Question 1

Which of the following statements regarding the Preamble of the Constitution of India is or are correct? 1. The Preamble by itself is not enforceable in a Court of Law. 2. The Preamble states the objectives which the Constitution seeks to establish …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question focuses on the nature and role of the Preamble to the Constitution of India. The Preamble is a brief introductory statement that sets out the ideals, objectives, and basic philosophy of the Constitution. It is often called the identity card of the Constitution. To answer correctly, you must know whether the Preamble is legally enforceable, what objectives it contains, and whether it indicates the ultimate source of constitutional authority. Given Data / Assumptions: Statement 1 claims that the Preamble is not by itself enforceable in a Court of Law. Statement 2 says that the Preamble states the objectives which the Constitution seeks to establish and promote. Statement 3 says that the Preamble indicates the source from which the Constitution derives its authority. We must decide whether each of these statements correctly reflects the accepted position in constitutional law. Concept / Approach: The Preamble begins with the words We, the people of India, showing that the ultimate authority of the Constitution flows from the people themselves. It then lists objectives such as justice, liberty, equality, fraternity, and securing the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the nation. The Supreme Court has held that while the Preamble is an integral part of the Constitution, it is not directly enforceable in court; it does not confer independent legal rights or obligations. However, it can be used as a guiding light to interpret ambiguous provisions of the Constitution and statutes. Using these principles, we can evaluate each statement. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Consider Statement 1. Courts have consistently stated that the Preamble is not a source of enforceable rights by itself. You cannot file a case claiming direct violation of the Preamble alone. Therefore Statement 1, which says the Preamble is not enforceable in a Court of Law, is correct.Step 2: Consider Statement 2. The Preamble clearly lays down objectives like justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity, and notes that the Constitution aims to secure these ideals for all citizens. Hence it does state the objectives that the Constitution seeks to establish and promote. Statement 2 is therefore correct.Step 3: Consider Statement 3. The opening words We, the people of India show that the Constitution derives its authority from the people, not from any external power or monarch. The Preamble thus indicates the source of constitutional authority. Statement 3 is correct as well.Step 4: Since all three statements are correct, the appropriate option is 1, 2 and 3. Verification / Alternative check: Important Supreme Court decisions, such as the Kesavananda Bharati case, have described the Preamble as part of the Constitution and a key to its basic structure, but they also make it clear that the Preamble alone does not create directly enforceable rights. They frequently quote the objectives listed in the Preamble and the phrase We, the people to underline democratic sovereignty. Standard polity textbooks echo this by stating that the Preamble is non justiciable, declares the objectives of the Constitution, and indicates its ultimate source, confirming that all three statements are correct. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option 1 and 2 only is wrong because it leaves out Statement 3, even though the Preamble clearly indicates that the Constitution derives its authority from the people of India. Option 1 and 3 only is incorrect because it ignores Statement 2, despite the obvious role of the Preamble in setting out the objectives of justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity. Option 2 only is clearly wrong because it excludes the vital facts that the Preamble is non enforceable and that it declares the people as the source of authority, both of which are well established in constitutional law. Common Pitfalls: Some candidates mistakenly think that because the Preamble is described as a part of the Constitution, it must be directly enforceable, which leads them to doubt Statement 1. Others may not recognise that the phrase We, the people is legally significant and shows the source of authority, causing them to dismiss Statement 3. To avoid such mistakes, remember that the Preamble guides interpretation but does not itself provide a cause of action, and that it is the people of India who give the Constitution its legitimacy as reflected in the opening words. Final Answer: All three statements are correct, so the right answer is 1, 2 and 3.

Question 2

Which one of the following statements relating to cultural and educational rights in India, as guaranteed by the Constitution, is not correct?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question examines your understanding of the cultural and educational rights guaranteed by Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution of India. These provisions protect the rights of minorities and different sections of citizens to conserve their language, script, and culture, and to establish and administer educational institutions. They also prohibit discrimination by the State in granting aid to such institutions. You must identify which statement does not correctly reflect these constitutional protections. Given Data / Assumptions: Option a asserts that every section of citizens has the right to conserve its language, script, or culture. Option b states that no citizen shall be denied admission into State maintained or State aided educational institutions on grounds of religion, race, or language. Option c suggests that the State shall discriminate, in granting aid, against institutions under the management of a majority community. Option d states that all minorities, whether based on religion or language, have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. We must identify which of these statements is inconsistent with Articles 29 and 30. Concept / Approach: Article 29(1) provides that any section of the citizens residing in the territory of India or any part thereof having a distinct language, script, or culture of its own shall have the right to conserve the same. Article 29(2) prohibits denial of admission to any educational institution maintained by the State or receiving aid out of State funds on grounds only of religion, race, caste, language, or any of them. Article 30(1) gives religious and linguistic minorities the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. Article 30(2) specifically says that the State shall not, in granting aid to educational institutions, discriminate against any institution on the ground that it is under the management of a minority. The Constitution does not direct the State to discriminate against majority institutions; rather, it prohibits discriminatory treatment based on management by a particular community. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Assess Option a. This reflects Article 29(1), which gives any section of citizens the right to conserve its language, script, or culture. Therefore Option a is correct.Step 2: Assess Option b. While it does not list every ground (such as caste), it correctly states that no citizen shall be denied admission on grounds of religion, race, or language in State maintained or State aided institutions, which is in line with Article 29(2). So Option b is substantially correct.Step 3: Assess Option c. This says that the State shall discriminate, in granting aid, against institutions under the management of a majority community. The Constitution actually prohibits discrimination against minority managed institutions and does not authorise discrimination against majority institutions either. The principle is that aid should not be denied or varied solely due to the management being of a particular community. Hence Option c misstates the constitutional position and is not correct.Step 4: Assess Option d. This accurately reflects Article 30(1), which gives all religious and linguistic minorities the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. Therefore Option d is correct. Thus, the only incorrect statement is Option c. Verification / Alternative check: Reading Articles 29 and 30 together makes it clear that the Constitution aims to protect both minority rights and equal access to education without discrimination on specified grounds. Article 30(2) focuses on preventing the State from discriminating against minority institutions in the grant of aid. There is no clause that instructs the State to discriminate against majority community institutions, and the general constitutional spirit is against such discrimination. Textbook explanations of cultural and educational rights always emphasise non discrimination and protection of minority institutions, confirming that the idea expressed in Option c is incorrect. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option a correctly summarises Article 29(1), so it cannot be the incorrect statement that the question is looking for. Option b correctly captures the essence of Article 29(2), which prohibits denial of admission on certain grounds, even though it does not list every single ground mentioned in the Constitution; the core idea is correct. Option d correctly mirrors Article 30(1), which confers on minorities based on religion or language the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice, so this option is also correct. Common Pitfalls: Some candidates may misread Option c quickly and think it is about protection of minority institutions, not noticing that it refers to majority community management and uses the word discriminate in the wrong way. Others may incorrectly assume that the Constitution favours minority institutions to such an extent that it permits discrimination against majority institutions, which is not the case. The Constitution emphasises equality and non discrimination while giving special protection to minority rights. Reading the options slowly and recalling the exact language of Article 30(2) helps avoid these misunderstandings. Final Answer: The incorrect statement is the one that says the State shall discriminate against institutions under the management of a majority community when granting aid, so Option c is the right answer.

