Question 1

Swarna Jayanti Gram Swarozgar Yojana, a major self employment programme for the rural poor, has now been restructured and implemented as which mission?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question covers the evolution of rural self employment programmes in India. Swarna Jayanti Gram Swarozgar Yojana was a major scheme focused on organising the rural poor into self help groups and providing them with sustainable income. Later, this scheme was restructured into a more comprehensive mission to promote rural livelihoods across the country. Given Data / Assumptions: The original scheme name is Swarna Jayanti Gram Swarozgar Yojana. It focused on self employment and self help groups in rural areas. It has been restructured into a new mission framework. We must identify the name of this new mission. Concept / Approach: The Government of India restructured Swarna Jayanti Gram Swarozgar Yojana into the National Rural Livelihoods Mission, also known as Aajeevika. The new mission follows a more holistic approach to poverty reduction by building strong community institutions of the poor, especially women, and providing them access to financial services, skills and opportunities for diversified livelihoods. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recognise Swarna Jayanti Gram Swarozgar Yojana as an older self employment and self help group based programme. Step 2: Recall that this scheme was later restructured into a mission mode programme called the National Rural Livelihoods Mission. Step 3: Note that the NRLM focuses on mobilisation of rural poor households into self help groups and federations, with a strong emphasis on women empowerment. Step 4: Match this information with the options and select National Rural Livelihoods Mission. Verification / Alternative check: A quick cross check is to remember the word livelihood, which appears in the newer mission name. Several exam oriented summaries explicitly state that Swarna Jayanti Gram Swarozgar Yojana has been restructured as NRLM. This association is standard across most government and coaching materials. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Prime Minister Rozgar Yojana: This programme is related to providing self employment opportunities to educated unemployed youth, and is separate from the restructuring of Swarna Jayanti Gram Swarozgar Yojana. Jawahar Gram Samriddhi Yojana: This scheme evolved from earlier rural employment programmes like Jawahar Rozgar Yojana and is not the new form of Swarna Jayanti Gram Swarozgar Yojana. Sampoorna Gramin Rozgar Yojana: This scheme merged food for work and other employment programmes, but again is not the direct successor to Swarna Jayanti Gram Swarozgar Yojana. Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme: This scheme provides wage employment through guaranteed days of manual work and is not a restructuring of the self employment focused Swarna Jayanti Gram Swarozgar Yojana. Common Pitfalls: The main difficulty is keeping track of multiple reorganisations and renamings of rural schemes. Many candidates confuse wage employment programmes like MGNREGA with self employment and self help group based programmes. To avoid such mistakes, it helps to group schemes by whether they mainly provide wage work, self employment, skill development or financial inclusion, and then memorise the major transitions within each group. Final Answer: Swarna Jayanti Gram Swarozgar Yojana has been restructured and implemented as the National Rural Livelihoods Mission.

Question 2

Which committee was set up to review the concept and methodology of the poverty line in India, leading to revised poverty estimates?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Measuring poverty is a major policy challenge in India and several expert committees have been formed to refine the concept and methodology of the poverty line. This question asks specifically about the committee that was set up to review the concept of the poverty line and whose recommendations led to widely used revised poverty estimates. Given Data / Assumptions: The committee task was to review the concept of the poverty line. The committee proposed changes in methodology and estimates. Options list several well known committees, including S Tendulkar and Lakdawala. We must identify the committee primarily associated with reviewing the concept of the poverty line in the mid two thousands. Concept / Approach: The Suresh Tendulkar Committee, constituted in 2005, was tasked with reviewing the methodology for estimation of poverty in India. It suggested moving away from a purely calorie based approach and recommended using a broader consumption basket with updated price indices. Its recommendations led to new poverty lines and revised poverty ratios that are widely quoted. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that the Lakdawala Committee had earlier provided methodology for estimating poverty, which was used for many years. Step 2: Recognise that later debate about the adequacy of the old poverty lines led to formation of the Suresh Tendulkar Committee. Step 3: The Suresh Tendulkar Committee was explicitly asked to review the existing methodology and to recommend a new approach. Step 4: Therefore, for the specific task of reviewing the concept and methodology of the poverty line, the correct committee is the S Tendulkar Committee. Verification / Alternative check: Many exam notifications and standard reference sources state that current or earlier official poverty lines were based on the recommendations of the Suresh Tendulkar Committee. Some also mention that the Lakdawala Committee methodology was replaced by the Tendulkar methodology. This clearly marks the Tendulkar Committee as the one that reviewed and updated the concept. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Lakdawala Committee: This committee earlier provided the methodology for poverty estimation using calorie norms and separate State specific poverty lines. It was replaced by the Tendulkar methodology for later estimates. Wanchoo Committee: This committee dealt with direct taxes and industrial development for backward areas, not with poverty line methodology. Dutt Committee: This committee looked into industrial licensing policy and not the concept of the poverty line. Rangarajan Committee: A later committee headed by C Rangarajan also examined poverty measurement, but the specific exam question associated with the phrase review the concept of the poverty line usually refers to the S Tendulkar Committee. Common Pitfalls: Students often confuse the Lakdawala and Tendulkar Committees because both are linked to poverty measurement. Another pitfall is to forget the sequence of these committees. A simple way to avoid confusion is to remember the chronological order: first Lakdawala provided a long standing methodology, then Tendulkar reviewed and updated it, and later the Rangarajan Committee revisited the issue again. Knowing the time line helps you pick the right committee when the question uses specific wording. Final Answer: The committee set up to review the concept and methodology of the poverty line in India was the S Tendulkar Committee.

