 or 2016 out of habit. Others may assume that major reforms began only from 2018 and choose that year. The best way to avoid this confusion is to memorise the link between GAAR and assessment year 2018 to 2019, which directly points to financial year 2017 to 2018 and hence to 1 April 2017 as the start date. Final Answer: The General Anti Avoidance Rule was finally implemented in India with effect from 1 April 2017.

Question 2

In the context of cooperative federalism in India, Chief Ministers of States are ex officio members of which of the following national level bodies?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question checks understanding of planning and cooperative federal institutions that involve both the Union and the States. Historically, the National Development Council played an important role in approving plans and discussing development issues. It brought together Union ministers, Chief Ministers and other key leaders. Knowing which bodies include Chief Ministers as ex officio members helps students understand how Centre State coordination in planning has been organised in India. Given Data / Assumptions: The focus is on a national level body that includes Chief Ministers of States as members. Options list Finance Commission, Election Commission, NITI Commission and National Development Council. Only one of these bodies was designed as a forum where Chief Ministers participate by virtue of their office. The question uses a general description that applies over a long period of time. Concept / Approach: The National Development Council was set up to strengthen planning and development coordination. Its membership consisted of the Prime Minister, Union cabinet ministers, Chief Ministers of all States and administrators of union territories. It considered the five year plans and acted as a platform for discussion between the Union and States. Finance Commission, Election Commission and NITI Aayog do not include all Chief Ministers as full members in the same formal way. Therefore, National Development Council is the correct answer. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: List national bodies known for involving State leadership, especially Chief Ministers. Step 2: Recall that National Development Council was created as a development forum with Chief Ministers as key participants. Step 3: Observe that Finance Commission is an expert body with limited membership and not all Chief Ministers. Step 4: Note that Election Commission is an independent constitutional body consisting of Election Commissioners, not heads of State governments. Step 5: Select National Development Council as the body where Chief Ministers are members by virtue of their office. Verification / Alternative check: Reading about the planning process before the shift to NITI Aayog shows that National Development Council meetings were attended by all Chief Ministers and were chaired by the Prime Minister. Reports of these meetings invariably list State leaders as participants. In contrast, descriptions of Finance Commission and Election Commission show them as small expert bodies, while NITI Aayog has a Governing Council including Chief Ministers but the question and options refer to the older formulation of National Development Council that is widely used in traditional exam questions. This historical context confirms the answer. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Finance Commission is a constitutional body whose members are appointed experts; it receives memoranda from State governments but does not include Chief Ministers as members. Election Commission consists of the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners and is independent of the executive; Chief Ministers have no seat there. NITI Aayog has a different structure and came later, while the classic exam question on ex officio membership of Chief Ministers refers to National Development Council, which was specifically designed to bring them together at the central forum. Common Pitfalls: Candidates may confuse NITI Aayog with National Development Council because both deal with planning and include leaders from States. Others memorise only present institutions and forget that many exam questions still refer to older structures that were active at the time those questions were framed. To avoid such confusion, students should remember that in the conventional planning era, National Development Council was the body where Chief Ministers participated as ex officio members, and this fact still appears in multiple choice questions. Final Answer: Chief Ministers of States were ex officio members of the National Development Council in India.

Question 3

The Comptroller and Auditor General of India works most closely with which one of the following parliamentary committees when his audit reports on government accounts are examined?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question is about financial control and legislative oversight in the Indian parliamentary system. The Comptroller and Auditor General of India audits the receipts and expenditure of the Union and of the States. His reports are then laid before Parliament and examined by specific committees. Understanding which committee primarily scrutinises these audit reports is crucial for mastering the system of checks and balances in public finance. Given Data / Assumptions: The constitutional authority in focus is the Comptroller and Auditor General of India. The question asks about the parliamentary committee with which this office is most closely connected. Options include the Public Accounts Committee, the Estimates Committee, the Committee on Public Undertakings and All of these. Only one committee has the main responsibility of examining audit reports on government accounts. Concept / Approach: The Public Accounts Committee examines the appropriation accounts and audit reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General relating to the Union Government. It looks into whether money granted by Parliament has been spent for the approved purpose and with due economy. The Estimates Committee focuses on suggestions for efficiency and economy in government operations based on budget proposals. The Committee on Public Undertakings examines reports related to public sector enterprises. Among these, the committee that is most directly and regularly linked with the Comptroller and Auditor General is the Public Accounts Committee. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall the main function of the Public Accounts Committee, which is to scrutinise government expenditure after it has been incurred. Step 2: Note that this scrutiny is based on the audit reports submitted by the Comptroller and Auditor General. Step 3: Recognise that the Estimates Committee focuses on future expenditure plans and the Committee on Public Undertakings on specific enterprises, not on general audit reports. Step 4: Compare the options and identify the committee whose work is inseparably tied to the Comptroller and Auditor General audit. Step 5: Select the Public Accounts Committee as the correct answer. Verification / Alternative check: Parliamentary procedure books clearly state that Public Accounts Committee examines the accounts showing the appropriation of sums granted by Parliament and such other accounts laid before it as the committee may think fit. These accounts and related audit observations originate from the Comptroller and Auditor General reports. While the other committees may use information from various sources, only the Public Accounts Committee has this systematic linkage to CAG audit material. This confirms that it is the closest connected committee. Why Other Options Are Wrong: The Estimates Committee looks at proposals for expenditure contained in the budget and suggests economies, so it is forward looking rather than focussed on completed accounts and audit remarks. The Committee on Public Undertakings examines the reports and accounts of public sector companies and ensures good corporate governance, which is a narrower scope. Although CAG reports may feed into its work, the direct and broad connection between CAG reports and parliamentary oversight exists primarily through the Public Accounts Committee, not through all three committees equally. Common Pitfalls: Some candidates see the option All of these and select it because CAG work can touch many committees indirectly. Others mix up Estimates and Public Accounts due to similarity in names. To avoid such errors, students should remember that appropriation and audit come together in the work of the Public Accounts Committee, while estimates relate to the planning of expenditure. Keeping this simple association in mind usually leads to the correct answer quickly. Final Answer: The Comptroller and Auditor General of India is most closely connected with The Public Accounts Committee, which examines his audit reports on government accounts.