Question 3

Which one of the following statements relating to the Directive Principles of State Policy in Part IV of the Constitution of India is not correct?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question explores the nature and purpose of the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs) found in Part IV of the Constitution of India. DPSPs guide the State in making laws and policies aimed at establishing a just social order. They reflect ideals of social justice, economic democracy, and welfare rather than promoting a purely capitalist model. To answer correctly, you must identify which statement does not align with the constitutional description of DPSPs. Given Data / Assumptions: Option a notes that provisions in Part IV are not enforceable by any Court. Option b states that the Directive Principles are fundamental in the governance of the country. Option c states that it is the duty of the State to apply the Directive Principles in making laws. Option d claims that the Directive Principles are directed towards making India an advanced capitalist country of the world. We must determine which of these statements is not correct according to Article 37 and the overall philosophy of the DPSPs. Concept / Approach: Article 37 explicitly states that the provisions contained in Part IV shall not be enforceable by any court, but the principles are nevertheless fundamental in the governance of the country and it shall be the duty of the State to apply these principles in making laws. The DPSPs include goals such as reducing inequalities, securing a living wage, promoting education and public health, protecting the environment, and organising the economy along socialist and welfare lines. They are not designed to make India a purely capitalist country; rather, they aim at social and economic justice and a welfare state. Therefore, any statement that portrays DPSPs as promoting a strictly capitalist model is inconsistent with their actual content. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Evaluate Option a. This matches Article 37, which clearly states that the provisions in Part IV are not enforceable by any court. Hence Option a is correct.Step 2: Evaluate Option b. Article 37 also says that the principles are nevertheless fundamental in the governance of the country, so this statement is correct.Step 3: Evaluate Option c. The same Article 37 notes that it shall be the duty of the State to apply these principles in making laws, which confirms that Option c is correct.Step 4: Evaluate Option d. The Directive Principles aim at establishing a welfare state with social and economic justice, reducing inequalities, and securing dignity for all. They are influenced by socialist and Gandhian ideas, not by a purely capitalist vision. Saying that they are directed towards making India an advanced capitalist country misrepresents their objective. Therefore Option d is not correct. Verification / Alternative check: By scanning through Articles 38 to 51, which list the Directive Principles, you will find repeated emphasis on social justice, minimising inequalities, providing adequate livelihood, distributing material resources to subserve the common good, and preventing concentration of wealth. These provisions clearly lean toward a socialistic and welfare oriented model rather than a purely capitalist one. Standard polity texts and exam guides explicitly describe DPSPs as tools for creating a welfare state, not a capitalist state. This confirms that Options a, b, and c are accurate and that Option d is the incorrect statement. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option a correctly states the non justiciable nature of the DPSPs and reflects the exact language of Article 37, so it is not the incorrect statement. Option b correctly describes the Directive Principles as fundamental in the governance of the country, also based on Article 37, so it is accurate. Option c is a direct restatement of another part of Article 37, which imposes a duty on the State to apply these principles in making laws. Therefore it is also correct. Common Pitfalls: Some candidates may misinterpret references to economic development and industrial growth in certain policies as evidence that the Constitution promotes a capitalist order, and this may tempt them to accept Option d. Others might be unsure about the exact wording of Article 37 and thus hesitate over Options a, b, and c. To avoid these issues, it is helpful to remember that the Directive Principles are rooted in ideals of social justice, welfare, and reduction of inequalities, and that Article 37 explicitly describes their non justiciability, their fundamental role in governance, and the duty of the State to apply them. Final Answer: The incorrect statement is that the Directive Principles are directed towards making India an advanced capitalist country of the world, so Option d is the right answer.

Question 4

Which one of the following statements is not correct regarding the Office of the Vice President of India as created by the Constitution?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question tests your understanding of the constitutional provisions relating to the Office of the Vice President of India, particularly the method of election and eligibility conditions. The Vice President occupies a unique position as the ex officio Chairman of the Rajya Sabha and as a possible acting President. To answer correctly, you must know who forms the electoral college for this office and whether only elected members vote in that election. Given Data / Assumptions: Option a states that the Vice President is elected by an electoral college consisting of the elected members of both Houses of Parliament. Option b states that the Vice President is elected according to the system of proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote. Option c states that the Vice President shall not be a member of either House of Parliament or of a State Legislature at the time of holding office. Option d states that the Vice President is ex officio Chairman of the Council of States (Rajya Sabha) and shall not hold any other office of profit. We must identify which of these statements is not correct. Concept / Approach: Article 66 of the Constitution deals with the election of the Vice President. It states that the Vice President is elected by the members of an electoral college consisting of the members of both Houses of Parliament, not only the elected members. This means nominated members of both Houses also participate in the election. The election is conducted using proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote. Article 66(2) further says that no person shall be eligible for election as Vice President if he or she holds any office of profit under the Government of India, any State, or any local or other authority, and if a sitting member of either House is elected, he or she is deemed to have vacated that seat. Article 64 states that the Vice President shall be ex officio Chairman of the Council of States and shall not hold any other office of profit. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Evaluate Option a. The electoral college for the Vice President includes members of both Houses of Parliament, whether elected or nominated. Option a incorrectly says it consists only of elected members. Therefore Option a is not correct.Step 2: Evaluate Option b. Article 66(1) clearly states that the election is held in accordance with the system of proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote, so this statement is correct.Step 3: Evaluate Option c. Once a person becomes Vice President, he or she cannot continue as a member of either House or of a State legislature, and any such seat is vacated on assuming office. This reflects the constitutional requirement that the Vice President should not simultaneously be a member of Parliament or a State legislature while holding the office, so Option c is essentially correct in this context.Step 4: Evaluate Option d. Article 64 provides that the Vice President shall be ex officio Chairman of the Council of States and shall not hold any other office of profit. This matches the content of Option d, so that statement is also correct. Thus the only incorrect statement is Option a. Verification / Alternative check: Standard polity textbooks highlight a key difference between the electoral colleges for the President and the Vice President. For the President, only elected members of both Houses of Parliament and elected members of State Legislative Assemblies participate. For the Vice President, the electoral college consists of all members of both Houses of Parliament, both elected and nominated. This distinction is often asked in exams. The use of the single transferable vote system for both President and Vice President is also widely discussed. These references confirm that Option a misstates the composition of the electoral college, while the other options accurately reflect constitutional provisions. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option b is correct because it accurately describes the proportional representation system with the single transferable vote used in the election, so it is not the incorrect statement. Option c is correct in spirit, as the Vice President cannot be a member of Parliament or of a State legislature while holding office and must vacate any such seat, making it consistent with the Constitution. Option d is also correct, since the Vice President serves as ex officio Chairman of the Rajya Sabha and is not permitted to hold any other office of profit, reflecting Article 64 and related provisions. Common Pitfalls: A common mistake is to assume that the electoral college formula for the President and the Vice President is identical, leading candidates to believe that only elected members vote in both elections. Another confusion arises from not paying attention to the role of nominated members in parliamentary processes. To avoid these mistakes, remember that the key difference is that nominated members of both Houses participate in the Vice President's election but not in the President's election. This detail helps you quickly identify Option a as the incorrect statement. Final Answer: The incorrect statement is that the electoral college for the Vice President consists only of elected members of both Houses of Parliament; in reality, it includes both elected and nominated members.