Question 3

The Prime Minister of India is the de facto head of which of the following bodies? I. NITI Aayog II. National Integration Council III. National Board for Wildlife

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question checks understanding of key national level bodies which are chaired by the Prime Minister of India. The term de facto head here refers to the top leadership role where the Prime Minister presides over meetings and guides policy directions. Knowing which bodies are chaired by the Prime Minister helps in questions about governance architecture. Given Data / Assumptions: Body I is NITI Aayog. Body II is the National Integration Council. Body III is the National Board for Wildlife or its earlier form as Indian Board of Wildlife. We must identify which of these bodies have the Prime Minister as their chairperson or de facto head. Concept / Approach: NITI Aayog is the successor to the Planning Commission and its Chairperson is the Prime Minister of India. The National Integration Council is an extra constitutional body created to address issues of communalism and national integration and is chaired by the Prime Minister. The National Board for Wildlife, a statutory board under the Wildlife Protection Act, is also chaired by the Prime Minister according to the provisions of that Act. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: For NITI Aayog, recall that the official organogram lists the Prime Minister as Chairperson of NITI Aayog. Step 2: For the National Integration Council, standard polity references describe it as an extra constitutional advisory body chaired by the Prime Minister. Step 3: For the National Board for Wildlife, the Act and government notifications specify that the Prime Minister is the chairperson of the board. Step 4: Since all three bodies are chaired by the Prime Minister, the correct choice is that the Prime Minister is the de facto head of all I, II and III. Verification / Alternative check: You can verify by consulting organisational charts. NITI Aayog web pages name the Prime Minister as Chairman. Information about the National Integration Council in standard GK sources also clearly says that it is chaired by the Prime Minister. For the National Board for Wildlife, summaries of the Wildlife Protection Act mention the Prime Minister as its chairperson. Once you see this pattern, it becomes easy to remember that all three are headed by the Prime Minister. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only I: This ignores that the Prime Minister also chairs the National Integration Council and National Board for Wildlife. Only II: This underestimates the central role of the Prime Minister in NITI Aayog and wildlife governance. Both II and III: This excludes NITI Aayog which is clearly headed by the Prime Minister. Only I and II: This omits the Prime Minister role as chairperson of the National Board for Wildlife. Common Pitfalls: A common error is to assume that some of these bodies might be headed by a senior minister other than the Prime Minister, especially in the area of environment or integration. Another pitfall is to remember only NITI Aayog and forget the others. To avoid mistakes, it may help to create a small list of major councils and boards chaired by the Prime Minister, which typically includes NITI Aayog, National Integration Council and National Board for Wildlife. Final Answer: The Prime Minister of India is the de facto head of all three bodies, that is NITI Aayog, the National Integration Council and the National Board for Wildlife.

Question 4

On 10 April 2017, the Lok Sabha passed the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Bill, 2016. Under the new provisions, the fixed compensation for death in a hit and run motor vehicle accident was increased from Rs 25,000 to what minimum amount?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Road safety reforms and amendments to the Motor Vehicles Act are important current affairs and policy topics. The Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Bill, 2016 introduced several changes to strengthen penalties and increase compensation for victims of road accidents, especially hit and run cases. This question tests whether you remember the specific new compensation amount for death in such cases. Given Data / Assumptions: The relevant legislation is the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Bill, 2016. The Lok Sabha passed it on 10 April 2017. Earlier fixed compensation for death in hit and run cases was Rs 25,000. The Bill raised this minimum amount and the options provide possible new amounts. Concept / Approach: One of the major objectives of the amendment was to provide more realistic compensation to victims and their families. For hit and run fatalities, the compensation was increased substantially to Rs 2 lakh. There were separate provisions for grievous hurt where compensation also increased but to a lower figure than for death. Remembering these numbers is useful not only for examinations but also to understand policy emphasis on road safety. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Note that the question refers specifically to hit and run cases, not all road accidents. Step 2: Recall that under the amendment, compensation for death in hit and run cases increased from Rs 25,000 to Rs 2 lakh. Step 3: Remember that for grievous injury in hit and run cases, the compensation was raised from Rs 12,500 to Rs 50,000, which is a different figure. Step 4: Among the options, Rs 2 lakh or more matches the correct new minimum amount for death. Verification / Alternative check: You can verify by linking the pair of figures 25,000 and 2 lakh for death, and 12,500 and 50,000 for grievous injury. These pairs are commonly highlighted in exam articles on the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Bill, 2016. Additionally, government press releases and insurance related articles also mention these revised compensation amounts, reinforcing the memory. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Rs 5 lakh or more: This amount is higher than what the amendment fixed as the standard hit and run death compensation, although there are separate provisions for maximum compensation limits in other accident cases. Rs 10 lakh or more: This figure is associated with caps on certain insurance claims in other contexts, not with the fixed hit and run death compensation. Rs 15 lakh or more: This is not the standard amount provided in the amendment for hit and run fatalities. Rs 50,000 or more: This figure is close to the enhanced amount for grievous injury, not for death. Using it here would confuse the two different categories. Common Pitfalls: Many candidates mix up the figures for death and grievous injury. Another common mistake is to confuse the hit and run compensation amounts with caps on other types of motor accident claims. To avoid this, remember the simple phrase twenty five to two lakh for hit and run death, and twelve and a half to fifty thousand for hit and run injuries. Writing these number pairs in your revision notes can lock them in place. Final Answer: Under the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Bill, 2016, the fixed compensation for death in a hit and run motor vehicle accident was increased from Rs 25,000 to Rs 2 lakh or more.