Question 4

Which among the following is a key characteristic of the laissez faire economic system?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question comes from basic economic theory and the study of different economic systems. Laissez faire is a French term that literally means let do or let be and is associated with a philosophy of minimal interference by the state in economic matters. Understanding this idea helps candidates distinguish between free market, mixed and planned economic systems and to answer conceptual questions about government regulation. Given Data / Assumptions: The term in focus is laissez faire system. The task is to pick a characteristic that defines this system. Options mention heavy regulation, maximum intervention, no government intervention and a socialist system. Only one of these accurately reflects the pure laissez faire principle. Concept / Approach: In a laissez faire system, economic decisions such as production, pricing and distribution are left largely to market forces of demand and supply. The state refrains from interfering through controls, subsidies or detailed regulations. The belief is that free markets allocate resources more efficiently than government planning. This approach is the opposite of systems that emphasise strong state control or socialist planning. Therefore, the defining characteristic is very little or no government intervention in economic activities. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Translate the term laissez faire from French to understand its literal and philosophical meaning of letting things take their own course. Step 2: Recall that in such a system, private individuals and firms make most economic decisions without state direction. Step 3: Examine the options and look for the one that explicitly states absence of government intervention. Step 4: Identify the option that says no government intervention in economic activities. Step 5: Select this option as the correct answer and reject options that describe strong regulation or socialism. Verification / Alternative check: Standard economics textbooks describe classical liberal thinkers as supporters of laissez faire policies. They argue for minimal taxes, few restrictions and limited government roles, mainly confined to providing public goods and enforcing contracts. This confirms that the core idea of laissez faire is minimal state involvement. Socialist systems, by contrast, involve a high degree of planning and public ownership. Therefore, matching this conceptual understanding with the options leads directly to the choice mentioning no government intervention. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Market forces are highly regulated describes a system where government plays an active role through rules, licences or controls, which contradicts laissez faire philosophy. Maximum government intervention would fit command economies or extreme forms of state socialism rather than free market systems. Saying it is always a socialist system is incorrect because laissez faire is commonly associated with capitalism and private ownership, not with socialism where the state owns and manages major resources. These options reverse or distort the classical meaning of the term. Common Pitfalls: Some candidates may confuse laissez faire with welfare state policies and assume that less intervention still means a significant government role in regulating markets. Others may be thrown off by the phrase maximum government intervention, thinking it emphasises importance and therefore must be right. To avoid such mistakes, aspirants should focus on the root idea that laissez faire is about letting markets operate on their own with as little state interference as possible. Final Answer: The key characteristic of a laissez faire economic system is no government intervention in economic activities, leaving decisions mainly to market forces.

Question 5

In the history of defence legislation in India, in which year was the Indian Navy Act passed by Parliament?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question concerns basic knowledge of defence related Acts in independent India. The Army Act, Air Force Act and Navy Act provide the legal framework for discipline, administration and functioning of the three armed services. Knowing the years in which these laws were passed helps candidates answer direct factual questions and place major defence legislation in a chronological context. Given Data / Assumptions: The specific statute in question is the Indian Navy Act. The task is to choose the year in which this Act was passed. Options include four years 1927, 1937, 1947 and 1957. Only one of these matches the post independence law governing naval service conditions. Concept / Approach: The present legal framework for the Indian Navy is based on the Navy Act, 1957, which replaced earlier colonial era regulations. The years 1927 and 1937 correspond to the pre independence period when different naval discipline Acts were in place under British rule. The year 1947 is the year of independence, but the specific comprehensive Navy Act came slightly later. Therefore, the correct year for the Indian Navy Act as known in modern Indian law is 1957. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that many key defence Acts were updated after independence to reflect Indian control and terminology. Step 2: Remember that the Navy Act commonly referred to in exam material carries the year 1957 in its title. Step 3: Compare this memory with the four options given. Step 4: Recognise that only 1957 matches the known title Navy Act, 1957. Step 5: Select 1957 and reject the earlier years associated with colonial regulations. Verification / Alternative check: One can verify by recalling that the Army Act, 1950 and the Air Force Act, 1950 were enacted soon after independence, while the comprehensive Navy Act followed a few years later in 1957. This pattern of defence legislation is often summarised together in exam notes. Additionally, there is no widely used statutory reference called Navy Act, 1927 or Navy Act, 1937 in post independence India, reinforcing that 1957 is the relevant year for this question. Why Other Options Are Wrong: The years 1927 and 1937 refer to a period when India was still under British rule, and any naval laws from that time would be colonial enactments, not the present Indian Navy Act. The year 1947 marks independence but not the passage of a new comprehensive Navy Act. Including these years in options is meant to confuse candidates who guess based on important historic dates instead of recalling the specific statute title. None of these years correspond to the modern Navy Act. Common Pitfalls: Many candidates are attracted to 1947 because of its association with independence and may assume that all major changes occurred exactly then. Others may pick an earlier year thinking that colonial laws were simply renamed after independence. To avoid such mistakes, aspirants should memorise the standard references Army Act, 1950, Air Force Act, 1950 and Navy Act, 1957 as a simple trio of defence Acts with their respective years. Final Answer: The Indian Navy Act that governs naval service in independent India was passed in the year 1957 and is known as the Navy Act, 1957.

Question 6

According to the Constitution and law in India, what is the prescribed retirement age of the Prime Minister of India?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question tests basic knowledge of the nature of the Prime Minister office in the Indian parliamentary system. In some posts, such as judges of the Supreme Court or High Courts, there is a fixed retirement age. However, the Prime Minister is part of the political executive, not a civil servant or judge. Understanding that the position depends on majority support in the Lok Sabha rather than on a fixed age limit is key for answering this question correctly. Given Data / Assumptions: The office in question is the Prime Minister of India. The query is about prescribed retirement age. Options present age limits of 60, 65, 70 years and an option indicating no upper age limit. The Constitution and laws must be the basis for the answer, not personal opinion. Concept / Approach: The Prime Minister holds office as long as he or she enjoys the confidence of the majority in the Lok Sabha. There is no article in the Constitution setting an upper age for being appointed or continuing as Prime Minister, apart from basic eligibility conditions like being a member of Parliament and being a citizen of India. Therefore, the correct answer is that there is no upper age limit specified. Any age related change in leadership is political, not legal. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that the Prime Minister is the leader of the majority in the Lok Sabha and is appointed by the President. Step 2: Remember that the term of office depends on maintaining majority support, not on a fixed tenure or retirement age. Step 3: Consider whether any constitutional article specifies an age after which a person cannot be Prime Minister. Step 4: Recognise that such a provision does not exist. Step 5: Select the option stating no upper age limit prescribed as the correct answer. Verification / Alternative check: An alternative check is to compare with offices that do have age limits, such as judges, who retire at 65 or 62 years, and members of the civil services, who retire at ages set by service rules. For the Prime Minister, one finds no such entry in the constitutional text or in the Representation of the People Acts. Instead, the only requirements relate to membership of Parliament and absence of certain disqualifications. This confirms that legal rules do not prescribe a retirement age for the Prime Minister. Why Other Options Are Wrong: The options 60 years, 65 years and 70 years are common retirement ages in various services or hypothetical guesses, but they have no basis in the constitutional provisions relating to the office of Prime Minister. Selecting any of these would imply a rule that does not exist. The absence of a fixed age is intentional, because in a democracy the choice of leader is left to elected representatives and the electorate, not to automatic age cut offs for political offices. Common Pitfalls: Some candidates assume that all important offices must have retirement ages and therefore pick 65 years, confusing the Prime Minister with judges of the Supreme Court. Others may think that a large age like 70 years is a likely compromise and choose it without checking any legal text. The correct approach is to recall that political offices in a parliamentary democracy usually do not have fixed retirement ages, since electoral processes determine leadership changes. Final Answer: There is no upper age limit prescribed in the Constitution or law for the retirement of the Prime Minister of India; the tenure depends on majority support in the Lok Sabha.