Question 5

Which one of the following constitutional authorities has the power to inquire into and decide doubts and disputes arising out of the election of the President and the Vice President of India?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question tests your knowledge of which constitutional body is empowered to resolve disputes related to the election of the President and the Vice President of India. Elections to these highest offices must be free and fair, and any doubt or dispute needs an authoritative and final decision. The Constitution specifies a particular authority for this purpose, and you must recall that provision correctly. Given Data / Assumptions: The question is about doubts and disputes concerning the election of the President and Vice President. The options include the Supreme Court, the Election Commission, a Parliamentary Committee, and the High Court of Delhi. We assume that the question refers to the constitutional provision governing such disputes, not to internal procedural issues. Concept / Approach: Article 71 of the Constitution of India deals with matters related to the election of the President and Vice President. It states that all doubts and disputes arising out of or in connection with the election of a President or Vice President shall be inquired into and decided by the Supreme Court, whose decision shall be final. While the Election Commission conducts the election process, it does not decide disputes concerning the validity of the election result. Parliamentary committees and High Courts are not given this authority in relation to Presidential and Vice Presidential elections. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall Article 71, which explicitly names the Supreme Court as the authority to inquire into and decide disputes concerning the election of the President and Vice President.Step 2: Note that the Election Commission of India is responsible for conducting and supervising election procedures but does not have final adjudicatory power over disputes regarding the validity of these particular elections.Step 3: Remember that no Parliamentary Committee is given constitutional authority to decide election disputes for these offices.Step 4: High Courts, including the High Court of Delhi, handle election petitions for MPs and MLAs under relevant laws, but disputes related to Presidential and Vice Presidential elections fall directly under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Hence the correct answer is the Supreme Court of India. Verification / Alternative check: Standard polity texts clearly mention that in the case of an election dispute for the President or Vice President, an election petition is presented directly to the Supreme Court. The Court then inquires into the matter and its decision is final. These sources also emphasise the special status of these elections, which bypass the High Courts and ordinary election tribunals. No credible source suggests that the Election Commission or a Parliamentary Committee has final authority to decide such disputes, confirming that the Supreme Court is the only correct option. Why Other Options Are Wrong: The Election Commission of India conducts elections and supervises the process, but it does not decide final disputes regarding the validity of the election result for the President or Vice President, so Option b is incorrect. A Parliamentary Committee has no constitutional mandate to adjudicate Presidential or Vice Presidential election disputes; its role is limited to legislative and oversight functions, so Option c is wrong. The High Court of Delhi, like other High Courts, may handle election petitions for members of Parliament or State legislatures but has no jurisdiction over the election disputes of these top constitutional offices, so Option d is also incorrect. Common Pitfalls: Some candidates incorrectly assume that because the Election Commission runs the election, it must also decide disputes about the result. Others might think of High Courts or Parliamentary bodies as natural forums for such matters. To avoid this confusion, remember the special constitutional position of the President and Vice President, and that Article 71 gives the Supreme Court the exclusive authority to settle doubts and disputes about their elections. This detail often appears in exam oriented summaries and should be memorised. Final Answer: The Supreme Court of India is the constitutional authority that inquires into and decides disputes arising out of the election of the President and Vice President.

Question 6

Which of the following is justiciable in nature, that is, can be directly enforced by the Courts of Law in India?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question tests your understanding of which parts of the Constitution of India are justiciable, meaning they can be directly enforced by Courts of Law. The Constitution contains Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles of State Policy, and Fundamental Duties, each with a different legal status. Knowing which of these can be the basis of a direct legal action is a common and important point in Indian polity questions. Given Data / Assumptions: Option a refers to Fundamental Duties located in Part IV A of the Constitution. Option b refers to Directive Principles of State Policy found in Part IV. Option c refers to Fundamental Rights contained in Part III. Option d suggests that none of these are justiciable. We must identify which category gives citizens rights that can be directly enforced through the Courts. Concept / Approach: Fundamental Rights under Part III are guaranteed and protected by the Constitution, and Article 32 and Article 226 allow individuals to directly approach the Supreme Court or High Courts for their enforcement. This makes them justiciable. Directive Principles of State Policy, under Part IV, are expressly stated as non justiciable in Article 37; they are fundamental in the governance of the country but cannot be enforced by any court. Fundamental Duties, under Part IV A, are moral obligations of citizens and are also not directly enforceable through court actions in the same way as Fundamental Rights, although laws may be made to give effect to them. Thus, among the given options, only Fundamental Rights are directly justiciable. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Examine Fundamental Rights. These include rights such as equality before law, freedom of speech and expression, freedom of religion, and protection of life and personal liberty. The Constitution provides specific remedies, including the right to constitutional remedies under Article 32, allowing individuals to move the Supreme Court for enforcement. This makes them justiciable.Step 2: Examine Directive Principles of State Policy. Article 37 clearly states that the provisions contained in Part IV shall not be enforceable by any court. They are guidelines for the State to follow in governance and law making but do not create enforceable individual rights by themselves.Step 3: Examine Fundamental Duties. These duties urge citizens to follow important civic responsibilities such as respecting the Constitution, protecting the environment, and safeguarding public property. However, there is no direct constitutional remedy for their violation, and courts do not enforce them as independent causes of action, although they may influence interpretation of laws.Step 4: Therefore, among the options, Fundamental Rights are the only category that is justiciable in nature and directly enforceable by courts, so Option c is correct. Verification / Alternative check: Standard polity texts emphasise that Fundamental Rights are a cornerstone of the Indian Constitution and can be enforced through writs such as habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, and quo warranto. They explicitly describe Directive Principles as non justiciable, meant to guide the State but not directly enforceable in courts. Fundamental Duties are also described as non justiciable moral obligations. This consistent description across textbooks confirms that only Fundamental Rights are justiciable among the options provided. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Fundamental Duties are not directly enforceable in court; they guide citizens' behaviour and may influence legislation, but individuals cannot ordinarily file a case solely on the ground that someone has violated a Fundamental Duty, so Option a is incorrect. Directive Principles of State Policy are explicitly declared non justiciable by Article 37, which means courts cannot compel the State to implement them, so Option b is also incorrect. Option d, None of these, is wrong because it ignores the clear justiciable character of Fundamental Rights. Common Pitfalls: Some candidates may be misled by the importance of Directive Principles or Fundamental Duties and think that because they are significant, they must be directly enforceable. Others may quickly read the options and overthink, suspecting a trick where none exists. To avoid such errors, remember the simple rule: Fundamental Rights are enforceable in court, Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties are not, although they are important for governance and civic life. This straightforward distinction answers many similar questions in Indian polity. Final Answer: Fundamental Rights are justiciable in nature and can be directly enforced by Courts of Law in India.