Question 5

Under which Article of the Constitution of India can a person move the High Court if his or her fundamental rights are breached?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The Constitution provides effective remedies when fundamental rights are violated. For this, both the Supreme Court and the High Courts have writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court remedy is under Article 32, while High Courts have a broader power under Article 226. This question asks specifically about moving the High Court when a fundamental right is breached. Given Data / Assumptions: The person wishes to move a High Court, not the Supreme Court. The reason is breach of fundamental rights. We must identify the relevant article number for the High Court writ power. The options include several unrelated articles as distractors. Concept / Approach: Article 226 empowers High Courts to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for any other purpose. Its scope is thus wider than Article 32, which is restricted to fundamental rights. However, Article 32 applies only to the Supreme Court. For High Court jurisdiction, Article 226 is the correct constitutional provision to remember. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that Article 32 gives the Supreme Court writ jurisdiction. Step 2: Recall that Article 226 gives similar writ powers to every High Court. Step 3: The question specifically mentions approaching a High Court for breach of fundamental rights. Step 4: Therefore, the correct answer is Article 226. Verification / Alternative check: A simple memory aid is to pair 32 with Supreme Court and 226 with High Court in your notes. Many polity textbooks directly state that Articles 32 and 226 are the two backbone provisions for writ petitions. If you remember this pair, it becomes easy to answer questions that specify which court is being approached. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Article 36: This is part of the Directive Principles chapter and refers to the definition of State, not fundamental rights remedies. Article 234: Relates to appointments of persons other than district judges to the judicial service of a State. Article 256: Deals with the obligation of States and the Union control, and is not about individual remedies. Article 32: This indeed provides the right to move the Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental rights, but the question is about the High Court, so it is not the correct answer here. Common Pitfalls: The most common error is to mark Article 32 automatically for any question about fundamental rights enforcement without noting whether the question refers to the Supreme Court or a High Court. Always pay attention to which court is mentioned in the stem. Another pitfall is to confuse Article numbers that appear frequently in discussions about State policy or judiciary structure, but are not directly about writ remedies. Final Answer: A person can move the High Court for breach of fundamental rights under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Question 6

What type of democracy is followed in India at the national level under its constitutional system of government?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question tests basic understanding of the form of democracy that India follows. While democracy as a general concept indicates rule by the people, there are different ways to implement it, such as direct, presidential or parliamentary systems. Knowing the exact nature of Indian democracy is essential for any student of polity. Given Data / Assumptions: The question refers to democracy in India at the national level. It asks for the type of democracy followed under the Constitution. Options include direct, presidential, representative and dictatorial forms. The correct option must match the actual constitutional arrangements. Concept / Approach: India is a sovereign, socialist, secular and democratic republic with a parliamentary form of government. People do not directly make laws themselves at the national level through frequent referendums. Instead, they elect representatives to the Lok Sabha and to State legislative assemblies. The Council of Ministers headed by the Prime Minister is collectively responsible to the Lok Sabha. This is the hallmark of representative parliamentary democracy. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Rule out dictatorship and military rule, since India is a constitutional democracy and a republic. Step 2: Direct democracy involves citizens voting directly on laws and policies, which is not the primary model in India. Step 3: Presidential democracy, as in the United States, has a separately elected executive President who is not responsible to the legislature in the same way as a parliamentary cabinet. India does not follow this system. Step 4: India follows a system where the executive is drawn from and responsible to the legislature and where people choose representatives through regular elections. This is representative parliamentary democracy. Verification / Alternative check: You can confirm by recalling key features of the Indian system: presence of a nominal head of state, the President; real executive power vested in the Council of Ministers led by the Prime Minister; collective responsibility to the Lok Sabha; and regular general elections. These are classic indicators of a parliamentary system. Also, the Preamble and various articles speak of India as a democratic republic where people exercise power through elected representatives, which is representative democracy. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Direct democracy: Found in limited form in some countries through frequent referendums, but India primarily uses representative institutions. Presidential democracy: Does not match India structure where the executive is responsible to Parliament and the head of government is the Prime Minister, not an independently elected President with full executive powers. Dictatorship: Involves concentration of authority in one person or a small group without effective constitutional checks or free elections, which is opposite to Indian arrangements. Military rule: Refers to governance by armed forces through coups and martial law, which does not apply to India constitutional history. Common Pitfalls: Some candidates read only the word democracy and overlook the qualifiers. Others may confuse the presence of an elected President with a presidential system. To avoid this, remember that in India the President is largely a ceremonial head, while the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers are responsible to the legislature. This is the core of parliamentary representative democracy. Final Answer: India follows a Representative parliamentary democracy under its constitutional system of government.