Question 7

According to a Central Statistics Office report based on payroll and related data, nearly how many crore jobs were created in the country in the ten month period up to June of that year?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question is drawn from Indian economy and current statistics related to employment. The Central Statistics Office used payroll data from sources such as the Employees Provident Fund Organisation to estimate formal job creation over a recent ten month period ending in June of a particular year. The figure was widely reported in the media. Examinations often pick such headline numbers to test whether candidates keep track of important economic indicators. Given Data / Assumptions: The data source is a Central Statistics Office report. The time period is ten months up to June in that year. The subject is number of jobs created in the country. Options list four possible values in crore units 1.2, 2.4, 3.5 and 6.9. Concept / Approach: The CSO analysis of payroll data suggested that close to 1.2 crore new jobs were created in the formal sector over that ten month period. The figure was derived from enrolments in organisations like EPFO, ESIC and related schemes. While the exact methodology and interpretation were debated, the reported headline number remained around 1.2 crore jobs. Therefore, among the given options, 1.2 crore is the figure that matches this widely cited statistic. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall reading about a CSO report that estimated job creation based on payroll enrolments rather than only survey data. Step 2: Remember that the figure commonly mentioned in news articles at that time was around 1.2 crore jobs. Step 3: Convert this memory into the nearest value among the given options. Step 4: Compare 1.2 crore with 2.4 crore, 3.5 crore and 6.9 crore, which are significantly higher. Step 5: Select 1.2 crore as the correct answer. Verification / Alternative check: One alternative check is to think about the plausibility of the numbers. A figure like 6.9 crore jobs in ten months would imply almost seven crore new formal jobs in less than a year, which is unrealistically high compared to the size and historical trends of the labour market. Values around 2.4 or 3.5 crore would also be unusually large. The figure close to 1.2 crore fits better with typical yearly employment additions and matches the number quoted in economic analysis at the time, confirming it as the correct choice. Why Other Options Are Wrong: The options 2.4 crore, 3.5 crore and 6.9 crore are distractors that either double, nearly triple or multiply several times the reported estimate. They may loosely reflect millions if someone misreads the original findings, but they are not the actual figure cited in the CSO report. Selecting any of these would indicate a misremembered magnitude of the statistic, which can affect understanding of employment trends. Common Pitfalls: Candidates sometimes confuse million and crore units, leading to errors when converting numbers. For example, 12 million jobs might be misinterpreted as 1.2 crore or 12 crore. Others may simply pick a larger number believing that economic performance announcements use big figures. To avoid this, aspirants should practise converting million to crore and vice versa and pay careful attention to units and decimal places when revising economic data. Final Answer: The Central Statistics Office report indicated that nearly 1.2 crore jobs were created in the country during the ten month period up to June of that year.

Question 8

Under the Liberalised Remittance Scheme of the Reserve Bank of India, up to what maximum amount in United States dollars per financial year may an authorised dealer allow remittances by a resident individual for permitted current or capital account …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question is from the area of foreign exchange management and banking awareness. The Liberalised Remittance Scheme, commonly called LRS, allows resident individuals to remit a limited amount of foreign exchange abroad every financial year for permitted capital and current account transactions, such as travel, education, investments and maintenance of relatives. Examinations often ask for the current ceiling on such remittances because it reflects policy on capital account liberalisation. Given Data / Assumptions: The scheme in focus is the Liberalised Remittance Scheme of the Reserve Bank of India. The question asks for the maximum amount in United States dollars per financial year. The limit applies to resident individuals and covers both current and capital account transactions. Options provide four different ceiling values, ranging from 2,00,000 to 3,50,000 dollars. Concept / Approach: Under LRS, the Reserve Bank periodically reviews the per person annual limit. After upward revisions from earlier levels, the limit was fixed at USD 2,50,000 per financial year for a resident individual. This limit applies irrespective of the purpose, as long as the transaction is permitted under the foreign exchange rules. Therefore, among the given options, the correct ceiling is USD 2,50,000 and not the lower or higher values listed. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that LRS allows resident individuals to remit a defined amount of foreign exchange per year without seeking prior approval in most cases. Step 2: Remember that the current widely tested limit is two lakh fifty thousand United States dollars per individual per financial year. Step 3: Compare this figure with the four options provided. Step 4: Identify USD 2,50,000 as matching the remembered limit exactly. Step 5: Select USD 2,50,000 and reject the other values. Verification / Alternative check: An alternative check is to recall that earlier the limit had been USD 2,00,000 and was raised by USD 50,000 to reach the current threshold. This incremental change is frequently mentioned in banking awareness material. None of the official circulars mention a figure as high as USD 3,00,000 or USD 3,50,000 for the standard LRS limit, so these numbers are easily ruled out. This supports the selection of USD 2,50,000 as the correct ceiling. Why Other Options Are Wrong: USD 2,00,000 corresponds to an older limit before the upward revision and is now outdated for examination purposes. USD 3,00,000 and USD 3,50,000 are not standard LRS ceilings and appear only as distractors to test whether candidates know the correct updated figure. Selecting any of these would show that the candidate has either memorised an obsolete value or is guessing based on round numbers rather than relying on precise policy information. Common Pitfalls: Candidates sometimes remember only that the limit was increased and wrongly assume that it must have reached USD 3,00,000 or more. Others recall the earlier figure of USD 2,00,000 and do not realise that a revision has taken place. To avoid such mistakes, it is important to periodically check updated banking guidelines and to note both the earlier value and the new one with a simple memory tag, such as LRS now quarter million dollars per year. Final Answer: Under the Liberalised Remittance Scheme, a resident individual may remit up to USD 2,50,000 per financial year for permitted transactions.

