Question 1

Consider the following statements about the Bureau of Pharma PSUs of India (BPPI): (1) It is the implementing agency of the Pradhan Mantri Bhartiya Janaushadhi Pariyojana (PMBJP). (2) It has been registered as an independent society under the Societ…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The Bureau of Pharma PSUs of India, commonly known as BPPI, plays a key role in implementing government initiatives to provide affordable quality medicines to the public. One major flagship scheme in this area is the Pradhan Mantri Bhartiya Janaushadhi Pariyojana, which aims to make generic medicines available through special stores at lower prices. This question tests your knowledge of the organisational status of BPPI and its role in implementing the scheme. Given Data / Assumptions: - Statement 1 claims that BPPI is the implementing agency of PMBJP.- Statement 2 claims that BPPI has been registered as an independent society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860.- We must determine whether each statement is correct or incorrect. Concept / Approach: BPPI was created to coordinate the marketing of quality generic drugs and to support public sector pharmaceutical enterprises. As part of this mandate, it was designated as the implementing agency for the Pradhan Mantri Bhartiya Janaushadhi Pariyojana, which establishes Janaushadhi Kendras across the country. Organisationally, BPPI is not a typical government department but a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, which allows it greater operational flexibility while remaining under government oversight. Therefore, both statements reflect key facts about BPPI. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Evaluate Statement 1. Official documents and scheme guidelines identify BPPI as the implementing agency responsible for opening and supporting Janaushadhi Kendras, ensuring supply of medicines and handling logistics. Therefore, Statement 1 is correct.Step 2: Evaluate Statement 2. BPPI was indeed set up as a society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, which is a common structure for organisations that coordinate activities among public sector units and other partners. Hence, Statement 2 is also correct.Step 3: Since both statements 1 and 2 are correct, the option that matches this is options C, "Both 1 and 2". Verification / Alternative check: A useful check is to recall that many government implementing agencies for missions, such as those in health and education, are set up as registered societies or trusts to give them some autonomy while remaining under governmental control. BPPI fits this pattern and is clearly linked with PMBJP in news reports and official materials. Seeing these two pieces of information together strongly supports the conclusion that both statements are correct. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A (1 only) is wrong because it ignores the fact that BPPI has indeed been registered as a society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860.Option B (2 only) is wrong because it overlooks BPPI's widely publicised role as the implementing agency for PMBJP.Option D (Neither 1 nor 2) is clearly wrong because both statements reflect well documented facts about BPPI. Common Pitfalls: Candidates sometimes doubt statement 2 because they assume that all such bodies must be statutory authorities or government departments, whereas many are actually registered societies. Another pitfall is to confuse BPPI with other health agencies or schemes and therefore incorrectly judge statement 1. Whenever an exam question pairs an agency with a flagship scheme like PMBJP, it is useful to recall which body appears repeatedly in official promotional material and advertisements. Final Answer: Correct answer: Both 1 and 2

Question 2

The E K Janaki Ammal National Award on Taxonomy is a national level award instituted to promote work in the field of taxonomy. This award is administered by which of the following Ministries of the Government of India?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Taxonomy is the science of naming, describing and classifying living organisms, and it plays a crucial role in biodiversity conservation, environmental management and biological research. To encourage and recognise outstanding work in this field, the Government of India has instituted the E K Janaki Ammal National Award on Taxonomy, named after a pioneering Indian botanist. This question asks which Ministry administers this award, which reflects its connection with environmental and biodiversity concerns. Given Data / Assumptions: - The award relates specifically to taxonomy, a branch of biological science.- The name E K Janaki Ammal is associated with botany and plant science.- We must identify which Ministry of the Government of India administers this national award. Concept / Approach: Although taxonomy has connections with agriculture, health and environment, the core policy responsibility for biodiversity conservation and protection of ecosystems lies with the Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change. This Ministry supports research and awards in areas such as wildlife, forests, climate and biodiversity. The E K Janaki Ammal National Award on Taxonomy falls within this broader environmental and biodiversity policy domain and is therefore administered by this Ministry, often through its specialised institutions dealing with plant and animal taxonomy. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Consider the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare. While it deals with crops and agricultural research, its focus is not primarily on pure taxonomy across all groups of organisms.Step 2: Consider the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy. Its work relates to energy technologies and has no direct link with taxonomy.Step 3: Consider the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. Although it deals with health sciences, hospital management and public health programmes, it is not the primary ministry for biodiversity related taxonomy awards.Step 4: The Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change is responsible for biodiversity conservation, wildlife, forests and ecological research, and therefore administers awards that promote taxonomy.Step 5: Hence, the correct answer is the Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change. Verification / Alternative check: As an alternative check, remember that many biodiversity and conservation related awards and schemes, including those focusing on taxonomy of flora and fauna, fall under the umbrella of the environment ministry and its affiliated organisations such as botanical and zoological surveys. This consistent pattern makes it reasonable that the E K Janaki Ammal National Award on Taxonomy is administered by the same ministry. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A (Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare) is wrong because its awards and schemes are predominantly focused on crop improvement, farming practices and agricultural extension.Option B (Ministry of New and Renewable Energy) is wrong because it deals with solar, wind, bioenergy and other alternative sources of power, not taxonomic research.Option C (Ministry of Health and Family Welfare) is wrong because its awards are generally related to public health service, medical education and disease control, not broad biodiversity taxonomy. Common Pitfalls: One common mistake is to see a biology related award and assume that it must be under the agriculture or health ministry. Another is to overlook the close connection between taxonomy and conservation policy. Always recall that taxonomy underpins identification and monitoring of species, which is central to environmental protection. Therefore, the environment ministry is the natural home for such an award. Final Answer: Correct answer: Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Question 3

Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana (PMJAY) is a major health insurance scheme under Ayushman Bharat. Which of the following statements correctly describe its benefits?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana, commonly referred to as PMJAY or Ayushman Bharat PMJAY, is a flagship public health insurance scheme aimed at providing financial protection for secondary and tertiary care hospitalisation to economically vulnerable families. To answer this question, you must carefully evaluate which listed statements describe the actual benefits and conditions of the scheme, and which statement is incorrect. Given Data / Assumptions: - Statement 1: Free treatment is available at all public and empanelled private hospitals in times of need.- Statement 2: Beneficiaries have cashless and paperless access to quality health care services.- Statement 3: The Government provides health insurance cover of up to Rs 5,00,000 per family per year.- Statement 4: Pre existing diseases are not covered. Concept / Approach: Under PMJAY, eligible families are entitled to coverage up to a defined sum insured per year for a wide range of procedures at empanelled hospitals. The scheme emphasises cashless and paperless service at the point of treatment, and importantly, it includes coverage for pre existing conditions from the very first day of enrolment. Any statement denying coverage for pre existing diseases contradicts the official design of the scheme. Therefore, while Statements 1, 2 and 3 capture genuine features, Statement 4 is incorrect. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Check Statement 1. PMJAY provides free treatment for the covered procedures at public hospitals and at private hospitals that are empanelled under the scheme. This statement is correct.Step 2: Check Statement 2. A key pillar of PMJAY is that beneficiaries should receive cashless and paperless treatment, meaning that they do not have to pay at the hospital and most administrative work happens through an electronic platform. Statement 2 is correct.Step 3: Check Statement 3. PMJAY offers a health insurance cover of up to Rs 5,00,000 per eligible family per year for secondary and tertiary care hospitalisation. This statement is correct.Step 4: Check Statement 4. In PMJAY, pre existing diseases are covered from the start of the scheme for eligible beneficiaries. Therefore, the statement that pre existing diseases are not covered is incorrect.Step 5: Since Statements 1, 2 and 3 are correct and Statement 4 is not, the correct option must be the one that includes 1, 2 and 3 only. Verification / Alternative check: As a quick check, remember that PMJAY is designed to give broad financial risk protection to poor and vulnerable families. Excluding pre existing conditions would greatly reduce its usefulness and contradict official publicity material, which clearly states that pre existing diseases are included. Thus, any option that treats Statement 4 as correct can be rejected. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A (1 and 3 only) is wrong because it leaves out Statement 2, even though cashless and paperless access is a key benefit of PMJAY.Option C (2 and 4 only) is wrong because it incorrectly accepts Statement 4 and leaves out other correct statements.Option D (2 3 and 4 only) is wrong because it also treats Statement 4 as correct, while excluding Statement 1, which is a genuine benefit of the scheme. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes assume that government health insurance schemes impose waiting periods or exclusions for pre existing diseases, based on their experience with private insurance policies. PMJAY is purposely designed to provide comprehensive risk coverage for vulnerable families, and therefore it does not exclude pre existing conditions. Carefully distinguishing between private sector policy norms and public welfare schemes is essential to avoid mistakes in such questions. Final Answer: Correct answer: 1 2 and 3 only