Question 7

Who was the Chairman of the Drafting Committee of the Constituent Assembly of India, responsible for drafting the main text of the Constitution?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The Constituent Assembly of India created several committees to prepare different parts of the Constitution. Among them, the Drafting Committee played a central role, as it was responsible for preparing the actual draft of the Constitution. The chairman of this committee is often called the chief architect of the Indian Constitution and is a very frequent exam question. Given Data / Assumptions: The committee in question is the Drafting Committee of the Constituent Assembly. We need to identify its chairman. Options include several prominent members of the Constituent Assembly and national leadership. The answer must match recorded constitutional history. Concept / Approach: The Drafting Committee was set up on 29 August 1947 and had seven members. Dr Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, a renowned jurist and social reformer, served as its Chairman. Due to his pivotal role in steering discussions on the draft and defending its provisions in the Constituent Assembly debates, he is widely regarded as the chief architect of the Constitution of India. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that the name most associated with drafting the Indian Constitution is Dr B R Ambedkar. Step 2: Remember that he headed the Drafting Committee, which was among many committees formed by the Constituent Assembly. Step 3: Verify that while many other leaders like K M Munshi and T T Krishnamachari were important members, they were not the chairperson. Step 4: Therefore, the correct answer is Dr B R Ambedkar. Verification / Alternative check: To verify, you can recall that school textbooks and competitive exam books consistently introduce Dr B R Ambedkar as Chairman of the Drafting Committee and a key figure in framing the Constitution. Historical records of the Constituent Assembly debates also show him presenting and defending the draft Constitution, which confirms his role as chairman. Why Other Options Are Wrong: K M Munshi: He was an important member of the Drafting Committee and contributed significantly, but he was not the chairman. D P Khaitan: He was also a member of the committee but not the chairperson. T T Krishnamachari: He played an important role in the Assembly and in later politics, but he did not chair the Drafting Committee. Jawaharlal Nehru: Nehru was a leading national leader and moved the Objectives Resolution, but he did not head the Drafting Committee. Common Pitfalls: Sometimes candidates confuse the chairman of the Constituent Assembly, the chairman of important committees and the first Prime Minister. Another pitfall is to assume that Jawaharlal Nehru must have headed every major committee because of his prominence. To avoid this, it is useful to memorise that Dr B R Ambedkar headed the Drafting Committee, Dr Rajendra Prasad was President of the Constituent Assembly and Nehru moved the Objectives Resolution. Final Answer: The Chairman of the Drafting Committee of the Constituent Assembly of India was Dr B R Ambedkar.

Question 8

In the context of parliamentary committees in India, which is the largest standing committee of the Parliament of India in terms of number of members?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question is about the system of parliamentary committees in India, which support the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha in examining bills, finances and policies in detail. Among these committees, some have more members than others, and the question asks you to identify which one is the largest in terms of membership strength. Knowing the size and role of the main financial committees is a standard requirement in Indian polity and public administration for competitive exams. Given Data / Assumptions: The question is limited to committees of the Parliament of India. The focus is on size, that is, the number of members in the committee. The options list important financial and procedural committees of the Lok Sabha. It is understood that the membership referred to is the typical sanctioned strength under current rules. Concept / Approach: The three key financial committees of Parliament are the Public Accounts Committee, the Estimates Committee and the Committee on Public Undertakings. Among these, the Estimates Committee has the largest membership. Traditionally, the Estimates Committee has thirty members from the Lok Sabha, whereas the Public Accounts Committee and the Committee on Public Undertakings have fewer members. Other committees like the Business Advisory Committee or the Committee on Petitions also have smaller strengths. Therefore, the correct way to answer is to recall which committee is associated with the figure of thirty members. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall the three main financial committees Estimates Committee, Public Accounts Committee, and Committee on Public Undertakings. Step 2: Remember that the Estimates Committee of the Lok Sabha consists of around thirty members, making it notably larger than the others. Step 3: Recall that the Public Accounts Committee and the Committee on Public Undertakings have comparatively smaller memberships. Step 4: Compare these strengths with other listed committees such as the Business Advisory Committee and Committee on Petitions, which are not known as the largest. Step 5: Conclude that the Estimates Committee is the largest committee of the Parliament of India in terms of membership. Verification / Alternative check: You can verify this by consulting a standard Indian polity textbook or the official Lok Sabha website, which lists the sanctioned strength of different committees. You will see that the Estimates Committee has thirty members drawn only from the Lok Sabha, while the Public Accounts Committee and the Committee on Public Undertakings are smaller and drawn from both Houses. This numerical comparison clearly confirms that the Estimates Committee is the largest. Why Other Options Are Wrong: The Public Accounts Committee is important for examining the audit reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General but does not have as many members as the Estimates Committee. The Committee on Public Undertakings focuses on central public enterprises, yet its membership is still lower than that of the Estimates Committee. The Business Advisory Committee mainly allocates time and business of the House and does not have the largest membership. The Committee on Petitions examines petitions from the public, but again it is not the largest committee in terms of the number of members. Common Pitfalls: A common mistake is to assume that the Public Accounts Committee must be the largest because it receives a lot of attention in current affairs. Another error is to confuse importance with size. Importance and size are not always the same. For this question, you must focus only on numerical strength, and in that respect the Estimates Committee clearly stands out as the largest. Final Answer: The largest committee of the Parliament of India in terms of membership is the Estimates Committee.