Question 7

Which of the following does not come under the list of Fundamental Duties of citizens of India as laid down in Article 51A of the Constitution?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question tests your knowledge of the Fundamental Duties of citizens as listed in Article 51A of the Constitution of India. These duties were added to emphasise that citizens also have obligations towards the nation, society, and environment, complementing the Fundamental Rights. To answer correctly, you must distinguish between duties imposed on citizens and rights guaranteed to them under Part III of the Constitution. Given Data / Assumptions: Option a refers to safeguarding public property. Option b refers to protecting and improving the natural environment. Option c refers to promoting harmony among people. Option d refers to protecting freedom of speech and expression. We must identify which of these is not a Fundamental Duty under Article 51A. Concept / Approach: Article 51A lists several duties, including abiding by the Constitution, cherishing noble ideals of the freedom struggle, defending the country, promoting harmony and brotherhood, preserving the rich heritage of composite culture, protecting the natural environment, developing scientific temper, safeguarding public property, and striving towards excellence. Freedom of speech and expression, on the other hand, is a Fundamental Right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a), not a duty. Citizens are expected to exercise this right responsibly, but the Constitution does not phrase it as a duty to protect that freedom; instead, it protects the freedom against unreasonable State restrictions. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Check Option a. Article 51A(i) clearly states that it is the duty of every citizen to safeguard public property and to abjure violence. Therefore safeguarding public property is a Fundamental Duty.Step 2: Check Option b. Article 51A(g) specifies the duty to protect and improve the natural environment, including forests, lakes, rivers, and wildlife, and to have compassion for living creatures. Thus this is also a Fundamental Duty.Step 3: Check Option c. Article 51A(e) mentions the duty to promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood among all the people of India, transcending religious, linguistic, and regional or sectional diversities. So this is again a Fundamental Duty.Step 4: Check Option d. To protect freedom of speech and expression is not listed as a Fundamental Duty in Article 51A. Freedom of speech and expression is instead a Fundamental Right under Article 19(1)(a). Therefore Option d is the statement that does not come under the list of Fundamental Duties. Verification / Alternative check: Reviewing the text of Article 51A confirms the presence of duties related to safeguarding public property, promoting harmony, and protecting the environment. You will not find any separate duty stated as protecting freedom of speech and expression. Instead, when you examine Part III, you see that freedom of speech and expression is guaranteed as a right, subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2). Standard polity books consistently categorise it as a Fundamental Right rather than a duty. This confirms that Option d is not a Fundamental Duty. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option a is wrong as a choice because safeguarding public property is explicitly mentioned as a Fundamental Duty in Article 51A(i), so it is part of the list. Option b is incorrect as the answer because protecting and improving the natural environment is clearly included in Article 51A(g) and is an important duty of citizens. Option c is also incorrect as the answer since promoting harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood is written into Article 51A(e), making it a recognised Fundamental Duty. Common Pitfalls: Some candidates confuse rights and duties and may assume that because freedom of speech and expression is very important, citizens must have a duty to protect it. While citizens should value this freedom, the Constitution classifies it as a right, not as a duty. Another pitfall is to forget specific wording of Article 51A and rely on vague memory, which can blur the distinction between environmental protection as a duty and free speech as a right. Remembering that Fundamental Duties are mainly in Article 51A and that key civic obligations such as protecting the environment, safeguarding public property, and promoting harmony are explicitly mentioned will help you answer similar questions accurately. Final Answer: The statement that does not come under the list of Fundamental Duties is: To protect freedom of speech and expression.

Question 8

India recently notified the Third Protocol to amend its Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement related to income taxes with which of the following partner countries?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The question tests awareness of India s network of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements and important recent amendments to those treaties. In particular, it refers to the Third Protocol that amended the existing agreement between India and a specific partner country. Such protocols are very important in economic and taxation general knowledge because they change how cross border investments and capital gains are taxed, which has direct implications for investors, governments, and international business. Given Data / Assumptions: - India has signed Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements with many countries to avoid the same income being taxed twice. - The question mentions a Third Protocol, which means there had already been earlier protocol amendments to that treaty. - The task is simply to recall with which country this Third Protocol was notified. Concept / Approach: The best way to approach such questions is to link key news events with specific partner countries. The Third Protocol most widely discussed in relation to India in recent years is the one that amended the India Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. That protocol shifted capital gains on shares from residence based taxation to source based taxation. This was widely reported in economic news and exam oriented current affairs material. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Note the keywords Third Protocol, Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, and India. Step 2: Recall which partner country was repeatedly mentioned in news about revision of tax treatment for capital gains on shares. That country was Singapore. Step 3: Check the options provided and identify Singapore among them. Step 4: Confirm that no other listed country had a Third Protocol with India that was equally prominent in the same context. Step 5: Mark Singapore as the correct answer. Verification / Alternative check: If a student remembers that India earlier signed protocols with Mauritius and Cyprus but that those were not described as a Third Protocol, while the news headline clearly spoke about the Third Protocol with Singapore, this also confirms the answer. Many current affairs compilations specifically highlighted the phrase Third Protocol with Singapore. Why Other Options Are Wrong: China has various economic agreements with India, but the widely publicised Third Protocol on DTAA in this period was not with China. Vietnam has growing trade relations with India, but no major news item spoke about a Third Protocol to a DTAA with Vietnam in this context. Malaysia also has tax agreements with India, yet there was no famous Third Protocol notification with Malaysia in recent years similar to the India Singapore case. Thailand is another regional partner, but again it was not the country associated with the Third Protocol emphasised in current affairs. Common Pitfalls: A common mistake is to guess another Asian country like China or Malaysia simply because they are economically significant. Another error is to confuse this protocol with separate changes made to the Mauritius treaty. Learners should connect the phrase Third Protocol and capital gains on shares directly with Singapore to avoid confusion. Final Answer: The Third Protocol to amend the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement referred to in the question was notified with Singapore.