Question 4

Part IV of the Constitution of India deals with which of the following broad subject areas?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The Constitution of India is divided into various Parts, each dealing with a specific theme such as the Union, States, Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles. Remembering which Part corresponds to which topic is a basic but very important aspect of Indian polity for competitive examinations. This question asks you to identify what subject matter is covered in Part IV of the Constitution. Given Data / Assumptions: - The question refers to Part IV of the Constitution.- The options mention the Union, the States, Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy.- We must match the correct subject area to Part IV. Concept / Approach: Part I of the Constitution deals with the Union and its territory. Part II deals with citizenship. Part III contains Fundamental Rights. Part IV contains the Directive Principles of State Policy, which are guidelines to the State for governance and socio economic development, though they are not enforceable by courts. Parts V and VI then go on to deal with the Union (Central) Government and the States respectively. Therefore, the correct association for Part IV is with the Directive Principles of State Policy. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that Fundamental Rights are included in Part III of the Constitution, not Part IV, so option C cannot be correct.Step 2: The Union and the States, as institutional structures and authorities, are described in Parts V and VI, not in Part IV, so options A and B are also not correct.Step 3: Part IV is explicitly titled Directive Principles of State Policy and covers Articles 36 to 51.Step 4: Therefore, the only option that matches Part IV is option D, Directive Principles of State Policy. Verification / Alternative check: A helpful memory aid is the sequence: Part III for Rights (R), Part IV for Directive Principles (D), and Part IVA later added for Duties (D). Thinking of the pattern Rights, Directive Principles and Duties in consecutive Parts makes it easier to recall which subject belongs where. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A (The Union) is wrong because the Union Government is described mainly in Part V of the Constitution, not Part IV.Option B (The States) is wrong because the structure, executive and legislature of States are described in Part VI.Option C (Fundamental Rights) is wrong because these rights are covered under Part III, not Part IV. Common Pitfalls: Some learners mix up Part III and Part IV or forget the titles of different Parts. Another mistake is to assume that the Union and States must appear first and therefore associate them with lower Part numbers. Systematic revision of the table of Parts and Schedules of the Constitution can prevent such confusion. Many exams ask at least one question testing this basic but high scoring information. Final Answer: Correct answer: Directive Principles of State Policy

Question 5

The Entrepreneurship Development Scheme (EDS) was launched under the New Economic Development Policy (NEDP) on 19 January 2017 in which of the following States?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Several States in India have introduced their own entrepreneurship and start up policies under different names, often linked to broader economic development strategies. The Entrepreneurship Development Scheme (EDS) under the New Economic Development Policy (NEDP) is one such initiative aimed at supporting youth and local entrepreneurs through training, mentoring and financial assistance. This question asks you to recall in which State this scheme under NEDP was launched on 19 January 2017. Given Data / Assumptions: - The scheme is called Entrepreneurship Development Scheme (EDS).- It was launched under the New Economic Development Policy (NEDP).- The launch date was 19 January 2017.- The options include New Delhi, Mizoram, Gujarat and Uttar Pradesh. Concept / Approach: NEDP in this context refers to a policy framework adopted by the Government of Mizoram, designed to diversify the regional economy and promote entrepreneurship, especially among young people and local communities. Under NEDP, the Entrepreneurship Development Scheme was launched to provide training, financial support and incubation for new ventures in Mizoram. Therefore, the correct answer is the State of Mizoram rather than the larger, more commonly referenced States like Gujarat or Uttar Pradesh. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recognise that New Delhi is not a State that commonly uses the NEDP label for its policies, and there is no widely known scheme under that exact name linked to Delhi.Step 2: Gujarat is known for several entrepreneurship and start up initiatives but not specifically for the Entrepreneurship Development Scheme launched under NEDP on the date mentioned.Step 3: Uttar Pradesh has various programmes for industrial and start up promotion, but again, EDS under NEDP is not among the most cited schemes there.Step 4: Mizoram implemented the New Economic Development Policy aimed at transforming its largely agrarian economy and under this policy launched the Entrepreneurship Development Scheme on 19 January 2017.Step 5: Therefore, Mizoram is the correct answer. Verification / Alternative check: If you recall that North Eastern States have been actively launching special entrepreneurship schemes in recent years, especially under catchy names like NEDP, it becomes easier to associate EDS with Mizoram. In many exam questions, when a relatively specialised State level scheme is mentioned together with NEDP, Mizoram is the most likely match. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A (New Delhi) is wrong because the Union Territory and city of Delhi is not associated with the specific NEDP linked EDS launch in 2017.Option C (Gujarat) is wrong despite Gujarat's active business environment, as this scheme is not credited to that State.Option D (Uttar Pradesh) is wrong because its entrepreneurship related initiatives have different names and frameworks. Common Pitfalls: Examinees may be tempted to choose a large or economically prominent State like Gujarat or Uttar Pradesh when they see terms like entrepreneurship and development policy. However, many innovative schemes are pioneered by smaller States seeking to boost their economies. It is important to stay updated on lesser known but exam relevant initiatives from North Eastern and hill States as well. Final Answer: Correct answer: Mizoram

Question 6

During his stay in South Africa, Mahatma Gandhi edited and published a newspaper that became an important vehicle for expressing the concerns of the Indian community there. Which one of the following newspapers was edited by Gandhiji in South Africa?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Before returning to India to lead the freedom struggle, Mahatma Gandhi spent many years in South Africa, where he first developed and tested his ideas of satyagraha and non violent resistance. During this period, he felt the need for a newspaper to present the problems of the Indian community and to spread awareness about rights and injustices. This question asks you to identify which newspaper he edited while in South Africa. Given Data / Assumptions: - The newspaper was edited by Gandhi during his time in South Africa.- It focused on issues affecting the Indian community there.- We must distinguish this paper from newspapers he edited after returning to India. Concept / Approach: Gandhi edited several periodicals over his lifetime. Harijan and Young India were associated with his activities in India, particularly during the later phases of the freedom struggle. Indian Mirror is linked to other reformers. The newspaper that Gandhi started and edited in South Africa to give voice to Indian grievances and to promote his ideas was called Indian Opinion. This paper became an important tool in mobilising the Indian community and in articulating early satyagraha campaigns. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall Gandhi's South Africa period, which preceded his return to India in 1915.Step 2: Recognise that Harijan and Young India were periodicals associated with Gandhi's campaigns in India, especially on issues like untouchability, village reconstruction and national movement activity.Step 3: Remember that Indian Opinion was established in South Africa and served as a mouthpiece for the Indian community there, edited by Gandhi.Step 4: Indian Mirror is not one of Gandhi's papers and is associated with other reformist circles.Step 5: Therefore, the correct answer is Indian Opinion. Verification / Alternative check: A quick way to verify is to match the names with locations: Indian Opinion with South Africa, Young India and Harijan with British India and the freedom struggle. If you remember that Indian Opinion is the earliest of these in Gandhi's publishing history, the question becomes straightforward. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option B (Harijan) is wrong because it was launched in India to address issues such as untouchability and social reform among caste Hindus.Option C (Young India) is wrong as it was a nationalist weekly published from India and associated with the Congress led movement.Option D (Indian Mirror) is wrong because it is not one of Gandhi's newspapers in South Africa. Common Pitfalls: Some candidates confuse the various periodicals associated with Gandhi, especially Harijan and Young India, because these are more frequently referred to in accounts of the Indian freedom struggle. Remembering the chronological sequence and matching each paper to the country and phase of his life helps avoid such confusion. Indian Opinion is firmly linked to his South African period, while Harijan and Young India belong to his Indian years. Final Answer: Correct answer: Indian Opinion