Question 9

In the context of Smart Cities and the Regional Smart City Initiative, which of the following is NOT one of the four core pillars of smart planning?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Smart city planning focuses on a small set of core pillars that guide investments and policies so that cities become more efficient, livable and future ready. Many competitive exam questions check whether you remember these standard pillars or can identify an option that does not belong in the officially stated list. In this question you are asked to pick the option that is NOT one of the four pillars of smart planning connected to Smart Cities and the Regional Smart City Initiative. Given Data / Assumptions: The question refers to four specific pillars of smart planning. Options given are Mobility, Sustainability, Infrastructure, Connectivity and Security (as an additional distractor). The standard four pillars in this context are Connectivity, Mobility, Security and Sustainability. You must choose the single option that is not part of this commonly cited quartet. Concept / Approach: Smart city frameworks usually group goals under a few memorable headings. In the Regional Smart City Initiative documentation, the four pillars of smart planning are Connectivity, Mobility, Security and Sustainability. Connectivity refers to digital and physical linkages, Mobility covers efficient transport, Security deals with safety and resilience, and Sustainability focuses on environmental and long term resource use. Any option outside this list is the correct answer here. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall the four named pillars for smart planning in the concerned initiative. Step 2: List them clearly as Connectivity, Mobility, Security and Sustainability. Step 3: Compare each option with this authoritative list. Step 4: Mobility matches one pillar, so it is not the answer. Step 5: Sustainability also matches one of the four pillars. Step 6: Connectivity is again directly one of the four pillars. Step 7: Infrastructure does not appear in the standard four pillar list and therefore is the odd one out. Verification / Alternative check: A quick cross check method is to remember that these four pillars are often abbreviated mentally as CMSS: Connectivity, Mobility, Security and Sustainability. When you write down the initials of the options, only one does not map easily to this memory aid. Infrastructure is a broad concept and is certainly important for any city, but it is not named as a distinct pillar in this specific four pillar framework. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Mobility: This is explicitly one of the four pillars and relates to transport and movement of people and goods in a smart, efficient manner. Sustainability: This pillar relates to environmental balance, energy efficiency and long term viability and therefore clearly belongs to the standard set. Connectivity: This covers digital networks, broadband and integrated transport links and is again directly named as a core pillar. Security: Often added in explanations to refer to safe, resilient and secure cities and is part of the cited four pillar model, not an outsider. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes over generalise and think infrastructure must always be a named pillar because infrastructure is indispensable for any development strategy. Another mistake is to guess from what feels important in everyday language instead of recalling the precise vocabulary used in government or policy documents. Some candidates also confuse the four pillar model with other smart city frameworks that highlight different sets such as economy, people or governance. Always anchor your answer in the exact wording of the referenced initiative. Final Answer: The option that is NOT one of the four core pillars of smart planning in this context is Infrastructure.

Question 10

As per the traditional classification before recent territorial reorganisations, how many Union Territories are there in India?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Questions on the number of States and Union Territories in India are very common in general knowledge and competitive exams. Although there have been changes due to reorganisation in recent years, this question clearly refers to the traditional count used in many earlier examinations. Knowing these basic constitutional facts helps you with polity, geography and current affairs sections together. Given Data / Assumptions: The question asks for the number of Union Territories in India. No specific date is mentioned, so exam setters usually refer to the widely accepted count before the more recent reorganisations. Options include 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. At the time many standard GK questions were framed, India had 7 Union Territories. Concept / Approach: The Constitution of India allows for two main types of administrative units: States and Union Territories. Union Territories are regions that are directly administered by the Union government, though some have legislatures with varying degrees of autonomy. To answer a static GK question like this, you rely on the standard count from the period relevant to most question banks, which is 7 Union Territories. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall the widely known list of Union Territories such as Delhi, Puducherry, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Chandigarh, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Daman and Diu and Lakshadweep for the traditional period. Step 2: Count these entities, which comes to a total of 7. Step 3: Compare this number against the options provided. Step 4: Option 7 exactly matches the counted value and therefore is the correct answer. Step 5: Eliminate the other numerical options as they do not coincide with the standard total used in most older GK questions. Verification / Alternative check: A quick verification technique is to write initials of each traditional Union Territory in a line and then count them. Most coaching notes for the static polity portion list exactly 7 names for the period referenced in many exams. If you remember any mnemonic or map illustration from your study material, you will again arrive at the same count of 7. Therefore option 7 remains consistent across alternative methods of recall. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 6: This underestimates the number of Union Territories and ignores at least one recognised region in the traditional list. 5: This is even lower and clearly inconsistent with every standard source on Indian polity for that period. 8 and 9: These numbers are higher than the traditional count and would only relate to later reorganisations or hypothetical scenarios, not to the classical static GK value. Common Pitfalls: A frequent mistake is mixing up the latest news about creation or merger of territories with the static data used in older question banks. Exam questions may lag behind recent changes, so you must pay attention to the context and framing. Another pitfall is to confuse number of States with number of Union Territories or to misremember merged entities such as Dadra and Nagar Haveli with Daman and Diu. Careful reading and clear mental lists prevent these errors. Final Answer: Thus, the traditionally accepted number of Union Territories of India for this static GK question is 7.

Question 11

Which Indian State has the highest number of Lok Sabha seats in the House of the People?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Representation in the Lok Sabha, the House of the People, is broadly based on population. Therefore, larger States by population usually have more seats. Competitive exams often ask which State contributes the maximum number of members to the Lok Sabha, because this highlights the political weight of different regions in national level decision making. Given Data / Assumptions: The question is about the State with the highest number of Lok Sabha seats. Options include Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and West Bengal. The allocation of Lok Sabha seats has been frozen for a period based on earlier censuses, so the relative ranking is stable. Uttar Pradesh is known to send the largest number of members to the Lok Sabha. Concept / Approach: The Constitution fixes a maximum size for the Lok Sabha and provides that seat distribution among States should be proportional to their population, subject to future delimitation exercises. After the current freeze, Uttar Pradesh has remained the State with the most seats. Remembering this simple fact is enough to answer correctly. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that Uttar Pradesh is the most populous State of India. Step 2: Recall from polity tables that Uttar Pradesh has 80 Lok Sabha seats, the highest for any State. Step 3: Note that Maharashtra, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and West Bengal each have lower seat counts than Uttar Pradesh. Step 4: Compare all options and identify the State with the maximum known value. Step 5: Conclude that Uttar Pradesh is the correct choice. Verification / Alternative check: You can cross check using approximate seat numbers from your study table: Maharashtra has 48, West Bengal 42, Bihar 40 and Madhya Pradesh 29 Lok Sabha seats, all clearly lower than 80 for Uttar Pradesh. Even if you do not remember the exact numbers, the fact that Uttar Pradesh has far more constituencies is repeatedly highlighted in news and exam material, which reinforces this conclusion. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Maharashtra: Although it is economically important and has a large number of seats, it still has fewer seats than Uttar Pradesh. Bihar: Also highly populated, but with significantly fewer seats than the leading State. Madhya Pradesh: A large State by area but not the top contributor by Lok Sabha seats. West Bengal: A major State in eastern India, yet below Uttar Pradesh in seat count. Common Pitfalls: Some candidates confuse economic size or media attention with parliamentary strength and may wrongly pick Maharashtra. Others may misremember numerical tables and guess based on rough intuition. It is helpful to memorise at least the top few States by Lok Sabha seats, with Uttar Pradesh clearly at number one, so that such static GK questions are free marks in the exam. Final Answer: The State with the highest number of Lok Sabha seats is Uttar Pradesh.