Question 9

The recently launched Stand Up India scheme announced by the Prime Minister is primarily related to which objective among the following?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question examines your awareness of flagship government schemes related to financial inclusion and entrepreneurship. The Stand Up India scheme was launched by the Prime Minister to address specific gaps in access to institutional finance for historically underserved groups. It is commonly asked in general awareness and Indian economy sections because it combines social justice, entrepreneurship and banking policy. Given Data / Assumptions: The scheme is named Stand Up India and is launched by the Central Government. The question asks about the primary purpose or objective of the scheme. The options mention different social objectives such as rights of persons with disabilities, education for women, exports and housing. You are expected to recall which target groups and activity Stand Up India focuses on. Concept / Approach: Stand Up India is designed to promote entrepreneurship among members of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and women by facilitating bank loans for greenfield enterprises. The idea is that each bank branch should support at least one Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe borrower and at least one woman borrower. The scheme therefore directly links credit, enterprise creation and social empowerment. Matching this description with the options immediately points to the choice that mentions entrepreneurship among Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and women. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recognise that Stand Up India is associated with bank loans to new entrepreneurs rather than with rights campaigns or export promotion. Step 2: Recall that the scheme specifically targets Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and women to encourage their participation in business ownership. Step 3: Check the options and identify the one that clearly mentions promotion of entrepreneurship among these groups. Step 4: Confirm that none of the other options mention both entrepreneurship and the correct target groups together. Step 5: Select Promotion of entrepreneurship among Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and women as the correct answer. Verification / Alternative check: You can verify the objective of Stand Up India by looking at official scheme documents or reliable summaries. They highlight that the scheme aims to facilitate bank loans to Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and women borrowers for greenfield enterprises in manufacturing, services or trading. No other aim such as export promotion, compulsory education or disability rights is treated as its central focus. This confirms the correctness of the chosen option. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Promotion of rights and welfare measures for persons with disabilities is associated with disability specific legislation and schemes, not with Stand Up India. Promotion of compulsory education for women is more closely linked to education and literacy programmes rather than an entrepreneurship credit scheme. Promotion of Indian exports in western countries is related to trade policy, export incentives and commerce ministry initiatives, not to a bank led entrepreneurship scheme. Promotion of urban affordable housing for middle income groups is covered under housing missions like Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana, not under Stand Up India. Common Pitfalls: Learners sometimes confuse Stand Up India with the Start Up India initiative, which broadly supports start ups without being limited to specific social categories. Another frequent confusion is between financial inclusion schemes such as Jan Dhan Yojana and entrepreneurship schemes like Stand Up India. To avoid this, remember that Stand Up India connects bank loans with Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and women entrepreneurs specifically. Final Answer: The Stand Up India scheme is primarily related to promotion of entrepreneurship among Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and women.

Question 10

According to the Constitution of India, what is the normal term of office of the Vice President of India from the date on which he or she enters the office?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question deals with a basic constitutional fact about the tenure of one of the highest offices in India, the Vice President. Competitive exams routinely test your knowledge of the terms of office for the President, Vice President, Governors, members of Parliament and other key authorities. Here, you are specifically asked about the number of years for which the Vice President holds office under normal circumstances. Given Data / Assumptions: The office in question is the Vice President of India. The term of office is expressed in years. No exceptional situations like resignation, removal or death are being considered; only the normal tenure is asked. The options list different possible term lengths ranging from two to six years. Concept / Approach: The Constitution of India provides that the Vice President holds office for a term of five years from the date on which he or she enters upon the office. However, the Vice President continues to hold office until a successor enters office, so the actual time in office can be slightly longer in practice. For examination purposes, the required fact to remember is simply that the term is five years, similar to that of the President, although their roles and methods of election are different. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall the relevant constitutional provisions that specify the term of office for the Vice President. Step 2: Note that the fixed term mentioned there is a period of five years. Step 3: Compare this figure with the various options offered in the question. Step 4: Identify 5 years as the correct option from among 4 years, 5 years, 2 years, 6 years and 3 years. Step 5: Choose 5 years as the final answer. Verification / Alternative check: Standard polity textbooks always pair the discussion of the President and the Vice President and explicitly mention that both have a normal term of five years. However, their electoral colleges are different, and this is explained in detail in these sources. Cross checking this across more than one book gives high confidence that five years is the correct term for the Vice President. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Four years is not prescribed for any of the top constitutional executive offices in India, so it is incorrect here. Two years is far too short and does not correspond to the constitutional provision for the Vice President. Six years is relevant for some offices like members of the Rajya Sabha but not for the Vice President. Three years is also not specified in the Constitution for this office and therefore cannot be correct. Common Pitfalls: A common source of confusion is mixing up the tenure of members of Parliament or of other institutions with that of the Vice President. Another mistake is to assume that because the Rajya Sabha has a six year cycle, the Vice President who is ex officio Chairman of the Rajya Sabha must also have a six year term. This is not true; the Vice President has a five year term, even though the Council of States is a continuing chamber with staggered terms for its members. Final Answer: The normal term of office of the Vice President of India is 5 years.