Question 7

Under the Constitution of India, who administers the oath of office to the President of India before the President enters upon office?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: When a new President of India is elected, the Constitution requires that the President take an oath or affirmation before entering upon office. This oath expresses commitment to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and the law, and to devote oneself to the service and well being of the people of India. Knowing who administers this oath is part of understanding the ceremonial and constitutional roles of the various high offices in the Indian political system. Given Data / Assumptions: - The question relates to the swearing in of the President of India.- It asks who administers the oath of office to the President.- The options include the Governor General of India, Chief Justice of India, Prime Minister of India and Vice President of India. Concept / Approach: Article 60 of the Constitution of India sets out the oath or affirmation for the President and states that it shall be made before the Chief Justice of India, or, in his absence, the senior most judge of the Supreme Court available. The Governor General of India existed under earlier British constitutional arrangements and is no longer an office in independent India. The Prime Minister and Vice President do not administer the President's oath under the Constitution. Therefore, the correct answer is the Chief Justice of India. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Rule out the Governor General of India, as this office existed only in colonial times under the Government of India Act 1935, and not under the current Constitution.Step 2: Recognise that the Prime Minister of India, while head of the Council of Ministers, does not have the constitutional role of administering the oath to the President.Step 3: Note that the Vice President of India is next in line to act as President in certain contingencies, but the Constitution does not entrust the oath administering function to this office.Step 4: Recall Article 60, which clearly states that the President shall make and subscribe the oath or affirmation in the presence of the Chief Justice of India or, in his absence, the senior most judge of the Supreme Court available.Step 5: Therefore, the Chief Justice of India is the correct authority to administer the oath to the President. Verification / Alternative check: Another way to remember this is to note a pattern: top constitutional functionaries often take their oaths before a senior member of the judiciary, emphasising the central role of the Constitution and the rule of law. Thus, the President takes the oath before the Chief Justice of India, while the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers are sworn in by the President. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A (Governor General of India) is wrong because that colonial office no longer exists under the present Constitution.Option C (Prime Minister of India) is wrong because the Prime Minister does not administer constitutional oaths; rather, the Prime Minister takes an oath before the President.Option D (Vice President of India) is wrong because the Vice President may act as President in certain situations but does not administer the President's oath under Article 60. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes confuse the colonial office of Governor General with modern constitutional roles or assume that the Vice President, being second highest in order of precedence, must administer the oath. Another error is to think that the Prime Minister, as head of government, might perform this task. Remembering the text of Article 60 and the general practice of swearing top executive functionaries before the judiciary helps avoid these mistakes. Final Answer: Correct answer: The Chief Justice of India

Question 8

Which of the following are functions of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) of India? (1) Inquiring suo motu into cases of violation of human rights. (2) Inquiring into complaints of human rights violations on a petition presented by a victi…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) is a statutory body established under the Protection of Human Rights Act to protect and promote human rights in India. It has a broad mandate that includes investigation, monitoring, advisory and promotional roles. This question asks you to identify which among the listed activities are among the recognised functions of the NHRC. Given Data / Assumptions: - Statement 1: NHRC can inquire suo motu into cases of human rights violations.- Statement 2: NHRC can inquire into complaints presented by a victim or any person on the victim's behalf.- Statement 3: NHRC can visit jails and other institutions to study the conditions of inmates.- Statement 4: NHRC undertakes and promotes research in the field of human rights. Concept / Approach: Under the Protection of Human Rights Act, the NHRC has power to investigate human rights violations both on a complaint and on its own initiative. It can visit any jail or other institution under the control of the State Government where persons are detained, to study living conditions and make recommendations. It also has promotional functions such as spreading human rights literacy and encouraging research and teaching in the field of human rights. Taken together, these powers show that all four statements describe genuine functions of the NHRC. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Evaluate Statement 1. The Act expressly authorises the NHRC to take suo motu cognisance of matters where human rights may have been violated, so Statement 1 is correct.Step 2: Evaluate Statement 2. The Commission can act on complaints presented by a victim or by any person on the victim's behalf, confirming that Statement 2 is also correct.Step 3: Evaluate Statement 3. One of the specific functions is to visit jails and other institutions where persons are detained to study living conditions and make recommendations for improvement, making Statement 3 correct.Step 4: Evaluate Statement 4. The NHRC is also tasked with promoting human rights literacy, encouraging efforts of NGOs and institutions and undertaking and promoting research, which confirms that Statement 4 is correct.Step 5: Since all four statements are correct, the appropriate option is the one that includes 1, 2, 3 and 4. Verification / Alternative check: As an alternative check, recall that NHRC has both protective and promotional roles. Protective roles involve investigation of violations through complaints or suo motu powers and inspection of detention facilities. Promotional roles include research, education and awareness. The four statements together cover this full spectrum, strongly suggesting that they all fall within the Commission's mandate. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A (1 and 2 only) is wrong because it omits the jail visit and research functions, which are clearly mentioned in the Act.Option B (2 3 and 4 only) is wrong because it ignores the NHRC's power to act suo motu, which is an important feature of its functioning.Option C (1 3 and 4 only) is wrong because it leaves out the explicit right of victims and others to present complaints to the Commission. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes think of NHRC only as a complaint handling body and forget its suo motu powers or its broader role in promoting human rights education and research. Another mistake is to assume that visiting jails is exclusively a function of prison departments and not of human rights institutions. In fact, independent inspection of detention facilities by bodies like NHRC is a crucial safeguard against abuse. Keeping the protective and promotional aspects of NHRC in mind helps in answering such questions correctly. Final Answer: Correct answer: 1 2 3 and 4