Question 9

The Comptroller and Auditor General of India is appointed for how many years as per the constitutional provisions and service rules for this high constitutional office?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question checks basic knowledge of the tenure of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India, commonly known as the CAG. The CAG is a very important constitutional authority responsible for auditing the accounts of the Union and the states. Competitive exams frequently ask about the appointment, tenure, and removal of key constitutional posts such as the President, CAG, and members of the Election Commission. Given Data / Assumptions: - The post in question is the Comptroller and Auditor General of India. - The options list different fixed tenures in years. - It is understood that the CAG also has an upper age limit, but the question focuses only on the standard tenure in years. Concept / Approach: The Constitution of India provides that the CAG holds office for a term of six years or until the age of sixty five years, whichever is earlier. For exam purposes, when a question asks simply for how many years the CAG is appointed, the standard expected answer is six years. Recognising this fact based on polity textbooks and articles dealing with constitutional offices is enough to solve the problem. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall from Indian polity that the CAG has a fixed tenure defined in the Constitution and related legislation. Step 2: Remember that this tenure is six years, subject to a maximum age of sixty five years. Step 3: Compare the value six with the options provided in the question. Step 4: Identify option 6 years as the correct choice among 2, 4, 6, 5, and 3 years. Step 5: Select six years as the answer. Verification / Alternative check: A learner can verify this by recalling that several other constitutional and statutory positions, like the Chief Election Commissioner, also have six year tenures. Standard polity reference books explicitly mention that the CAG s tenure mirrors this pattern and is not as short as two or four years. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Two years would be too short for a position that requires long term familiarity with complex public accounts and financial systems. Four years is also not the tenure given by the Constitution for the CAG and would not allow sufficient continuity. Five years is a common term for elected legislative bodies but is not the tenure prescribed for the CAG. Three years is not mentioned anywhere in relation to the tenure of the CAG and is therefore incorrect. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes confuse the tenure of the CAG with the five year terms of the Lok Sabha or with the tenure of other constitutional bodies. Another confusion arises because of the dual condition of six years or sixty five years of age, which leads some learners to believe that the CAG may retire earlier. For exam answers, however, six years is the key figure to remember. Final Answer: The Comptroller and Auditor General of India is appointed for a period of six years.

Question 10

In the framework of Indian public finance, who is regarded as the formal custodian of the Contingency Fund of India?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Public finance in India involves several funds such as the Consolidated Fund of India, the Contingency Fund of India, and the Public Account of India. The question focuses on the Contingency Fund, which is used to meet urgent and unforeseen expenditure. Knowing who is considered the custodian of this fund is a standard part of Indian polity and public finance questions in competitive exams. Given Data / Assumptions: - The fund in question is specifically the Contingency Fund of India. - The options list different high functionaries of the Indian state. - The task is to identify who is regarded as the custodian of this fund. Concept / Approach: The Contingency Fund of India is placed at the disposal of the President of India. This means that the President can authorise advances out of this fund to meet urgent expenditure pending authorisation by the Parliament. Because the fund is held at the disposal of the President, constitutional literature commonly describes the President as the custodian of the Contingency Fund of India. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that the Contingency Fund of India is established under Article 267 of the Constitution and related legislation. Step 2: Remember that this fund is placed at the disposal of the President to meet unforeseen expenditure. Step 3: From this, infer that the President is treated as the custodian of the fund. Step 4: Scan the options and locate The President as one of the choices. Step 5: Select The President as the correct answer. Verification / Alternative check: As an additional check, one can recall that the Ministry of Finance actually operates the fund in practice, but constitutional wording still emphasises that the fund is at the disposal of the President. Standard polity textbooks consistently state that the President is the custodian, which confirms the answer. Why Other Options Are Wrong: The Prime Minister heads the Council of Ministers and plays a central role in governance, but the Constitution does not describe the Prime Minister as custodian of the Contingency Fund. A Judge of the Supreme Court exercises judicial functions and has no role in the custody of government funds. The Finance Minister manages day to day financial administration, yet in constitutional terms the fund is not said to be at the disposal of the Finance Minister. The Comptroller and Auditor General of India audits expenditure and ensures accountability, but does not hold custody of the Contingency Fund. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes assume that the Finance Minister must be the custodian, because the ministry handles financial operations. Others confuse the auditing role of the CAG with custody. It is important to separate operational management, audit functions, and formal constitutional custody when answering such questions. Final Answer: The formal custodian of the Contingency Fund of India is The President.

Question 11

After the termination of which Five Year Plan in India was the Rolling Plan introduced as a flexible alternative to traditional fixed term plans?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question relates to the history of economic planning in India. For many decades, the government followed a system of Five Year Plans to guide economic development. At one point this fixed plan approach was temporarily replaced by what was called the Rolling Plan. Knowing after which specific Five Year Plan this shift occurred is a common fact tested in general studies and Indian economy sections. Given Data / Assumptions: - The concept mentioned is the Rolling Plan. - The options list different numbered Five Year Plans. - The question asks after which plan the Rolling Plan was implemented. Concept / Approach: The Rolling Plan was introduced by the Janata government after the Fifth Five Year Plan. The Fifth Plan was terminated one year earlier than scheduled, and instead of continuing the fixed five year cycle, the government experimented with annual plans that rolled forward each year. This period is therefore associated with the Rolling Plan following the Fifth Plan, not with later plans such as the Sixth, Seventh, or Ninth Plan. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall the chronological sequence of Indian Five Year Plans and the political changes during the late nineteen seventies. Step 2: Remember that the Fifth Five Year Plan covered the period from 1974 to 1979 but was ended early in 1978. Step 3: Note that after this early termination, the Rolling Plan system was adopted instead of directly moving into the Sixth Plan. Step 4: Therefore, identify the Fifth Plan as the plan after which the Rolling Plan was implemented. Step 5: Select Fifth Plan from the available options. Verification / Alternative check: Another way to verify is to remember that the Sixth Plan formally started in 1980 under a different government. The period between the ending of the Fifth Plan and the start of the Sixth Plan is the phase associated with the Rolling Plan, confirming that it followed the Fifth Plan. Why Other Options Are Wrong: The Third Plan belongs to an earlier phase of planning and predates the Rolling Plan concept. The Seventh Plan came after the Sixth Plan and was part of the restored five year cycle, not the phase when the Rolling Plan was used. The Ninth Plan belongs to a much later period in Indian planning history and has no connection with the Rolling Plan experiment of the late nineteen seventies. The Sixth Plan was actually launched after the Rolling Plan phase, so the Rolling Plan did not follow the Sixth Plan. Common Pitfalls: A common mistake is to confuse the exact plan number because many learners remember the Rolling Plan as an experiment but do not tie it firmly to the Fifth Plan. Carefully linking the Rolling Plan to the political change that ended the Fifth Five Year Plan early helps keep this association clear. Final Answer: The Rolling Plan was implemented after the Fifth Five Year Plan.