Question 11

In the procedure of the Indian Parliament, a motion moved by a Member of Parliament when he or she feels that a minister has committed a breach of the privilege of the House by withholding or distorting facts of a case is called what?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question checks your understanding of various types of motions used in the Indian Parliament. Motions are formal proposals by members to raise discussions, seek action or express views on issues. The specific situation described here involves an allegation that a minister has breached the privilege of the House by withholding facts or providing misleading information. Knowing which motion is used in such a case is an important part of the topic parliamentary procedure. Given Data / Assumptions: A minister is alleged to have committed a breach of privilege of the House. The alleged breach arises from withholding or misrepresenting facts related to a case. A Member of Parliament wants to move a specific motion in response to this situation. Multiple types of motions are given as options, including no confidence, censure, privilege and cut motions. Concept / Approach: Parliamentary privileges are special rights and immunities enjoyed by the Houses of Parliament and their members so that they can function effectively. When a member believes that these privileges have been violated, he or she may raise the issue through a privilege motion. This motion is used to draw the attention of the House to a possible breach of privilege or contempt of the House. In contrast, no confidence motions and censure motions primarily deal with the performance or policies of the government and not specifically with parliamentary privilege. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify the core issue in the question a breach of privilege of the House caused by a minister withholding facts. Step 2: Recall which type of motion is explicitly designed to deal with breaches of privilege. Step 3: Remember that a privilege motion is moved when members believe that parliamentary privileges have been breached. Step 4: Compare this function with that of other motions like no confidence or cut motions and note that they do not specifically address breach of privilege. Step 5: Select Privilege motion as the correct answer. Verification / Alternative check: Standard references on parliamentary practice in India describe a privilege motion as a motion that can be moved by a member to raise a question involving a breach of privilege. Examples include cases where incorrect information has been supplied to the House. Consulting such sources confirms that the scenario described in the question aligns with the function of a privilege motion and not with other types of motions. Why Other Options Are Wrong: A no confidence motion is moved to test whether the Council of Ministers continues to enjoy the confidence of the Lok Sabha; it is not directly about privileges. A censure motion is used to express strong disapproval of the policies or actions of the government but is not specifically tied to a breach of privilege. A cut motion is related to the demand for grants in the budget and is an instrument to discuss and reduce particular items of expenditure, not a tool for dealing with privilege issues. An adjournment motion is used to draw attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance and to interrupt the normal business of the House, again not focused on privileges of the House. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes confuse censure motions and privilege motions because both involve criticism of a minister. However, the key difference is that a privilege motion is linked to breach of parliamentary privileges, such as giving wrong information to the House, while a censure motion is a political expression of dissatisfaction with the government or a minister. Keeping this distinction clear helps ensure the correct choice in exam questions. Final Answer: The motion described in the question is called a Privilege motion.

Question 12

In the Indian system of economic governance, fiscal policy that deals with taxation and government expenditure is primarily formulated by which of the following authorities?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question checks whether you can correctly distinguish between fiscal policy and monetary or regulatory policy in the Indian context. Fiscal policy concerns the use of government spending and taxation to influence the economy, while monetary policy concerns the regulation of money supply and interest rates. Several important institutions like the Reserve Bank of India, the Finance Ministry and regulatory bodies are given in the options, and you must identify which one actually formulates fiscal policy. Given Data / Assumptions: The topic is fiscal policy, that is, government policy on taxation, borrowing and expenditure. The options list key institutions related to economics and finance in India. It is assumed that we are talking about the Union or central level fiscal policy, not individual state budgets. Some listed bodies no longer exist in their original form but are still used in older exam questions. Concept / Approach: In India, fiscal policy at the Union level is framed by the central government through the Ministry of Finance. This involves preparing the Union Budget, deciding tax rates under central jurisdiction, determining expenditure priorities and managing fiscal deficits. By contrast, the Reserve Bank of India is responsible for monetary policy, which includes setting policy interest rates and controlling money supply. Regulatory bodies like the Securities and Exchange Board of India have focused sectoral roles. Therefore, when asked who formulates fiscal policy, the correct answer is the Finance Ministry. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall the definition of fiscal policy government policy on taxation, borrowing and spending. Step 2: Identify which institution in India prepares and presents the Union Budget, proposes taxes and allocates expenditure across ministries. Step 3: Recognise that this role belongs to the Ministry of Finance, acting on behalf of the central government. Step 4: Distinguish this from monetary policy, which is handled by the Reserve Bank of India. Step 5: Select Finance Ministry as the correct answer from among the options. Verification / Alternative check: Official budget documents tabled in Parliament clearly state that they are presented by the Minister of Finance on behalf of the Government of India. These documents outline fiscal deficit, tax proposals, expenditure plans and borrowing requirements. Monetary policy statements, however, are issued by the Reserve Bank of India separately. This institutional separation confirms that the Finance Ministry is responsible for fiscal policy. Why Other Options Are Wrong: The Reserve Bank of India manages monetary policy and banking regulation. Although its decisions affect the economy, it does not decide tax rates or government spending programmes. The Planning Commission was earlier an advisory body for planning and five year plans, and it has now been replaced by NITI Aayog. It never directly formulated the Union fiscal policy. The Securities and Exchange Board of India regulates the securities market, protects investor interests and oversees stock exchanges, not overall fiscal policy. NITI Aayog is a policy think tank that provides strategic and technical advice to the central and state governments, but it does not itself formulate or announce fiscal policy. Common Pitfalls: A common error is to confuse fiscal and monetary policy simply because both deal with macroeconomic management. Another pitfall is to assume that any economic body like the Reserve Bank of India or NITI Aayog must be responsible. Remember that monetary policy is about money and interest rates and is handled by the Reserve Bank of India, while fiscal policy is about taxes and government spending and is handled by the Finance Ministry. Final Answer: In India, fiscal policy is formulated by the Finance Ministry.