Question 9

Under the Constitution of India, a person is disqualified from being chosen as, and for being, a Member of either House of Parliament if any of the following conditions apply: (1) the person holds an office of profit under the Government of India or…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The Constitution of India lays down clear conditions under which a person is disqualified from being chosen as, or for continuing as, a Member of Parliament. Understanding these grounds is very important for questions on Indian Polity, elections and constitutional provisions. This question checks whether you can correctly identify which conditions, such as holding an office of profit, being insolvent, being of unsound mind or facing disqualification under the anti defection provisions, are explicitly mentioned in the Constitution as disqualifications for membership of either House of Parliament. Given Data / Assumptions: - The question refers to Members of either House of Parliament, that is Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha. - The conditions listed relate to office of profit, insolvency, disqualification under the Tenth Schedule and unsoundness of mind. - The relevant constitutional provisions are primarily Article 102 and the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of India. - It is assumed that no other unlisted conditions are being considered in this particular question. Concept / Approach: Article 102 of the Constitution of India specifies the grounds on which a person is disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a Member of either House of Parliament. These include holding an office of profit under the Union or a State Government, being of unsound mind and so declared by a competent court, being an undischarged insolvent, not being a citizen of India or voluntarily acquiring the citizenship of a foreign state, and any disqualification imposed by a law made by Parliament. In addition to this, Article 102 is linked with the Tenth Schedule, which deals with disqualification on the ground of defection. The approach is to map each statement in the question to these constitutional provisions and then select the combination that correctly includes all the valid disqualification grounds listed. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Under Article 102, holding an office of profit under the Government of India or a State Government, other than an office declared by Parliament as not disqualifying, is explicitly mentioned as a ground of disqualification. Therefore statement 1 is correct. Step 2: Article 102 also specifies that an undischarged insolvent is disqualified from being chosen as, or being, a Member of Parliament. Therefore statement 2 is correct. Step 3: Disqualification under the Tenth Schedule relates to defection by Members of Parliament and State Legislatures. Members disqualified under the Tenth Schedule are treated as disqualified from their House. Therefore statement 3 is also a valid ground of disqualification. Step 4: Article 102 further states that a person who is of unsound mind and so declared by a competent court is disqualified. Therefore statement 4 is correct. Step 5: Since all four statements match constitutional grounds of disqualification, the correct combination must include 1, 2, 3 and 4 together. Step 6: Among the options, only the option stating “1, 2, 3 and 4” includes all four correct grounds, so that is the correct answer. Verification / Alternative check: A quick way to verify is to remember that Article 102 groups several disqualifications and that defection is covered separately in the Tenth Schedule but still operates as a valid disqualification from membership. All four listed conditions are standard textbook grounds for disqualification of Members of Parliament. As there is no contradiction between them and all are constitutionally supported, the combination including all four must be chosen. Any option that omits even one of these conditions would be incomplete and therefore incorrect. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A (1, 2 and 4 only) is wrong because it ignores the important ground of disqualification under the Tenth Schedule, which deals with defection. Option C (3 and 4 only) is wrong because it leaves out both the office of profit disqualification and the undischarged insolvent condition, both of which are clearly mentioned in Article 102. Option D (1, 2 and 3 only) is wrong because it excludes the ground relating to unsound mind, even though Article 102 specifically includes this as a disqualification. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes confuse the Tenth Schedule with provisions that apply only to State Legislatures, but it applies equally to Parliament for defection related disqualification. Another common mistake is to think that only some of these conditions, such as office of profit, are constitutional while others are statutory, and therefore they may incorrectly omit one or more correct statements. Learners may also overlook the exact wording of Article 102 and forget that undischarged insolvency and unsoundness of mind are traditional grounds of disqualification for legislators in many democracies, including India. Care must be taken to treat each listed condition independently and to verify it against the Constitution before selecting a combination. Final Answer: The correct combination of constitutional grounds of disqualification includes all four conditions, so the correct answer is 1, 2, 3 and 4.

Question 10

According to the Election Commission of India, in order to be recognized as a National Party at the national level, a political party must be recognized as a State Party in how many States of India?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The Election Commission of India lays down specific criteria for recognizing political parties as National Parties or State Parties. These categories are important because they determine benefits such as reserved symbols, broadcast time during elections and certain legal and financial advantages. This question focuses on one particular criterion, namely how many States a party must be recognized in as a State Party in order to qualify for recognition as a National Party. Given Data / Assumptions: - The question refers to the criteria framed by the Election Commission of India for recognition of political parties. - Only the condition relating to the number of States in which a party is recognized as a State Party is being tested here. - Other conditions, such as performance in Lok Sabha elections or total votes polled, are not part of this particular question. - The options are given as at least two, three, four or five States, and only one of them matches the Election Commission norm for this criterion. Concept / Approach: Under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order and guidelines issued by the Election Commission of India, a party can be recognized as a National Party if it satisfies any one of several conditions. One such condition is that the party must be recognized as a State Party in a specified minimum number of States. The approach to solve this question is to recall the exact number of States required under this criterion and match it with the options. It is not necessary to remember all the alternative conditions for national status, because the question isolates this single aspect of recognition as a State Party in a certain number of States. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall the Election Commission rule that one of the conditions for becoming a National Party is to be recognized as a State Party in a minimum number of States. Step 2: The correct norm is that a political party must be recognized as a State Party in at least four States of India under this particular criterion. Step 3: Compare this figure with the options given: two States, three States, four States and five States. Step 4: Only the option that states “At least four States” matches the requirement prescribed by the Election Commission of India. Step 5: Therefore, the correct answer is the option which mentions recognition as a State Party in at least four States. Verification / Alternative check: A quick verification method is to remember standard exam facts regarding political parties: a National Party must have a wider presence, and four States is the commonly cited threshold under the State Party recognition based criterion. Many textbooks and competitive exam guides summarise the conditions for National Party recognition, and they specifically mention the requirement of recognition as a State Party in at least four States. If a different number such as two, three or five States had been prescribed, it would be widely reflected in those sources, which it is not. This consistency across reference materials supports the figure of four States. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A (At least two States) is wrong because recognition in only two States does not meet the Election Commission's National Party criterion based on State Party status. Option B (At least three States) is wrong because three States are still fewer than the prescribed minimum and would reflect a more limited geographic presence. Option D (At least five States) is wrong because it overshoots the actual requirement; a party does not need recognition in five States to qualify under this particular criterion, although it can still qualify if it does satisfy this higher threshold. Common Pitfalls: A common mistake is to confuse the various criteria for National Party status and mix the condition regarding State Party recognition with other conditions that are based on vote share or Lok Sabha seats. Students may also assume that because the word national suggests a very wide spread, the requirement must be five or more States, which leads them away from the correct threshold of four. Another error is to remember outdated rules or to approximate the number instead of recalling it exactly, which can cause confusion between three and four States. Careful and precise memorisation of such numerical provisions is essential for success in polity questions. Final Answer: A political party must be recognized as a State Party in at least four States to satisfy this particular criterion for being recognized as a National Party by the Election Commission of India.

Question 11

Under the Citizenship Act and related rules, Indian citizenship is formally granted and administered by which authority of the Government of India?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Citizenship determines who is a full member of a State with civil and political rights. In India, citizenship is governed by the Constitution and by the Citizenship Act, along with detailed rules. For competitive examinations, it is important to know which organ or authority of the Government of India actually processes and grants Indian citizenship, especially in cases of registration and naturalisation of foreign nationals who wish to become Indian citizens. Given Data / Assumptions: - The question asks about the authority that grants Indian citizenship under the Citizenship Act. - The options include constitutional offices such as the President and the Prime Minister, and ministries such as the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Ministry of External Affairs. - The focus is on the administrative agency responsible for citizenship matters, not on broader constitutional provisions relating to citizenship at the commencement of the Constitution. - It is assumed that the answer should reflect the usual administrative practice followed by the Government of India. Concept / Approach: The Citizenship Act of 1955 and its subsequent amendments lay down modes of acquiring citizenship such as birth, descent, registration, naturalisation and incorporation of territory. The implementation of this Act, including processing applications for registration and naturalisation, is entrusted to an administrative ministry. The Ministry of Home Affairs is the nodal ministry for internal security, nationality, and related matters, and it administers the Citizenship Act on behalf of the Government of India. Therefore, the approach is to identify which ministry or office functions as the administrative authority for citizenship, rather than who symbolically represents the country. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Note that the President of India is the head of the State but usually acts on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers and does not personally process citizenship applications. Step 2: The Prime Minister is the head of the Government and leads the Council of Ministers but does not directly handle routine citizenship administration. Step 3: The Ministry of External Affairs primarily deals with foreign relations, consular services abroad and international organisations, and although Indian missions handle some paperwork overseas, the final decisions on citizenship rest elsewhere. Step 4: The Ministry of Home Affairs is explicitly responsible for matters relating to citizenship, naturalisation, and the Citizenship Act, and issues orders, rules and notifications in this regard. Step 5: Therefore, the authority that grants and administers Indian citizenship under the Act is the Ministry of Home Affairs. Verification / Alternative check: To verify, one can check standard polity textbooks and official Government websites which clearly state that the Ministry of Home Affairs is responsible for dealing with matters concerning Indian citizenship, including issuing citizenship certificates, handling cases of registration and naturalisation, and implementing the provisions of the Citizenship Act and associated rules. Application forms and procedural guidelines for citizenship are also issued under the authority of the Ministry of Home Affairs. This consistent official practice confirms that the ministry, and not the President or any other ministry, is the correct authority. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A (The President of India) is wrong because the President does not directly administer citizenship procedures; the President performs functions based on the advice of the Council of Ministers, and decisions on individual applications are taken at the ministerial level. Option B (The Prime Minister of India) is wrong because, although the Prime Minister heads the Government, the day to day administration of citizenship matters is delegated to the Ministry of Home Affairs and its officials. Option D (The Ministry of External Affairs) is wrong because it deals mainly with India's external relations, consular services and policies relating to foreign countries, not the internal legal process of granting citizenship, which falls under the Ministry of Home Affairs. Common Pitfalls: A frequent mistake is to assume that ceremonial or top level political offices such as the President or the Prime Minister personally take all important decisions, including those on citizenship. Another pitfall is to confuse the role of Indian embassies, which may forward applications and verify documents, with the authority that actually grants citizenship. Some candidates also wrongly associate citizenship with the Ministry of External Affairs simply because foreign nationals are involved, without recognising that citizenship is primarily an internal security and nationality question handled by the Ministry of Home Affairs. Remembering the administrative division of responsibilities among ministries helps avoid these errors. Final Answer: Indian citizenship is formally granted and administered by the Ministry of Home Affairs under the Citizenship Act and related rules.