Question 12

Which Article of the Constitution of India was described as the heart and soul of the Constitution by Dr B R Ambedkar because it provides the right to constitutional remedies?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The question focuses on a famous statement by Dr B R Ambedkar, the Chairman of the Drafting Committee of the Constitution of India. He referred to a particular Article as the heart and soul of the Constitution. This expression is widely quoted in polity books and exam material, so aspirants are expected to know which Article he was describing and why it is so important. Given Data / Assumptions: - The phrase heart and soul of the Constitution is explicitly mentioned. - The question asks which Article is associated with this phrase. - The options list different Articles dealing with various rights and provisions. Concept / Approach: Dr B R Ambedkar called Article 32 the heart and soul of the Constitution because it gives citizens the right to move the Supreme Court directly for enforcement of their fundamental rights. Without an effective remedy, fundamental rights would remain largely theoretical. Therefore, Article 32, which empowers both citizens and the Supreme Court through writ jurisdiction, is central to the protection of rights and is rightly described as the heart and soul. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall important one line facts from Indian polity regarding statements made by key framers of the Constitution. Step 2: Remember that Dr Ambedkar gave special importance to Article 32 because it provides the right to constitutional remedies. Step 3: Check the options and locate Article 32 among them. Step 4: Confirm that Article 32 indeed deals with the right to move the Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental rights. Step 5: Choose Article 32 as the correct answer. Verification / Alternative check: Standard polity textbooks always highlight Article 32 in the chapter on fundamental rights and mention Ambedkar s heart and soul quote. Article 32 is also described as itself a fundamental right. Cross checking this consistent information in more than one source makes the answer very secure. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Article 4 deals with laws made under Articles 2 and 3 about admission and formation of new states and does not relate to constitutional remedies. Article 28 concerns freedom as to attendance at religious instruction or religious worship in educational institutions, which is important but not described as the heart and soul. Article 30 deals with the right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions, again significant but not the one Ambedkar highlighted with this phrase. Article 21 guarantees protection of life and personal liberty and is very important, but the specific phrase heart and soul was used for Article 32, not Article 21. Common Pitfalls: Because Article 21 is also extremely important, some learners wrongly assume that the heart and soul quote refers to it. Another confusion arises because Article 32 and Article 226 both deal with writs, but the quote refers only to Article 32. Remembering that the right to move the Supreme Court directly is what Ambedkar emphasised helps fix the association with Article 32. Final Answer: Dr B R Ambedkar described Article 32 as the heart and soul of the Constitution of India.

Question 13

Which of the following types of provisions requires a special majority in the Parliament of India for its passage under the constitutional amendment procedure?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The question relates to the different kinds of majorities required in the Parliament of India for passing various types of bills. In particular, it asks about provisions that need a special majority. Understanding which matters require a simple majority and which require a special or even a special plus state ratification majority is an essential part of the Indian polity syllabus. Given Data / Assumptions: - The focus is on provisions that need a special majority in Parliament. - The options list different types of legislative actions, such as changing fundamental rights or creating new states. - The question expects knowledge of Article 368 and related provisions. Concept / Approach: Under Article 368, amendments to certain parts of the Constitution, including the chapter on Fundamental Rights, require a special majority. This special majority means a majority of the total membership of each House and a majority of not less than two thirds of the members present and voting. Many other matters, like creation of new states, are handled under ordinary legislative procedures with a simple majority. Therefore, the safest way to answer is to recall that changes in Fundamental Rights definitely require a special majority. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that Fundamental Rights are contained in Part III of the Constitution and enjoy a high level of protection. Step 2: Remember that changes to these rights can only be made by a constitutional amendment passed under Article 368 using a special majority. Step 3: Compare this with the other options that generally involve ordinary legislative powers under Articles 2, 3, or other provisions. Step 4: Identify Change in Fundamental Rights as the only option that clearly falls under the special majority requirement. Step 5: Select Change in Fundamental Rights as the correct answer. Verification / Alternative check: Reviewing any standard Indian polity book confirms that a special majority is needed for amendments affecting Fundamental Rights, the Directive Principles, and many structural elements of the Constitution. In contrast, matters like abolition of a Legislative Council in a state or creation of a new state are passed by a simple majority even though some may also require state consultation. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Creation of new states under Articles 2 and 3 is done through an ordinary bill passed by a simple majority, although the President refers the proposal to the concerned state legislature for its views. Abolition of a Legislative Council in a state is initiated by the state legislature and then approved by Parliament, but the bill in Parliament still passes with a simple majority. Rules and procedures in Parliament are framed by each House under Article 118 and require only a simple majority. Imposition of President Rule in a state under Article 356 is approved by Parliament through a simple majority, not a constitutional amendment special majority. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes assume that any serious sounding decision such as creating a state or imposing President Rule must need a special majority. It is important to distinguish between ordinary legislative actions and constitutional amendments. Remembering that Fundamental Rights form a protected core and that changes to them demand a special majority prevents this confusion. Final Answer: The provision that requires a special majority in Parliament is a change in Fundamental Rights.

Question 14

A writ of which type directs that a person who has been arrested or detained must be brought physically before the court so that the court can examine the legality of the detention?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question examines understanding of the different writs that superior courts in India can issue to protect fundamental rights and ensure proper exercise of power. The focus here is on the writ that specifically requires that a detained person be brought before the court so the court can decide whether the detention is legal. Writ jurisdiction is a core concept in constitutional law and frequently appears in exam questions. Given Data / Assumptions: - The scenario involves a person who has been arrested or detained. - The court orders that the arrested person should be produced before it. - The options list commonly known writs such as Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Quo Warranto, and Certiorari. Concept / Approach: Among the writs, Habeas Corpus literally means you may have the body. It is used to secure the release of a person who is unlawfully detained. The court directs the authority holding the person to produce the detainee and justify the detention. If the detention is found illegal, the person is set free. Therefore, Habeas Corpus is the writ that matches the description given in the question. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall the basic meaning of each writ Harbeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Quo Warranto, and Certiorari. Step 2: Identify the writ whose primary purpose is to protect personal liberty against unlawful detention. Step 3: Recognise that this is Habeas Corpus, which asks the detaining authority to produce the body of the detained person before the court. Step 4: Check the options and find Habeas Corpus as option A. Step 5: Select Habeas Corpus as the correct answer. Verification / Alternative check: Standard descriptions of writs in Indian polity books always highlight Habeas Corpus as the most effective safeguard of individual liberty. It is often the first writ discussed, and many landmark cases relate to its use. This makes it less likely to be confused with other writs once the student has revised the topic carefully. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Mandamus is a writ used to command a public authority to perform a duty it has failed to perform, not to challenge detention. Prohibition is issued by a higher court to prevent a lower court or tribunal from exceeding its jurisdiction in a pending case. Quo Warranto questions the legal authority of a person to hold a public office, not the legality of detention. Certiorari is used to quash the order of a lower court or tribunal that has acted without jurisdiction or in violation of principles of natural justice, and is not primarily about producing detained persons. Common Pitfalls: Learners sometimes mix up Prohibition and Certiorari, but those writs deal with control over courts and tribunals rather than detention. Another mistake is to rely only on literal meanings without understanding practical use. Focusing on the function of each writ, especially Habeas Corpus as a protection against unlawful detention, helps avoid errors. Final Answer: The writ that orders that an arrested person be produced before the court is Habeas Corpus.