Question 13

Which one of the following bodies was established with a clear and specific provision under an Article of the Constitution of India, making it a constitutional body rather than a purely statutory one?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question tests whether you can distinguish between constitutional bodies and statutory bodies in the Indian system. Constitutional bodies are created directly by provisions in the Constitution and are mentioned in specific Articles, while statutory bodies are created by Acts of Parliament or state legislatures. The Election Commission and the Union Public Service Commission are both constitutional bodies, whereas several other watchdog and advisory institutions are statutory. The question asks you to identify a body that clearly owes its existence to a specific constitutional Article. Given Data / Assumptions: Several important institutions are listed, including commissions and oversight bodies. Some of these are constitutional bodies, and some are statutory creations. The phrase with a clear and specific provision under an Article of the Constitution highlights bodies that are expressly mentioned in the Constitution itself. You are expected to know at least which of the listed bodies are constitutional and which are statutory. Concept / Approach: The Election Commission of India is explicitly provided for in Article 324 of the Constitution. This Article lays down the creation of an Election Commission to supervise, direct and control elections to Parliament, state legislatures and the offices of President and Vice President. Because of this direct constitutional backing, the Election Commission is clearly a constitutional body. The Union Public Service Commission is also a constitutional body under Article 315, but in many exam questions of this pattern the Election Commission is highlighted in contrast to statutory bodies like the National Human Rights Commission and the Central Vigilance Commission, which are created by Acts of Parliament. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Separate the listed bodies into constitutional ones and statutory ones. Step 2: Recall that the Election Commission is provided for under Article 324 of the Constitution. Step 3: Note that national human rights and vigilance commissions are created by statute, not directly by a constitutional Article. Step 4: Among the options, identify Election Commission as a clearly constitutionally created body under a specific Article that deals with elections. Step 5: Choose Election Commission as the answer in this comparative context. Verification / Alternative check: If you consult the bare text of the Constitution, you will find a separate Part that refers to elections, with Article 324 establishing the Election Commission. In contrast, the full names of bodies like the National Human Rights Commission or the Central Vigilance Commission do not appear anywhere in the Constitution, but only in their respective statutes. This confirms which among the options has clear constitutional origin. Why Other Options Are Wrong: The National Human Rights Commission is a statutory body created under the Protection of Human Rights Act and therefore does not owe its existence to a specific constitutional Article. The Central Vigilance Commission is also a statutory body created by an Act of Parliament to deal with corruption and vigilance matters. The National Commission for Women is established under a separate Act, and its name is not mentioned in the original constitutional text. The Union Public Service Commission is indeed a constitutional body under Article 315, but in many multiple choice patterns of this type, the focus is on the Election Commission which is central to free and fair elections. The question contrasts such constitutional commissions with newer statutory bodies, and Election Commission fits this contrast most clearly. Common Pitfalls: A frequent confusion arises because several oversight and regulatory bodies are called commissions, but their legal status differs. Students must remember that only some commissions, such as the Election Commission and the Union and State Public Service Commissions, are constitutional, while others like the National Human Rights Commission and Central Vigilance Commission are statutory. Memorising this classification in a small table can help avoid errors in exam questions of this kind. Final Answer: The body that is clearly established under a specific Article of the Constitution is the Election Commission.

Question 14

Which of the following correctly describes the role and character of the Supreme Court of India within the country s judicial and constitutional framework?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question aims to test your understanding of the multiple roles played by the Supreme Court of India. Unlike some courts that perform only one clear function, the Supreme Court simultaneously acts as a federal court, a final court of appeal and the guardian of the Constitution. Recognising these overlapping roles is essential in Indian polity and constitutional law topics for any major examination. Given Data / Assumptions: The institution in question is the Supreme Court of India. The options describe it as a federal court, a court of appeal and a guardian of the Constitution. One option combines all these descriptions together. You are expected to know whether each individual description is true and whether they can all apply at the same time. Concept / Approach: The Supreme Court of India is the apex judicial body as provided by the Constitution. It acts as a federal court when it adjudicates disputes between the Union and the states or among states. It is a court of appeal because it hears appeals from judgments of High Courts and other courts and tribunals. It is also the guardian of the Constitution because it interprets constitutional provisions, protects fundamental rights and can strike down laws and executive actions that violate the Constitution. Because all three descriptions are valid, the most accurate option is the one that includes all of them together. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Consider the Supreme Court as a federal court in its original jurisdiction over disputes between the Union and states. Step 2: Recall that it is the highest appellate court and can hear civil, criminal and constitutional appeals from subordinate courts. Step 3: Understand that through judicial review and interpretation, it safeguards the basic structure of the Constitution and fundamental rights, acting as guardian of the Constitution. Step 4: Realise that all three roles coexist and are not mutually exclusive. Step 5: Choose the option All of these to reflect the full nature of the Supreme Court of India. Verification / Alternative check: Reading the relevant Articles of the Constitution and standard polity books shows that the Supreme Court has original, appellate and advisory jurisdiction. Its original jurisdiction as a federal court is clearly stated, its appellate role is elaborated through various Articles and laws, and its guardianship of the Constitution arises from its power of judicial review and interpretation. Each of these roles is widely acknowledged in constitutional commentary, confirming that all three descriptors are accurate. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Federal Court alone is incomplete because it ignores the wide appellate jurisdiction and constitutional role of the Supreme Court. Court of Appeal alone is also incomplete because it does not capture its original jurisdiction in federal disputes or its role in protecting the Constitution. Guardian of the Constitution alone is important but again does not fully describe its functions as a federal court and final appellate court. None of these is incorrect because each of the three descriptors has a real basis in the Constitution and in practice, so rejecting them all is clearly wrong. Common Pitfalls: Students may think that because federal courts in some other countries have limited roles, the Supreme Court of India must fit only one of these labels. Another common mistake is to think that choosing a combined option like All of these is always a trick. In this case, however, the Constitution itself supports all three roles. Understanding the multiple jurisdictions of the Supreme Court and how they interact helps avoid such confusion. Final Answer: The Supreme Court of India functions as a federal court, a final court of appeal and the guardian of the Constitution, so the correct description is All of these.