Question 12

Under which Constitutional Amendment Act was Sikkim formally admitted into the Union of India as a full State of the Indian Union?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Sikkim's integration into India is an important topic in modern Indian political history and constitutional development. Initially associated with India as a protectorate, Sikkim later became an associate State and finally a full State of the Indian Union. This transition was implemented through specific Constitutional Amendment Acts. Examinations often test the precise amendment number that granted Sikkim full statehood and admitted it into the Union of India as a State. Given Data / Assumptions: - The question asks about the Constitutional Amendment Act that admitted Sikkim into the Union of India as a full State. - The options are the 35th, 36th, 37th and 38th Constitutional Amendment Acts. - It is assumed that the student is familiar with the broad sequence of events relating to Sikkim's political integration with India. - The distinction between an associate State status and full statehood is important in answering this question correctly. Concept / Approach: Sikkim's integration involved more than one constitutional step. The 35th Constitutional Amendment Act provided for Sikkim's status as an associate State and inserted Article 2A and the Tenth Schedule as it then existed for this purpose. However, Sikkim was later made a full State of the Indian Union through the 36th Constitutional Amendment Act, which removed the earlier associate State provisions and inserted special provisions for Sikkim in Article 371F and included it in the First Schedule as a State. The correct approach is therefore to recall which amendment actually converted Sikkim into a State and admitted it into the Union, not merely associated it. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that the 35th Constitutional Amendment Act granted Sikkim an associate State status, introducing Article 2A and a special schedule. Step 2: Remember that this arrangement was temporary and was superseded when Sikkim opted for full integration with India. Step 3: The 36th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1975, provided for Sikkim to be admitted into the Union of India as a full State and inserted Article 371F with special provisions relating to Sikkim. Step 4: Compare this with the other amendments listed: the 37th and 38th Amendment Acts dealt with different constitutional matters and not specifically with Sikkim's statehood. Step 5: Therefore, the amendment that admitted Sikkim into the Union of India as a full State is the 36th Constitutional Amendment Act. Verification / Alternative check: Standard polity textbooks and documents on constitutional amendments clearly state that the 36th Constitutional Amendment Act is the one through which Sikkim became the twenty second State of India in 1975. They often explain the sequence: associate State status under the 35th Amendment followed by full statehood under the 36th Amendment. No credible source attributes Sikkim's admission as a State to the 37th or 38th Amendments, which are concerned with other issues. This consistency across authoritative references confirms the choice of the 36th Constitutional Amendment Act as correct. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A (35th Constitutional Amendment Act) is wrong in the context of this question because it dealt with Sikkim's associate State status, not its final admission as a full State into the Union of India. Option C (37th Constitutional Amendment Act) is wrong because this amendment relates to different constitutional provisions and does not concern Sikkim's statehood. Option D (38th Constitutional Amendment Act) is wrong because it primarily dealt with issues such as emergency provisions and did not make Sikkim a State of the Union. Common Pitfalls: A common confusion arises between the 35th and 36th Amendment Acts because both are associated with Sikkim and occurred in close succession. Students sometimes remember that Sikkim is linked with the 35th Amendment and forget the separate step by which it became a full State. Another pitfall is to treat amendment numbers in this range as interchangeable without linking them to their specific subject matter. To avoid such errors, it is useful to associate 35th with associate State status and 36th with full statehood and admission into the Union. Final Answer: Sikkim was formally admitted into the Union of India as a full State through the 36th Constitutional Amendment Act.

Question 13

Which one of the following statements about the constitutional position of the States in India and the National Capital Territory of Delhi is not correct?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question examines your understanding of the federal structure of India, the special position of the former State of Jammu and Kashmir, and the constitutional status of the National Capital Territory of Delhi. It asks you to identify which statement about these constitutional arrangements is not correct. Knowledge of provisions relating to State Constitutions, secession, and the size of the Council of Ministers in Delhi is required to answer correctly. Given Data / Assumptions: - Statement A refers to States in India and the special case of the former State of Jammu and Kashmir having had its own Constitution. - Statement B explicitly mentions that Jammu and Kashmir had its own Constitution before the abrogation of Article 370 in 2019. - Statement C concerns the right of States to secede from the Union of India. - Statement D refers to the maximum size of the Council of Ministers in the National Capital Territory of Delhi, expressed as a percentage of the total number of members in the Legislative Assembly. - The task is to determine which one of these statements is not in accordance with constitutional provisions. Concept / Approach: India has a federal structure with a strong unitary bias. Most States do not have separate Constitutions and follow the Constitution of India. Historically, Jammu and Kashmir had a special status under Article 370 and had its own Constitution until that special status was removed in 2019. No State in India has a constitutional right to secede from the Union. The size of Councils of Ministers is generally governed by the 91st Constitutional Amendment Act, which prescribes a ceiling of 15 percent of the strength of the Legislative Assembly for States, but the National Capital Territory of Delhi has a special provision that fixes a different ceiling. Therefore, we need to check each statement against these specifics to identify the incorrect one. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Statement A says that, except for the former State of Jammu and Kashmir, States in India cannot have their own separate Constitutions. This reflects the reality that almost all States operate under the single Constitution of India and that, historically, only Jammu and Kashmir had its own separate Constitution, making the statement substantively correct. Step 2: Statement B notes that the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir had its own Constitution before the abrogation of Article 370 in 2019. This is factually correct, as Jammu and Kashmir had a separate Constitution adopted in 1957 which remained in force until the special status was removed. Step 3: Statement C notes that States in India do not have the right to secede from the Union of India. This aligns with the constitutional scheme, which does not grant any unilateral right of secession to any State. Step 4: Statement D claims that the maximum number of members in the Council of Ministers of the National Capital Territory of Delhi can be 15 percent of the total number of members in the Legislative Assembly. However, Article 239AA and related provisions specify that the Council of Ministers in Delhi shall not exceed a smaller percentage, commonly understood to be about 10 percent, rather than the 15 percent limit that applies to States under the 91st Amendment. Step 5: Since Statements A, B and C are correct and Statement D misstates the ceiling for the size of the Council of Ministers in Delhi, Statement D is the one that is not correct. Verification / Alternative check: For verification, recall that the 91st Constitutional Amendment Act fixes the maximum size of the Council of Ministers in States at 15 percent of the total number of members of the Legislative Assembly, subject to a minimum of twelve members. The National Capital Territory of Delhi, however, is governed by Article 239AA, which provides that the Council of Ministers shall consist of not more than a smaller percentage of the Assembly strength. Standard polity references consistently point out this difference between States and the National Capital Territory of Delhi. Therefore it is clear that applying the 15 percent limit to Delhi is incorrect, confirming Statement D as the wrong statement. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A is describing the general rule that States in India, other than the historically special case of Jammu and Kashmir, do not have their own Constitutions, which is accurate. Option B correctly recognises that the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir had its own Constitution before the removal of its special status in 2019. Option C correctly captures the constitutional reality that no State in India has the right to secede from the Union, reflecting the indestructible nature of the Union in Indian federalism. Common Pitfalls: A frequent pitfall is to assume that the same 15 percent ceiling for the size of the Council of Ministers applies uniformly to all States and to the National Capital Territory of Delhi, without noticing the special provision for Delhi. Another error is to overlook the historical special status of Jammu and Kashmir and to assume that no State ever had its own Constitution, which would make both Statement A and Statement B suspect. Candidates should carefully distinguish between regular States, Union Territories with legislatures and special cases created by specific constitutional provisions. Paying attention to special articles such as Article 370 and Article 239AA helps prevent such mistakes. Final Answer: The incorrect statement is The maximum number of members in the Council of Ministers of the National Capital Territory of Delhi can be 15 percent of the total number of members in the Legislative Assembly.