Question 15

Relief of the disabled and unemployable is included under which list in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India that distributes subjects between the Union and the states?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The Indian Constitution divides legislative subjects between the Union and the states through three lists in the Seventh Schedule, known as the Union List, State List, and Concurrent List. The question asks under which list the subject relief of the disabled and unemployable is placed. This tests knowledge of how social welfare responsibilities are distributed in the federal structure. Given Data / Assumptions: - The specific subject is relief of the disabled and unemployable. - The context is the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. - The options include the Union List, State List, a fictitious Global List, the Concurrent List, and a generic residuary powers list. Concept / Approach: The State List mainly contains subjects of local or regional importance where states can legislate. Relief of the disabled and unemployable appears as an entry in the State List, reflecting the idea that social welfare measures for such groups are primarily a responsibility of state governments, although the Union can also support them through schemes and funding. Therefore, the correct answer is the State List. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that the Seventh Schedule has three lists Union, State, and Concurrent. Step 2: Remember that health, sanitation, local welfare, and related social services are largely placed in the State List. Step 3: Note that relief of the disabled and unemployable is specifically mentioned as an entry in the State List. Step 4: Check the options and locate State List as one of the choices. Step 5: Mark State List as the correct answer. Verification / Alternative check: Students can verify this by looking at the full text of the State List, where relief of the disabled and unemployable appears alongside entries on public health, sanitation, and burial grounds. Many exam oriented books also reproduce the most important entries and clearly mention that this subject lies in the State List, not the Union or Concurrent List. Why Other Options Are Wrong: The Union List includes subjects of national importance like defence, foreign affairs, and currency, not routine social welfare for disabled persons. Global List is not an actual constitutional list and is included only as a distractor. The Concurrent List deals with subjects where both Union and state can legislate, such as education and forests, but the specific entry relief of the disabled and unemployable is not placed there. Residuary powers list is a way of describing subjects not covered in any list, which fall under Union power, but this specific subject is expressly mentioned in the State List. Common Pitfalls: Learners sometimes assume that social welfare is always a Concurrent subject because both Union and states are involved in practice. It is important to remember that the constitutional lists are about legislative competence and that many welfare topics, including relief of the disabled and unemployable, are explicitly assigned to the states. Final Answer: Relief of the disabled and unemployable is placed in the State List in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India.

Question 16

Which centrally sponsored scheme of the Government of India aims to provide affordable regional aviation by making domestic air travel economically accessible for ordinary middle class citizens of India?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question tests knowledge of major government schemes, in particular those related to infrastructure and connectivity. The description focuses on a scheme that aims to provide affordable aviation by making domestic flights accessible to ordinary citizens, especially those in smaller towns. Recognising scheme names and matching them with their objectives is a key part of exam preparation. Given Data / Assumptions: - The scheme is launched by the Central Government. - Its goal is affordable regional aviation and low cost domestic flights. - The options mention various flagship programmes with very different aims, such as energy pipelines or river cleaning. Concept / Approach: The aviation scheme described is UDAN, which stands for Ude Desh Ka Aam Nagrik. It is a regional connectivity scheme that caps airfares on certain routes and provides incentives to airlines to operate flights to underserved and unserved airports. The central idea is that an average citizen should be able to fly at an affordable price. By matching this aim with the description, it becomes clear that UDAN is the correct answer. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify the core objective mentioned affordable domestic aviation for ordinary citizens. Step 2: Recall that UDAN or Ude Desh Ka Aam Nagrik is specifically promoted as a regional connectivity and affordable flying scheme. Step 3: Look at the options and note that UDAN appears as Ude Desh Ka Aam Nagrik. Step 4: Confirm that other listed schemes do not primarily relate to aviation. Step 5: Select Ude Desh Ka Aam Nagrik (UDAN) as the answer. Verification / Alternative check: One can verify this by recalling typical exam statements like UDAN aims to make air travel affordable for common citizens and by connecting smaller airports. Newspapers and government press releases frequently describe UDAN in those terms, leaving little room for confusion with other schemes. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Urja Ganga is related to gas pipeline projects and energy infrastructure, not air travel. Ek Bharat Shrestha Bharat is a programme to promote cultural integration and people to people exchanges across states. Namami Ganga Yojana is focused on cleaning and conserving the Ganga river and related environmental goals. Swachh Bharat Abhiyan is a nationwide cleanliness and sanitation campaign, not an aviation initiative. Common Pitfalls: Sometimes learners confuse scheme names due to similar sounding Hindi phrases. To avoid this, it helps to connect the core idea with a keyword for each scheme, such as flights for UDAN, river cleaning for Namami Ganga, and sanitation for Swachh Bharat. This mental mapping makes recall in the exam much easier. Final Answer: The scheme that aims to provide affordable aviation for ordinary citizens is Ude Desh Ka Aam Nagrik (UDAN).

Question 17

Public health and sanitation along with hospitals and dispensaries is placed in which list of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question again relates to the distribution of powers between the Union and the states in India through the three lists in the Seventh Schedule. The specific subject here is public health and sanitation, including hospitals and dispensaries. Understanding which government level has primary responsibility for health infrastructure is important for both polity and public administration. Given Data / Assumptions: - The subject includes public health, sanitation, hospitals, and dispensaries. - The question asks in which constitutional list this subject is placed. - The options mention the Union List, State List, a fictitious Global List, the Concurrent List, and a generic None of these. Concept / Approach: Public health and sanitation, hospitals, and dispensaries are expressly mentioned in the State List. This reflects the idea that health services are best administered at state and local levels due to regional variation and the need for close administration. While the Union also plays a role in national health programmes, the primary legislative competence for these specific topics lies with the states. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall the broad types of subjects in each list of the Seventh Schedule. Step 2: Remember that State List entries include health, sanitation, and many local welfare topics. Step 3: Note that public health and sanitation along with hospitals and dispensaries is a classic example of a State List entry. Step 4: Check the options and identify State List as one of them. Step 5: Select State List as the correct answer. Verification / Alternative check: Review of the official text of the State List confirms that public health and sanitation, hospitals and dispensaries appear clearly as one of the entries. Many exam guides reproduce this entry exactly as in the question, which reinforces the correct mapping. Why Other Options Are Wrong: The Union List covers subjects like defence, railways, and national highways, which are best managed by the central government, not routine health facilities. Global List is not a constitutional category and appears only to mislead. The Concurrent List includes topics like education and forests where both Union and states legislate, but public health and sanitation in this exact wording is not listed there. None of these is wrong because there is a specific correct list, namely the State List. Common Pitfalls: Because national health programmes often get central funding, some students mistakenly place health issues in the Concurrent or Union List. It is important to distinguish between funding patterns and formal legislative entries. For exam purposes, remembering that public health and sanitation along with hospitals and dispensaries is a State List subject is essential. Final Answer: Public health and sanitation, hospitals and dispensaries are placed in the State List of the Seventh Schedule.