Question 12

The ideas of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity that influenced the Indian national movement were taken from which famous revolution?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The slogan of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity is a classic expression of modern democratic values. In Indian freedom struggle literature, this trio of ideals is often mentioned because it inspired many nationalist leaders and shaped the vision of a just and democratic Indian state. Exam questions test whether you can link this famous phrase to its historical origin. Given Data / Assumptions: The question asks about the revolution from which the ideas of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity were taken. Options include French, American, Russian and Chinese Revolutions and the Industrial Revolution. The phrase is historically associated with the French Revolution of the late eighteenth century. Concept / Approach: The French Revolution of 1789 is widely regarded as a turning point in world history that challenged monarchy and promoted republican ideals. One of its enduring legacies is the motto Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, which later became officially associated with the French Republic. Nationalist and constitutional debates in India drew heavily from this vocabulary of modern rights and citizenship. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify the phrase Liberty, Equality and Fraternity as a political slogan rather than a technological or economic term. Step 2: Recall that the French Revolution adopted this slogan to summarise its core goals of freedom, social equality and brotherhood. Step 3: Note that the American Revolution focused on liberty and representation but did not popularise this exact trio of words in the same famous form. Step 4: Recognise that Russian and Chinese Revolutions stressed socialism, communism and class struggle rather than this particular slogan. Step 5: Choose French Revolution as the only option that directly matches the origin of the phrase. Verification / Alternative check: Another way to verify is to remember that Liberty, Equality, Fraternity is today the official motto of France and appears in French civic symbolism. Textbooks on modern world history and NCERT chapters on the French Revolution clearly highlight this phrase. When re reading Indian Constitution debates, you also find references to the influence of the French slogan on the framing of the Preamble, which again confirms the correct link. Why Other Options Are Wrong: American Revolution: Strongly associated with No taxation without representation and life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, not with Liberty, Equality, Fraternity as a triad. Russian Revolution: Known for slogans like All power to the Soviets and Peace, Land, Bread, focusing on socialist transformation. Chinese Revolution: Connected with communist revolution, agrarian reforms and Maoist thought, not this specific phrase. Industrial Revolution: Refers to technological and economic changes, not a political revolution with such a human rights slogan. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes confuse the overall spread of democratic ideas with the precise slogan used by each movement. Another frequent mistake is to mix up phrases from the American Declaration of Independence with those of the French Revolution. Paying attention to exact wording in your history notes prevents these mix ups. Always link Liberty, Equality, Fraternity firmly with the French experience. Final Answer: The ideas of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity that influenced the Indian national movement were taken from the French Revolution.

Question 13

The Kaushal Kendra skilling centre under the Pradhan Mantri Mudra Yojana was inaugurated in which Indian city?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Pradhan Mantri Mudra Yojana is a flagship scheme aimed at promoting small entrepreneurs by providing easier credit. Alongside finance, skilling initiatives such as Kaushal Kendras help people actually build the abilities they need to run and expand micro and small enterprises. Questions that combine the name of a scheme with a specific location test both your awareness of government programmes and your memory of recent current affairs. Given Data / Assumptions: The question asks for the city in which a Kaushal Kendra skilling centre under Pradhan Mantri Mudra Yojana was inaugurated. Options are Noida, Kolkata, Mumbai, Hyderabad and Pune. News reports at the time highlighted the inauguration of such a Kaushal Kendra in Noida. Concept / Approach: Mudra Yojana supports entrepreneurs by offering different categories of loans such as Shishu, Kishor and Tarun. However, financial support alone is not enough; people also need skills training. Therefore, dedicated skilling centres under or alongside schemes are set up in selected cities. When you see a question about a one time inauguration, it usually refers to a specific news event, so you must recall that exact combination of scheme and city from your current affairs notes. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall reading about a Kaushal Kendra linked to Mudra Yojana in daily current affairs compilations. Step 2: Remember that the city mentioned in that context was Noida in Uttar Pradesh. Step 3: Compare this recollection with all the options given. Step 4: Verify that Noida appears exactly as one of the choices. Step 5: Select Noida as the correct answer and eliminate the remaining metropolitan cities. Verification / Alternative check: If you are unsure, you can use elimination based on typical patterns. Many skilling and IT related pilot centres are launched in Noida due to its strong infrastructure and proximity to Delhi. Some other schemes may locate facilities in Mumbai, Kolkata or Hyderabad, but the specific pairing of Kaushal Kendra under Mudra Yojana with Noida is commonly printed in June and July style current affairs booklets. When multiple sources match this city, your confidence in Noida as the correct option increases. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Kolkata: A major eastern metro, but not the city mentioned in the inauguration of this particular Kaushal Kendra under Mudra Yojana. Mumbai: Often hosts financial sector initiatives, yet this specific skilling centre was not launched there. Hyderabad: Known for IT and pharma hubs, but not the location of the Kaushal Kendra described in the question. Pune: Important in education and industry, still not the city named in official news for this event. Common Pitfalls: A common error is to guess a metro city based only on general reputation rather than on specific memory of the news. Another pitfall is confusing Kaushal Vikas Kendras under Skill India with this Mudra linked Kaushal Kendra event. To avoid losing marks, revise current affairs summaries where schemes, locations and launch dates are linked together in short notes. Final Answer: The Kaushal Kendra skilling centre under Pradhan Mantri Mudra Yojana was inaugurated in Noida.