Question 14

Which one of the following is not an international human rights treaty adopted as a binding covenant or convention under the United Nations system?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The international human rights framework consists of binding treaties such as covenants and conventions, as well as non binding instruments such as declarations and resolutions. Understanding the difference between these categories is crucial for questions on international law and human rights. This question asks you to identify which of the listed instruments is not a binding international human rights treaty but rather a declaration. Given Data / Assumptions: - The options include covenants and conventions which are usually binding treaties, and a declaration which is typically non binding. - The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is a well known core human rights treaty. - The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities are prominent United Nations conventions. - The Declaration on the Right to Development is an instrument adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in the form of a declaration. Concept / Approach: In international law, covenants and conventions normally denote legally binding treaties once they are ratified by States, whereas declarations are generally considered to be non binding statements of principles or aspirations, although they may influence customary international law. The approach to this question is to distinguish the binding treaties from the declaratory instrument. Three of the options are clearly labelled as a covenant or convention, while one is explicitly a declaration, making it the likely candidate for the correct answer as being not a treaty. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as one of the two major international covenants that form the International Bill of Human Rights; it is a binding treaty. Step 2: Recognise the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women as a binding treaty focused on women's rights, often described as an international bill of rights for women. Step 3: Note that the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is a binding convention that protects and promotes the rights of persons with disabilities. Step 4: Observe that the Declaration on the Right to Development is explicitly termed a declaration adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, representing a statement of principles rather than a treaty. Step 5: Since the question asks which is not an international human rights treaty, the declaration must be chosen as the correct answer. Verification / Alternative check: To verify, recall that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities all have ratification processes, monitoring bodies and periodic reporting mechanisms, typical features of international human rights treaties. By contrast, the Declaration on the Right to Development, adopted in 1986, states important principles about development as a human right but does not establish treaty obligations or a conventional monitoring body in the same way. This difference confirms that the declaration is not a treaty. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) is wrong because it is a binding international human rights treaty that states voluntarily ratify. Option B (Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women) is wrong because it is a binding treaty that obliges States parties to eliminate discrimination against women in various fields and is monitored by a treaty body. Option C (Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities) is wrong because it is a legally binding convention that advances the rights and dignity of persons with disabilities and has a monitoring committee. Common Pitfalls: Some candidates tend to think that all United Nations human rights instruments are binding treaties, overlooking the important category of declarations. Others may be unsure about the status of the right to development and may guess that it is too new or controversial to be a treaty, but fail to remember the exact form in which it was adopted. It is helpful to remember that major core treaties usually contain the words covenant or convention in their titles, whereas declarations, while influential, primarily serve as normative guides and do not create direct treaty obligations unless specifically transformed into treaty form later. Final Answer: The instrument that is not a binding international human rights treaty is the Declaration on the Right to Development.

Question 15

Pradhan Mantri Krishi Sinchayee Yojana (PMKSY) is a flagship irrigation and water management programme of the Government of India. Which one of the following is not an objective of PMKSY?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Pradhan Mantri Krishi Sinchayee Yojana (PMKSY) is an important centrally sponsored scheme aimed at improving irrigation facilities and water management in Indian agriculture. Exams frequently test whether candidates can distinguish between the genuine objectives of this scheme and objectives that actually belong to other schemes, such as crop insurance. This question asks you to identify which among the listed statements is not an objective of PMKSY. Given Data / Assumptions: - Option A talks about achieving convergence of investment in irrigation at the field level. - Option B refers to expanding cultivable area under assured irrigation facilities. - Option C emphasises improving on farm water use efficiency and reducing wastage of water. - Option D refers to protecting farmers against crop failure due to natural calamities, which resembles crop insurance objectives. - The task is to pick the statement that does not match the core irrigation and water management focus of PMKSY. Concept / Approach: PMKSY is primarily focused on improving irrigation infrastructure, ensuring access to irrigation, and enhancing water use efficiency with the slogan more crop per drop. Its broad components include creation of new water sources, repair and renovation of existing structures, micro irrigation expansion and convergence of investments for better field level implementation. Protection against crop failure due to natural calamities, however, is the objective of crop insurance schemes such as the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana, not of PMKSY. The approach is therefore to match each option with these known objectives and identify the one that clearly belongs to another scheme. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Consider Option A, which talks about convergence of investment in irrigation at the field level. PMKSY explicitly aims to bring investments from various sources together for better field level irrigation planning, so this matches a genuine objective. Step 2: Consider Option B, which deals with expanding cultivable area under irrigation. One of the core goals of PMKSY is to ensure that more agricultural land receives assured irrigation, so this also reflects a real objective. Step 3: Consider Option C, which focuses on improving on farm water use efficiency to reduce wastage. PMKSY stresses micro irrigation and efficient techniques such as drip and sprinkler systems to achieve the more crop per drop goal, making this option consistent with the scheme. Step 4: Consider Option D, which aims to protect farmers against crop failure due to natural calamities. This is characteristic of crop insurance schemes and disaster relief measures, not of an irrigation and water management programme. Step 5: Since Option D does not fit within the irrigation and water use efficiency oriented objectives of PMKSY, it is the statement that is not an objective of the scheme. Verification / Alternative check: A quick cross check is to recall the broad grouping of agricultural schemes in India. PMKSY is always described alongside irrigation, watershed development and micro irrigation efforts. In contrast, Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana is always discussed in the context of risk mitigation and insurance against crop loss due to natural calamities, pests and diseases. Option D closely resembles the core objective of crop insurance, not of irrigation. This clear conceptual separation confirms that Option D is not part of PMKSY's objectives. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A is wrong as the answer because it is a correct objective of PMKSY. The scheme emphasises convergence of investment at the field level by bringing together resources from different ministries and departments for integrated irrigation solutions. Option B is wrong as the answer because PMKSY explicitly seeks to expand the area under assured irrigation, ensuring that more farmers have access to reliable water for cultivation. Option C is wrong as the answer because improving on farm water use efficiency and reducing wastage is central to PMKSY's more crop per drop focus through micro irrigation technologies and better water management practices. Common Pitfalls: A common pitfall is to assume that any scheme related to agriculture must automatically include protection against crop failure, leading students to think that crop insurance is part of PMKSY. Another mistake is to blur the boundaries between different flagship schemes when studying them together, which can cause confusion between PMKSY and Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana. To avoid these errors, candidates should link PMKSY with irrigation, water management and micro irrigation, while associating crop failure protection and risk mitigation with crop insurance schemes. Final Answer: The statement that is not an objective of Pradhan Mantri Krishi Sinchayee Yojana is to protect farmers against crop failure due to natural calamities.