Question 18

Which scheme introduced by the Central Government focuses on providing equal and improved primary education opportunities to budding children across India through community and volunteer participation?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The question deals with central government schemes in the education and social sector. It specifically mentions equal primary education for budding children and highlights the role of volunteer and community participation. This description matches a particular scheme that encourages volunteers to engage with government schools and support learning outcomes. Given Data / Assumptions: - The goal is equal and improved primary education across India. - The scheme is introduced by the Central Government. - Volunteer and community participation in government schools is an important feature. - Several schemes with different objectives are listed as options. Concept / Approach: Vidyanjali Yojana is a school volunteer programme launched to strengthen government schools. It invites volunteers from the community, including professionals, retirees, and other citizens, to support co scholastic activities, reading sessions, and additional learning support. By mobilising community resources, it aims to enhance the quality of primary education and give more children equal opportunities to learn. This aligns closely with the description in the question. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify from the question that the focus is on primary education and volunteer participation in schools. Step 2: Recall that Vidyanjali Yojana was launched to involve volunteers in government schools to support learning outcomes. Step 3: Compare the aims of the other schemes listed, such as Ujjwala and Surakshit Matritva, which focus on different sectors. Step 4: Locate Vidyanjali Yojana among the options. Step 5: Choose Vidyanjali Yojana as the correct answer. Verification / Alternative check: Education related current affairs summaries frequently describe Vidyanjali as a programme for community and volunteer participation in government schools. When cross checked, other options are clearly not education schemes. This makes the identification quite straightforward once the names are familiar. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Gram Uday Se Bharat Uday Abhiyan is a campaign focusing mainly on rural development and awareness programmes, not specifically on volunteer based primary education. Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana is aimed at providing clean cooking fuel connections to women from poor households. Pradhan Mantri Surakshit Matritva Yojana deals with antenatal care and maternal health services, not school education. Digital India programme is a broad initiative to transform India into a digitally empowered society, which includes many components beyond school education and does not match the specific volunteer focus described here. Common Pitfalls: New learners may confuse Vidyanjali with other schemes because many initiatives have Sanskrit or Hindi names. To avoid this, it helps to build a simple mental association such as Vidyanjali for volunteers in schools, Ujjwala for LPG connections, and Surakshit Matritva for maternal health. Repeated revision of such associations strengthens recall in the exam hall. Final Answer: The scheme described in the question is Vidyanjali Yojana.

Question 19

Which expert committee was set up by the Government of India to review and redefine the concept of the poverty line and to suggest a more realistic methodology for measuring poverty?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The question is about committees that have studied poverty measurement in India. Over time, several committees have been appointed to review how the poverty line is defined and to update the methodology to reflect changing prices and consumption patterns. One of the most significant of these is the committee chaired by Suresh Tendulkar. Given Data / Assumptions: - The focus is on a committee that reviewed the concept of the poverty line. - The committee was set up by the Government of India. - The task included suggesting a more realistic methodology for measuring poverty. - The options list different well known committees and a generic task force. Concept / Approach: The S Tendulkar Committee was constituted to examine and update the methodology for estimating poverty. It moved away from earlier calorie based norms and incorporated broader consumption needs. Its recommendations, including higher poverty lines and new estimates, led to major debates on poverty numbers in India. Hence, when a question mentions reviewing the concept of the poverty line and suggesting a new methodology, it usually refers to the S Tendulkar Committee. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall the major committees related to poverty measurement Lakdawala Committee and S Tendulkar Committee. Step 2: Remember that Lakdawala Committee provided an earlier methodology, while the Tendulkar Committee later reviewed and updated the concept. Step 3: Match the description of reviewing and redefining the poverty line with the work of the S Tendulkar Committee. Step 4: Check the options and identify S Tendulkar Committee as one of them. Step 5: Select S Tendulkar Committee as the correct answer. Verification / Alternative check: Most economic survey summaries and planning documents mention the shift from the Lakdawala to the Tendulkar methodology, and later to other expert group recommendations. This timeline confirms that the committee associated with a revised concept of the poverty line in the more recent period is chaired by Suresh Tendulkar. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Lakdawala Committee did develop an important earlier methodology, but the key phrase review the concept of the poverty line and move to a new consumption based approach is linked to the Tendulkar Committee in exam questions. Wanchoo Committee is known for its work on direct taxes and tax reforms, not on poverty measurement. Dutt Committee is associated with industrial and economic issues but not specifically with the poverty line methodology. NITI Aayog Task Force on Poverty is a generic sounding option and does not represent the classic committee name tested in standard general studies questions. Common Pitfalls: Students may confuse Lakdawala and Tendulkar committees because both deal with poverty estimation. A simple memory aid is to think of Lakdawala as the older benchmark and Tendulkar as the later committee that revised the concept and made the poverty line more inclusive. Keeping the chronological order clear helps avoid this confusion. Final Answer: The committee set up to review and redefine the concept of the poverty line was the S Tendulkar Committee.

Question 20

Which type of city administration in India is generally responsible for governing a larger and more densely populated urban area among the given options?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Urban local bodies in India are organised into different types according to the size and characteristics of the urban area. The main forms are Nagar Panchayat for transitional areas, Municipal Council for smaller urban areas, and Municipal Corporation for large cities. This question asks which type of city administration controls the larger urban area among the given options. Given Data / Assumptions: - Several types of urban local bodies are listed as options. - The question is about which form generally governs the larger urban area. - It is assumed that larger means higher population and more developed urban characteristics. Concept / Approach: Under the system of urban local governance, Municipal Corporations are established for big cities with large populations and more complex administrative needs. Municipal Councils, also called Municipalities, serve smaller urban areas. Nagar Panchayats are created for areas in transition from rural to urban status. Therefore, among the options, the Municipal Corporation is clearly the body that controls the larger urban area. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall the three main categories of urban local bodies defined by the Constitution and state laws. Step 2: Recognise that Nagar Panchayat deals with transitional areas and is associated with smaller populations. Step 3: Understand that Municipal Council serves medium sized towns and smaller cities. Step 4: Confirm that Municipal Corporation is established in metropolitan or large cities with higher population and greater infrastructure. Step 5: Select Municipal Corporation as the correct answer. Verification / Alternative check: One can verify this by recalling examples. Cities like Mumbai, Delhi, and Chennai have Municipal Corporations, while smaller towns have Municipal Councils, and semi urban areas may have Nagar Panchayats. This real world mapping makes it clear which type corresponds to larger urban areas. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Nagar Panchayat is meant for areas transitioning from rural to urban status and generally has a smaller population. Municipal Council governs smaller urban areas like towns, not the largest cities in a state. No option is correct is wrong because one of the options, Municipal Corporation, clearly fits the description. Town Area Committee is an older or special form of local body that does not represent the standard classification used for the largest urban centres. Common Pitfalls: Learners sometimes confuse the names because several terms like municipality and corporation sound similar. A good way to remember is to associate corporation with big city administration, council or municipality with medium towns, and Nagar Panchayat with upcoming urban areas. Recalling this hierarchy helps answer such questions quickly. Final Answer: The type of city administration that controls the larger urban area is the Municipal Corporation.

Indian Politics Questions