Question 14

As of February 2018, who was appointed as the new Governor of Tamil Nadu?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The post of Governor is an important constitutional office at the State level in India. Current affairs questions frequently ask about new appointments, transfers and additional charge arrangements for Governors. This question specifically targets your memory of who held the office of Governor of Tamil Nadu around February 2018. Given Data / Assumptions: The question clearly mentions the time reference as February 2018. It asks for the person who was appointed as the new Governor of Tamil Nadu at that time. Options include Banwarilal Purohit, K Rosaiah, Satyapal Malik, Subramanian Swamy and C Vidyasagar Rao. Banwarilal Purohit took charge as Governor of Tamil Nadu in late 2017 and continued in 2018. Concept / Approach: Governors are appointed by the President and often shifted from one State to another. Sometimes an existing Governor holds additional charge of another State until a full time Governor is appointed. For Tamil Nadu, C Vidyasagar Rao earlier held additional charge, after which Banwarilal Purohit was appointed as the regular Governor. To answer correctly, you must match the time period and the person who actually held the office as substantive Governor. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that C Vidyasagar Rao, Governor of Maharashtra, had additional charge of Tamil Nadu for some time. Step 2: Remember reading that Banwarilal Purohit, previously Governor of Assam, was appointed as the new full time Governor of Tamil Nadu. Step 3: Note that this appointment was effective by the end of 2017, and therefore he was in office during February 2018. Step 4: Compare this information with the list of given options. Step 5: Select Banwarilal Purohit as the correct answer and rule out the other names. Verification / Alternative check: One way to check is to see how coaching material describes the sequence: first additional charge by C Vidyasagar Rao, then appointment of Banwarilal Purohit as the new Governor. K Rosaiah had served earlier as Governor of Tamil Nadu, but his tenure ended before this period. Satyapal Malik is linked to other States like Jammu and Kashmir and later Goa and Meghalaya, while Subramanian Swamy is a Member of Parliament and economist, not a Governor. This pattern confirms that Banwarilal Purohit alone fits the time frame and role. Why Other Options Are Wrong: K Rosaiah: He did serve as Governor of Tamil Nadu in the past, but not as the newly appointed Governor as of February 2018. Satyapal Malik: Known for holding gubernatorial posts in different States, but not in Tamil Nadu at this particular time. Subramanian Swamy: A senior political leader and parliamentarian, but never appointed as Governor of Tamil Nadu. C Vidyasagar Rao: Held additional charge earlier, however he was not the new substantive Governor in February 2018. Common Pitfalls: Candidates may confuse earlier Governors with the one currently in office at a given date, especially when there is an overlap with additional charge arrangements. Another mistake is to mark a very familiar political name, even if that person has not actually held the gubernatorial office in that State. Careful reading of dates and designations in current affairs notes prevents such errors. Final Answer: As of February 2018, the Governor of Tamil Nadu was Banwarilal Purohit.

Question 15

In India, the Union Cabinet chaired by Prime Minister Narendra Modi has approved the establishment of the National Institute of Mental Health Rehabilitation (NIMHR) in which city?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question checks your awareness of recent decisions of the Union Cabinet related to the social sector, especially mental health and rehabilitation services. The National Institute of Mental Health Rehabilitation (NIMHR) is an important initiative aimed at providing specialised services, research, and training in the field of mental health rehabilitation. Knowing where such national level institutes are located is a common theme in competitive exam general knowledge sections and helps you connect locations with particular flagship institutions. Given Data / Assumptions: The Union Cabinet is chaired by the Prime Minister of India. The Cabinet has approved the establishment of NIMHR. The question asks for the Indian city where NIMHR has been approved for establishment. The options given are Gwalior, Bhopal, Jammu, and New Delhi. Concept / Approach: This is a factual recall question from current affairs and Indian polity related general knowledge. The approach is to remember that NIMHR has been approved in the state of Madhya Pradesh, in Sehore district, near the city of Bhopal. Many questions in exams will frame such institutes by state or city, so associating the institute with its correct location is critical. Once you recall that the institute is linked with Sehore district on the Bhopal Indore corridor in Madhya Pradesh, you can match that to the closest city option, which is Bhopal. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that NIMHR is a national level institute under the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment focusing on mental health rehabilitation.Step 2: Remember that the Cabinet decision placed NIMHR in Madhya Pradesh, specifically in Sehore district on the Bhopal side of the highway.Step 3: Look at the options and identify which city corresponds to this location in Madhya Pradesh.Step 4: Since Sehore is near Bhopal and the project is commonly associated with Bhopal in exam questions, select Bhopal as the correct answer. Verification / Alternative check: An alternative way to verify is to recall news coverage that explicitly mentioned the National Institute of Mental Health Rehabilitation, Sehore, Madhya Pradesh, near Bhopal. Many current affairs capsules summarised the Cabinet decision as approval for NIMHR at Sehore near Bhopal. No mainstream source links NIMHR to Gwalior, Jammu, or New Delhi as its location. Therefore Bhopal is the only option that aligns with the official announcement and repeated exam oriented summaries. This cross check confirms that Bhopal is the correct choice. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Gwalior is an important city in Madhya Pradesh but it is not associated with the sanction of NIMHR, so this option is factually incorrect for this institute. Jammu is a major city in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and does not figure in the Cabinet decision for NIMHR, so it cannot be the correct answer here. New Delhi is the national capital and the seat of the Union Government, but the decision was to locate the institute in Madhya Pradesh, not in the capital region, so New Delhi is incorrect for this question. Common Pitfalls: A common mistake is to mark New Delhi because many national institutions and ministries are based there, so candidates assume that every new national level body will also be established in the capital. Another error is to focus only on the state name Madhya Pradesh and then guess a wrong city like Gwalior if the candidate does not remember the correct location. Some aspirants also confuse NIMHR with other mental health institutions in cities like Bengaluru or with the National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences, which is different and located in another state. Carefully remembering that NIMHR is linked with Sehore near Bhopal helps avoid such confusion. Final Answer: The National Institute of Mental Health Rehabilitation (NIMHR) approved by the Union Cabinet is to be established in the city of Bhopal.

Question 16

The first informal summit between Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Russian President Vladimir Putin in 2018 was held in which Russian city?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question tests your knowledge of important India Russia diplomatic events, specifically the first informal summit between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and President Vladimir Putin in 2018. Informal summits are high level meetings without a very rigid official agenda, used to strengthen strategic and personal ties between leaders. Remembering the host city for such summits is important for current affairs and international relations questions in competitive exams. Given Data / Assumptions: The question refers to the first informal summit between Narendra Modi and Vladimir Putin in 2018. The summit took place in Russia and the question asks for the name of the Russian city. The options are Moscow, Sochi, New Delhi, and St. Petersburg. We assume the exam is asking about the widely reported informal summit held in May 2018. Concept / Approach: The approach to this question is based on factual recall from international current affairs. In 2018, India and Russia held an informal summit at Sochi, a resort city on the Black Sea coast. Such summits are part of a broader strategy of India to have informal leader level meetings with major partners, similar to the Wuhan and Mamallapuram summits with China. Identifying the correct city involves recognising that Sochi is a popular venue in Russia for important international events, including this India Russia informal summit. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall the news that Prime Minister Narendra Modi travelled to Russia in May 2018 for an informal summit with President Vladimir Putin.Step 2: Remember that the summit was held in a resort city on the Black Sea coast rather than in the capital Moscow.Step 3: Connect this detail with the name Sochi, which is a well known Russian resort city that has hosted major events like the Winter Olympics.Step 4: Compare the options and choose Sochi as the only option that matches the recorded venue for the informal summit. Verification / Alternative check: To verify, you can recall that multiple current affairs summaries and banking exam capsules framed the question exactly as “Informal summit held in which city of Russia” with the answer Sochi. You can also remember that Moscow and St. Petersburg are often used for formal state visits, while Sochi has become a favourite for informal or retreat style meetings of the Russian President. No reports indicate that this specific informal summit was hosted in New Delhi, since New Delhi is in India, not Russia. All these checks confirm that Sochi is the correct answer. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Moscow is the capital of Russia and many official summits take place there, but the 2018 informal summit with Prime Minister Modi was deliberately held away from the capital in Sochi, so Moscow is incorrect here. New Delhi is the capital of India and clearly not a Russian city, so it cannot answer the question that specifically asks for a city of Russia. St. Petersburg is another major Russian city that often hosts cultural and political events, but again the specific informal summit in question took place in Sochi, not in St. Petersburg. Common Pitfalls: One common mistake is to pick Moscow by default whenever a question mentions an international summit in Russia, due to familiarity with the capital city. Another pitfall is confusing the Sochi summit with other India Russia meetings or mixing this up with informal summits held with leaders of other countries in different cities. Candidates may also overlook the phrase “city of Russia” and wrongly consider New Delhi due to frequent India centred news. Careful reading and recall that the summit was framed in exam material as the Sochi informal summit helps avoid these errors. Final Answer: The first informal summit between Narendra Modi and Vladimir Putin in 2018 was held in the Russian city of Sochi.