Question 16

In the context of the Constitution of India, which of the following are the formal constituents of the Parliament of India: (i) the President, (ii) the Council of States (Rajya Sabha), (iii) the House of the People (Lok Sabha)?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The Constitution of India defines the structure of Parliament clearly and explicitly. For examination purposes, it is very important to know which organs together constitute Parliament, rather than assuming that only the two Houses are involved. This question checks whether you remember that the President is also an integral part of the Parliament of India along with the two Houses. Given Data / Assumptions: - The elements under consideration are: (i) the President, (ii) the Council of States (Rajya Sabha) and (iii) the House of the People (Lok Sabha). - The options present different combinations of these three elements. - The Constitution uses specific language in Article 79 to define the composition of Parliament. - It is assumed that the student is familiar with the basic structure of the Union legislature in India. Concept / Approach: Article 79 of the Constitution of India states that there shall be a Parliament for the Union which shall consist of the President and two Houses, to be known respectively as the Council of States and the House of the People. This makes it clear that Parliament is a three part body, not just a bicameral legislature of two Houses. The approach is to recall this exact formulation and then choose the option that lists all three components together as the constituents of Parliament. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Note that the Council of States is the Rajya Sabha and the House of the People is the Lok Sabha, the two Houses of Parliament. Step 2: Recall Article 79, which explicitly states that Parliament consists of the President and the two Houses. Step 3: This means that the President is not outside Parliament; instead, the President is a formal part of Parliament in the constitutional sense. Step 4: Therefore, the correct set of constituents of Parliament is (i) the President, (ii) the Council of States (Rajya Sabha) and (iii) the House of the People (Lok Sabha). Step 5: Among the options, only the combination (i), (ii) and (iii) includes all three and hence is the correct answer. Verification / Alternative check: For verification, one can look at the wording of Article 79 in any standard polity text, which always emphasizes that Parliament consists of the President plus the two Houses. Additionally, procedural aspects such as assent to Bills further illustrate that the legislative process is not complete without the President, reinforcing the understanding that the President is part of Parliament. No standard source states that Parliament consists only of the two Houses; they always mention the President as well. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A ((ii) and (iii)) is wrong because it includes only Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha and omits the President, ignoring the explicit constitutional definition. Option B ((i) and (ii)) is wrong because it excludes the Lok Sabha, which is one of the two Houses of Parliament and a crucial component. Option C ((i) and (iii)) is wrong because it omits the Rajya Sabha, even though it is explicitly mentioned as part of Parliament in the Constitution. Common Pitfalls: Students often think of Parliament only in terms of the two Houses and treat the President as a separate organ, which leads them to choose the option containing just Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha. This stems from focusing on the legislative debates and not recalling the formal constitutional definition. Another pitfall is to confuse the role of the President in Parliament with the role of the President as head of the State, and to forget that the President's assent is an integral part of the law making process. Remembering the wording of Article 79 helps avoid these mistakes. Final Answer: The Parliament of India consists of the President, the Council of States (Rajya Sabha) and the House of the People (Lok Sabha), that is, (i), (ii) and (iii).

Question 17

Under the Constitution of India, who holds the supreme command of the Indian Defence Forces?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Civilian control over the armed forces is a fundamental principle of democratic governance. In India, the Constitution clearly specifies who holds the supreme command of the Defence Forces. Examinations frequently ask candidates to identify this constitutional authority, distinguishing between political heads of government, individual ministers and the head of the State. Given Data / Assumptions: - The options include the Prime Minister of India, the Defence Minister of India, the Council of Ministers of India and the President of India. - The question asks specifically about the supreme command of the Defence Forces, not about day to day management or policy making in defence matters. - Article 53 of the Constitution is relevant to this subject. - It is assumed that the student knows the basic difference between head of State and head of Government. Concept / Approach: Article 53 of the Constitution of India states that the executive power of the Union shall be vested in the President and shall be exercised by the President either directly or through officers subordinate to the President. It also states that the supreme command of the Defence Forces of the Union shall be vested in the President and shall be regulated by law. Thus, while the Council of Ministers headed by the Prime Minister actually exercises effective control and policy direction, the formal and constitutional supreme command lies with the President. The approach is to recall this article and then choose the authority named there. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that the Prime Minister is the head of the Government and leads the Council of Ministers in exercising real executive power, but the Constitution does not describe the Prime Minister as holding the supreme command of the Defence Forces. Step 2: Note that the Defence Minister is a key member of the Cabinet responsible for defence policy and administration, but again is not described in the Constitution as holding the supreme command. Step 3: Remember that the Council of Ministers collectively aids and advises the President, but the constitutional phrase used is that the supreme command vests in the President, not in the Council of Ministers. Step 4: Article 53 explicitly states that the supreme command of the Defence Forces of the Union shall be vested in the President and shall be regulated by law. Step 5: Therefore, the correct answer is the President of India. Verification / Alternative check: Verification can be done by looking at any standard text on Indian Polity, which always notes that the President is the Supreme Commander of the Defence Forces. Ceremonial practices such as the President taking the salute at Republic Day parades also symbolically represent this role. By contrast, the Prime Minister and Defence Minister are described as exercising effective control over defence policy but not as holding the constitutional supreme command. This consistent usage confirms that the President is the correct answer. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A (Prime Minister of India) is wrong because, although the Prime Minister is the head of Government and plays a major role in defence matters, the Constitution does not vest the supreme command in the Prime Minister. Option B (Defence Minister of India) is wrong because the Defence Minister is responsible for the Ministry of Defence and military policy but is not described in the Constitution as holding the supreme command of the Defence Forces. Option C (Council of Ministers of India) is wrong because, while this body assists and advises the President, the supreme command is vested in the President individually, not in the Council as such. Common Pitfalls: A common mistake is to confuse actual day to day control with the formal constitutional position. Students may think of the Prime Minister or Defence Minister as being the top authority in defence matters and overlook the constitutional phrase supreme command. Another pitfall is to assume that the Council of Ministers collectively holds this role because it is the real executive, but the Constitution uses very specific language that mentions the President. Remembering the distinction between symbolic and formal constitutional roles on the one hand and practical political power on the other helps avoid these errors. Final Answer: The supreme command of the Indian Defence Forces is vested in the President of India.