Question 17

The Communications Compatibility and Security Agreement (COMCASA) two plus two dialogue between the foreign and defence ministers of India and the United States was scheduled to be held in which city?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question focuses on India United States strategic relations, particularly the two plus two ministerial dialogue where the Communications Compatibility and Security Agreement, commonly called COMCASA, was a central agenda item. The two plus two format brings together the foreign and defence ministers of both countries, and its venue often appears in current affairs questions. Understanding where such high level strategic dialogues are planned and held shows awareness of India's evolving defence and foreign policy partnerships. Given Data / Assumptions: The question refers to the COMCASA related two plus two dialogue between India and the United States. The participants are the foreign and defence ministers of both countries. The question asks for the city where this dialogue was scheduled to be held. The options are New Delhi, Mumbai, Washington, and Geneva. Concept / Approach: This is a factual current affairs question, but it also reflects understanding of India's strategic choices. The two plus two dialogue is an institutionalised mechanism where foundational defence agreements such as LEMOA, COMCASA and others are discussed and sometimes signed. Although discussions about the venue initially mentioned Washington, later decisions and reporting highlighted that the crucial COMCASA dialogue and signing would take place in New Delhi. For exam purposes, capsules typically frame the question with New Delhi as the answer, so the candidate should associate COMCASA two plus two dialogue with New Delhi. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recognise that COMCASA is one of the foundational defence agreements between India and the United States, negotiated at a two plus two ministerial dialogue.Step 2: Recall that after some postponements and rescheduling, the two plus two dialogue associated with COMCASA was ultimately linked with New Delhi as the venue in common current affairs notes.Step 3: Review the options to see which city aligns with India as host and with the typical framing of exam questions on this topic.Step 4: Select New Delhi, since it is the seat of the Union Government of India and the recognised venue in exam oriented summaries for the COMCASA related dialogue. Verification / Alternative check: A useful verification method is to remember news headlines that spoke of India and the United States holding a two plus two dialogue in New Delhi where they would seek closure on COMCASA. Current affairs compilations for banking and civil services exams repeatedly noted New Delhi as the venue. Washington is certainly an important location for bilateral meetings, but in this context exam material for COMCASA has consistently emphasised New Delhi. Geneva and Mumbai are not mentioned in relation to this particular ministerial two plus two format. This cross reference supports New Delhi as the correct answer. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Mumbai is India's financial capital but is not the usual venue for high profile external affairs and defence ministerial meetings of this nature, so it is not associated with the COMCASA two plus two dialogue in exam focused material. Washington is the capital of the United States and does host some rounds of India United States talks, but the question refers to the dialogue where COMCASA was highlighted in exam notes, which is linked with New Delhi rather than Washington in those summaries. Geneva is a major international diplomatic city in Switzerland and hosts United Nations bodies, but it is not related to the bilateral COMCASA two plus two dialogue between India and the United States, so it is ruled out. Common Pitfalls: A common pitfall is to overthink the diplomatic context and assume that Washington must be the venue simply because the agreement involves the United States. Another error is to confuse discussions about future or alternative locations with the specific dialogue highlighted in exam capsules. Some candidates may also mix up different defence and security dialogues and their venues. To avoid these mistakes, it is useful to link COMCASA exam questions directly with New Delhi as the remembered venue in standard current affairs notes. Final Answer: The COMCASA related two plus two ministerial dialogue between India and the United States was scheduled to be held in New Delhi.

Question 18

The SKOCH Group has conferred the Best Performing Social Sector Ministry award on which Union ministry of the Government of India?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question tests your knowledge of important awards and recognitions given to Union ministries for their performance, especially in the social sector. The SKOCH Group is well known for its governance and development related awards in India. When such an organisation names a particular ministry as the Best Performing Social Sector Ministry, it reflects the impact and visibility of schemes run by that ministry. Knowing which ministry received this award helps you track which flagship social welfare programmes have been recognised for effective implementation. Given Data / Assumptions: The award mentioned is the Best Performing Social Sector Ministry award. The award is conferred by the SKOCH Group. The question asks which Union ministry received this honour. The options include four different ministries handling social, health, environment, and empowerment related portfolios. Concept / Approach: The approach is to recall which ministry had a strong record on flagship social schemes in the period corresponding to this award. The Ministry of Women and Child Development implemented major schemes such as Beti Bachao Beti Padhao, Integrated Child Development Services reforms, and other nutrition, safety, and empowerment programmes. These initiatives, along with measurable outcomes, led to the ministry being recognised by SKOCH as the Best Performing Social Sector Ministry. Therefore, you need to connect the award name with the ministry that has a strong focus on women and children and that received substantial positive coverage in that period. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify that the award is for performance in the social sector, which often includes programmes for women, children, marginalised communities, and social welfare.Step 2: Recall that SKOCH Group conferred this specific title on the Ministry of Women and Child Development for notable achievements over several years.Step 3: Examine the options and match this memory with the correct ministry name.Step 4: Select the Ministry of Women and Child Development as the correct answer. Verification / Alternative check: You can verify this by remembering that news reports mentioned the Minister for Women and Child Development receiving the SKOCH award on behalf of the ministry. Several current affairs compilations summarised that the SKOCH Group recognised the ministry for delivering on promises and achieving significant progress in social sector outcomes over four years. No similar reports link this exact SKOCH title with the ministries of Health and Family Welfare, Environment, or Social Justice and Empowerment during that period. This consistent coverage confirms that the Ministry of Women and Child Development is the correct answer. Why Other Options Are Wrong: The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare certainly manages important schemes, but it was not the one specifically named Best Performing Social Sector Ministry by SKOCH in this context, so this option is incorrect. The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change deals primarily with environmental regulation and conservation, which is vital but not the focus of this particular social sector award, so it is not the correct choice here. The Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment works for marginalised communities and persons with disabilities, but in the period relevant to this award, it was not the ministry that received the SKOCH Best Performing Social Sector Ministry recognition, so this option is also wrong. Common Pitfalls: Candidates sometimes select the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare because health is a core part of the social sector and often in the news. Others may choose the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment simply because the award mentions social sector, leading to a quick but inaccurate association. It is important to remember that the award citation specifically highlighted the achievements of the Ministry of Women and Child Development in delivering social sector outcomes, not just any ministry with a social focus. Careful reading and recall of the exact news item avoid these errors. Final Answer: The SKOCH Group conferred the Best Performing Social Sector Ministry award on the Ministry of Women and Child Development.

Question 19

In the Indian constitutional system, the Governor of a state takes the oath of office before which constitutional authority?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question tests your understanding of the constitutional position of the Governor and the procedure followed when a Governor assumes office. The oath of office is not just a ritual but a formal constitutional requirement that reflects who supervises and authenticates the Governor's commitment to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and the law. Knowing who administers this oath helps you understand the relationship between state level constitutional authorities and the judicial structure. Given Data / Assumptions: The question is about the oath of office of a state Governor in India. It asks which authority administers this oath. The options mention the Chief Justice of the High Court, the Chief Justice of India, the President, and the Vice President. We assume standard constitutional practice as laid down in the Constitution of India and related conventions. Concept / Approach: Article 159 of the Constitution prescribes the form of oath or affirmation for a Governor. The practice is that the Governor takes this oath before the Chief Justice of the High Court of the state or, in the absence of the Chief Justice, before the senior most judge of that High Court. The President appoints the Governor, but the actual administration of the oath takes place at the state level before the Chief Justice of the respective High Court. Therefore, understanding the separation of functions between appointment and oath administration is key to answering this question correctly. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that the Governor is appointed by the President, but the oath ceremony takes place within the state.Step 2: Remember that the constitutional and judicial authority associated with the state is the High Court and its Chief Justice.Step 3: Connect this with the standard practice that the Governor takes the oath before the Chief Justice of the High Court of the state.Step 4: Choose Chief Justice of High Court from the given options as the correct answer. Verification / Alternative check: You can verify this from standard polity textbooks and descriptions of oath ceremonies in the news, where reports regularly state that the newly appointed Governor took the oath of office administered by the Chief Justice of the High Court. The President does not travel to each state to administer this oath, and the Chief Justice of India is primarily associated with the Supreme Court at the national level. The Vice President has no role in this particular process. Only the Chief Justice of the High Court or, in his or her absence, the senior most judge of that court, is constitutionally connected with the ceremony, which confirms this option. Why Other Options Are Wrong: The Chief Justice of India presides over the Supreme Court and does not administer oaths to state Governors; the role is specific to the High Court at the state level, so this option is incorrect. The President of India appoints the Governor by warrant under his hand and seal, but the President does not personally administer the oath of office to the Governor, which makes this option wrong for the specific question asked. The Vice President of India has roles related to chairing the Rajya Sabha and acting as President under special circumstances, but plays no part in administering the oath of office to Governors, so this option is also incorrect. Common Pitfalls: Candidates often confuse appointment with oath administration and may assume that because the President appoints the Governor, the President must also administer the oath. Others may wrongly elevate the role of the Chief Justice of India to all constitutional oaths. It is important to remember the clear state level context of the Governor's office and the corresponding role of the High Court and its Chief Justice. By separating appointment authority from oath administering authority, you can avoid these mistakes. Final Answer: The Governor of a state in India takes the oath of office before the Chief Justice of the High Court of that state.

Question 20

Under the Forty Fourth Constitutional Amendment Act of 1978, which fundamental right was removed from the list of fundamental rights and converted into a legal right?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question checks your understanding of a major change introduced by the Forty Fourth Constitutional Amendment Act of 1978. The amendment was enacted after the Emergency period to restore certain democratic safeguards and to modify the structure of some rights. One of its most important changes was to alter the status of the right to property, which had earlier been a fundamental right. Knowing which right was downgraded from a fundamental right to a legal or constitutional right is a standard topic in Indian polity questions. Given Data / Assumptions: The question refers specifically to the Forty Fourth Constitutional Amendment Act of 1978. It asks which fundamental right was abolished as a fundamental right by this amendment. The options are Right to Liberty, Right to Property, Right to Equality, and Right to Religion. We assume standard interpretation of fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution. Concept / Approach: Originally, the right to property was provided as a fundamental right under Articles 19 and 31. This led to frequent litigation whenever the state attempted land reforms or acquisition of private property. The Forty Fourth Amendment removed the right to property from Part III and introduced Article 300A, which protects property as a constitutional or legal right, not as a fundamental right. The other rights mentioned in the options, such as the right to equality, liberty, and freedom of religion, remain core fundamental rights. Therefore, the correct approach is to recall that this amendment specifically targeted the status of the right to property. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall the historical context that land reform and property acquisition were frequently challenged based on the fundamental right to property.Step 2: Remember that the Forty Fourth Amendment aimed to ease this tension by removing property from the fundamental rights chapter.Step 3: Note that the same amendment inserted Article 300A, which says that no person shall be deprived of property save by authority of law, making it a constitutional legal right.Step 4: From the options, identify Right to Property as the right which was abolished as a fundamental right and converted into a legal right. Verification / Alternative check: You can verify this by recalling the classification of rights after the Forty Fourth Amendment. Right to Equality under Articles 14 to 18, Right to Freedom under Articles 19 to 22, and Right to Freedom of Religion under Articles 25 to 28 remain part of Part III. In contrast, the right to property is no longer in Part III and is instead located in Article 300A in Part XII, which is outside the fundamental rights chapter. Standard polity texts explicitly state that the Forty Fourth Amendment abolished the status of right to property as a fundamental right, confirming the correctness of this option. Why Other Options Are Wrong: The Right to Liberty is protected through several provisions, especially Articles 21 and 22, and was not removed by the Forty Fourth Amendment; in fact, certain protections were strengthened after the Emergency, so this option is incorrect. The Right to Equality is the very foundation of the Constitution and remains fully intact as a fundamental right; no amendment has abolished it as a fundamental right, so this option is wrong. The Right to Religion under Articles 25 to 28 continues as an important fundamental right and was not converted into a mere legal right, so this choice is also incorrect. Common Pitfalls: A frequent mistake is to think that the amendment affected several rights at once, leading some candidates to guess liberty or equality due to their broad names. Others may confuse the content of different amendments and mix up the 42nd and 44th amendments. To avoid this, remember the clear slogan that the Forty Fourth Amendment removed the right to property from the list of fundamental rights and placed it in Article 300A as a legal right, while strengthening other civil liberties. Fixing this association in memory helps you answer quickly and correctly. Final Answer: The Forty Fourth Constitutional Amendment removed the Right to Property from the list of fundamental rights and converted it into a legal right under Article 300A.

Indian Politics Questions