Question 18

Under which Schedule of the Constitution of India is the anti-defection law, dealing with disqualification of legislators on grounds of defection, contained?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The anti defection law was introduced in India to curb political defections that destabilise governments and undermine the mandate of the electorate. This law is incorporated into the Constitution through a specific Schedule. Many examination questions ask which Schedule contains these provisions, so remembering the correct schedule number is essential for scoring well on polity topics. Given Data / Assumptions: - The question asks specifically about the Schedule that contains the anti defection law provisions. - The options mention the Second, Tenth, Third and Fourth Schedules of the Constitution of India. - The student is expected to recognise which Schedule was added by the Fifty Second Amendment Act, 1985, for this purpose. - It is assumed that the student is familiar with the role of Schedules in the Constitution. Concept / Approach: The anti defection law was added to the Constitution by the Fifty Second Constitutional Amendment Act, 1985 and later strengthened by the Ninety First Amendment. These provisions are not in the main body of the Articles but are placed in the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution. The Tenth Schedule lays down the grounds for disqualification of Members of Parliament and State Legislatures on the ground of defection. The approach is therefore to recall the link between the anti defection law and the Tenth Schedule, while knowing that the other Schedules are devoted to different topics such as salaries, forms of oath or allocation of seats. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that the anti defection law is commonly referred to as the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution. Step 2: Remember that the Tenth Schedule was introduced by the Fifty Second Amendment Act of 1985 to address the problem of political defections. Step 3: Recognise that the Second Schedule deals with emoluments and allowances of certain constitutional office holders, the Third Schedule deals with forms of oaths and affirmations, and the Fourth Schedule relates to allocation of seats in the Rajya Sabha. Step 4: Since only the Tenth Schedule is associated with the anti defection law, it must be chosen from the options. Step 5: Therefore, the correct answer is the Tenth Schedule. Verification / Alternative check: Standard polity references always mention the anti defection law as being contained in the Tenth Schedule, and discussions of the Fifty Second Amendment repeatedly use the phrase Tenth Schedule to denote the portion of the Constitution dealing with defections. No reference associates this law with the Second, Third or Fourth Schedules, which are reserved for different topics. Even newspaper articles and commentaries on defections in legislatures often informally refer to action under the Tenth Schedule, reinforcing the association. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A (Second Schedule) is wrong because it covers salaries, allowances and privileges of certain constitutional functionaries, not defection. Option C (Third Schedule) is wrong because it contains the forms of oaths or affirmations for various constitutional offices and members, not rules on defecting from parties. Option D (Fourth Schedule) is wrong because it deals with the allocation of seats in the Council of States (Rajya Sabha) to different States and Union Territories, not with the disqualification of members for defection. Common Pitfalls: A typical pitfall is to mix up the numbering of Schedules, especially because some of them are frequently mentioned together in exam preparation. Candidates may remember that the anti defection law was added by an amendment but forget which Schedule number it created. Others may confuse it with the Second Schedule because that one is also often discussed in the context of constitutional offices. To avoid such mistakes, it helps to memorise simple associations, such as linking Tenth Schedule with defection, Third Schedule with oaths and Second Schedule with salaries and allowances. Final Answer: The anti defection law is contained in the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of India.

Question 19

Under the Constitution of India, who appoints the Governor of a State in India?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The office of the Governor is a vital link between the Union and the States in India. Governors serve as the constitutional heads of States, and their appointment process reflects the federal character of the Indian polity. Knowing who appoints the Governor is a basic but frequently tested point in examinations on Indian Polity. Given Data / Assumptions: - The options provided are the Prime Minister of India, the Council of Ministers of India, a Judge of the Supreme Court of India and the President of India. - The question refers specifically to the appointing authority, not the advisory body or the process behind the scenes. - Article 155 of the Constitution is directly relevant to this topic. - It is assumed that the student understands the difference between the formal appointing authority and the body that may advise that authority. 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 the President's hand and seal. Though the President usually acts on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers headed by the Prime Minister, the formal constitutional act of appointment is attributed to the President. Therefore, the correct approach is to identify the President as the appointing authority rather than the advisory or recommending authorities. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that Article 155 explicitly mentions that the Governor is appointed by the President of India. Step 2: Recognise that the Prime Minister and the Council of Ministers advise the President but are not themselves described as appointing authorities in the Constitution. Step 3: Understand that Judges of the Supreme Court do not have any role in the appointment of Governors; their roles lie in the judiciary. Step 4: Based on the constitutional text, identify the President of India as the authority who appoints the Governor by issuing a warrant under hand and seal. Step 5: Therefore, among the options provided, the President of India is the correct answer. Verification / Alternative check: Verification can be done by referring to Article 155 in any standard Indian Polity textbook or directly in the Constitution, where the language clearly specifies the President as the appointing authority. Additionally, official notifications regarding the appointment of Governors are issued in the name of the President. There is no legal provision assigning this role to the Prime Minister, Council of Ministers or Supreme Court Judges, which confirms the answer. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A (Prime Minister of India) is wrong because the Prime Minister does not directly appoint Governors. The Prime Minister may be involved in recommending names, but the formal appointment authority is the President. Option B (Council of Ministers of India) is wrong because, while the Council of Ministers collectively advises the President, the Constitution clearly identifies the President, not the Council, as the appointing authority. Option C (A Judge of the Supreme Court of India) is wrong because Judges play no role in appointing Governors; their role is judicial, not executive. Common Pitfalls: A common pitfall is to confuse the advisory role of the Council of Ministers with the formal constitutional authority of the President. Some candidates assume that because the President usually acts on advice, the practical power lies with the Prime Minister or the Council and mistakenly pick one of those as the appointing authority. However, examination questions typically expect the formal constitutional answer. Remembering the exact wording of Article 155 helps avoid this confusion. Final Answer: The Governor of a State in India is appointed by the President of India.

Question 20

Which Article of the Constitution of India contains the provision for proclamation of a National Emergency (emergency due to war, external aggression or armed rebellion)?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The Constitution of India provides for three types of emergencies: National Emergency, State Emergency (President's Rule) and Financial Emergency. Each has a specific Article governing its proclamation and operation. This question asks you to identify the Article under which a National Emergency, that is an emergency due to war, external aggression or armed rebellion, can be proclaimed. Given Data / Assumptions: - The options mention Articles 350, 352, 360 and 357 of the Constitution. - The question refers explicitly to National Emergency, not to state emergencies or financial emergencies. - The student is expected to know the basic scheme of emergency provisions in Part XVIII of the Constitution. - The correct Article must relate to war, external aggression or armed rebellion affecting the security of India or a part of its territory. Concept / Approach: National Emergency is covered under Article 352. It allows the President to proclaim an emergency if satisfied that the security of India or any part of its territory is threatened by war, external aggression or armed rebellion. Article 356 deals with failure of constitutional machinery in States, Article 360 deals with financial emergency, and other Articles are concerned with related matters. The approach is to match the specific type of emergency described in the question with the correct Article number in the emergency provisions. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that Article 352 relates to National Emergency on grounds of war, external aggression or armed rebellion. Step 2: Recognise that Article 360 deals specifically with Financial Emergency, which is a different type of emergency. Step 3: Note that Articles 355 to 357 deal with duties of the Union to protect States and with President's Rule, not with the National Emergency described in the question. Step 4: Article 350 is not part of the emergency provisions and deals with language related grievances. Step 5: Therefore, the only Article among the options that provides for proclamation of a National Emergency is Article 352. Verification / Alternative check: Any standard textbook on Indian Polity lists Article 352 as the provision for National Emergency and Article 360 for Financial Emergency. Historical references to the National Emergencies proclaimed in India in 1962, 1971 and 1975 all mention Article 352 in connection with the proclamation. The language of the Article clearly refers to war, external aggression and armed rebellion, confirming that this is the correct Article for the type of emergency mentioned in the question. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A (Article 350) is wrong because it is not part of the emergency provisions; it deals with language related rights and representation to the Governor or President regarding language issues. Option C (Article 360) is wrong because it deals with Financial Emergency, which is invoked when the financial stability or credit of India or any part of its territory is threatened. Option D (Article 357) is wrong because it deals with the exercise of legislative powers under a proclamation issued under Article 356 (President's Rule), not with National Emergency under Article 352. Common Pitfalls: A common pitfall is mixing up the Article numbers for National and Financial Emergencies, particularly confusing Article 352 with Article 360. Another mistake is to assume that any Article in the 350 range relates to emergencies without recalling that the emergency provisions are clustered mainly between Articles 352 and 360. To avoid such errors, candidates should memorise a simple map: Article 352 for National Emergency, Article 356 for President's Rule and Article 360 for Financial Emergency. Final Answer: The provision for proclamation of a National Emergency is contained in Article 352 of the Constitution of India.

Indian Politics Questions