Question 15

Within the institutional framework of NITI Aayog, who serves as the Chairperson (Chairman) of NITI Aayog under the present constitutional arrangement?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question relates to NITI Aayog, which replaced the Planning Commission as the main policy think tank of the Government of India. NITI Aayog plays an important role in cooperative federalism and strategic policy formulation. Knowing who heads NITI Aayog is a basic fact that often appears in current affairs and polity questions. Given Data / Assumptions: The body in question is NITI Aayog, an institution that replaced the earlier Planning Commission. The term Chairman or Chairperson is used, which refers to the head of this body. The options list several high level positions in the Union Government, including the Prime Minister and various ministers. You are expected to recall the official structure of NITI Aayog as announced by the government. Concept / Approach: NITI Aayog has been constituted so that the Prime Minister of India serves as its Chairperson. In addition, there is a Vice Chairman and a Governing Council that includes Chief Ministers and Lieutenant Governors. The idea is that the highest political executive at the Union level should head the institution that coordinates national development policy and state cooperation. Therefore, the correct answer is the Prime Minister, not any cabinet minister or official. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that NITI Aayog is intended to function as a high level institution driving long term policy and cooperative federalism. Step 2: Remember that the government notification specified that the Prime Minister would be the ex officio Chairperson of NITI Aayog. Step 3: Look at the options and identify Prime Minister among them. Step 4: Recognise that other options like the Industry Minister, Finance Minister or Commerce Minister may be members but not the Chairperson. Step 5: Select Prime Minister as the correct answer. Verification / Alternative check: Official descriptions of NITI Aayog on government websites clearly mention that the Prime Minister is the Chairperson. They also list the Vice Chairman, full time members and ex officio members who are Union Ministers. Cross checking this structure in multiple reliable sources confirms the central role of the Prime Minister as the head of NITI Aayog. Why Other Options Are Wrong: The Minister of Industry may be associated with industrial policy but does not serve as the Chairperson of NITI Aayog. The Finance Minister is a key member of the Union Cabinet and may be an ex officio member of NITI Aayog, but is not the designated Chairperson. The Commerce Minister has specific responsibility for trade and commerce, and similarly does not head NITI Aayog. The Vice Chairman of NITI Aayog, although important in day to day functioning and policy input, is not the Chairperson. The Vice Chairman works under the overall leadership of the Prime Minister as Chairperson. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes confuse the roles of Vice Chairman and Chairperson, especially because the Vice Chairman appears frequently in news articles and interviews. Another source of confusion is the older structure of the Planning Commission, where a Deputy Chairman was very prominent. To avoid mistakes, remember that in the NITI Aayog framework the Prime Minister is the Chairperson and there is a Vice Chairman who plays a senior but subordinate role. Final Answer: The Chairperson of NITI Aayog is the Prime Minister of India.

Question 16

Which of the following schemes or programmes was not originally launched by the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) Government at the Centre, even though it may have continued under later governments?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question checks your knowledge of which major flagship schemes were introduced by the National Democratic Alliance Government and which originated under earlier governments. Many schemes continue over time regardless of which coalition is in power, so it is important to distinguish who launched them. The specific focus here is on programmes commonly discussed in social sector and financial inclusion policy debates. Given Data / Assumptions: The question asks which scheme was not started by the NDA Government. The options include important initiatives like Mission Indradhanush, Jan Dhan Yojana, Swachh Bharat Abhiyan and MGNREGA. Some of these are widely known to have been launched under a particular coalition or leadership. The term launched refers to the first time the scheme or Act was introduced, not later changes or renaming. Concept / Approach: Mission Indradhanush, Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojana and Swachh Bharat Abhiyan are flagship initiatives associated with the NDA Government at the Centre. By contrast, the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, popularly known as MGNREGA or previously NREGA, was launched earlier under a different coalition government before the NDA period. Although it has continued under the NDA Government and earlier versions, its origin lies with a previous government, so it is the correct answer to the question asking which scheme was not started by the NDA Government. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: List the schemes in the options and recall their launch period and political context. Step 2: Recognise that Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojana, Swachh Bharat Abhiyan and Mission Indradhanush were announced as part of the NDA Government s agenda. Step 3: Recall that MGNREGA was enacted as a social security employment guarantee law before the NDA period and is therefore older. Step 4: Note that Atal Pension Yojana also belongs to the NDA era and is named after former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee. Step 5: Conclude that Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) is the scheme that was not started by the NDA Government. Verification / Alternative check: If you look up the dates of launch, you will find that MGNREGA legislation pre dates the more recent wave of NDA flagship schemes. Jan Dhan Yojana, Swachh Bharat Abhiyan, Mission Indradhanush and Atal Pension Yojana are all clearly announced during the NDA governance period. By comparing these timelines, the odd one out in terms of launch is MGNREGA. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Mission Indradhanush is an immunisation programme that was launched under the NDA Government to increase vaccination coverage. Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojana is a financial inclusion scheme announced by the NDA Government, aimed at providing basic bank accounts to households. Swachh Bharat Abhiyan is a national cleanliness and sanitation mission strongly associated with the NDA leadership. Atal Pension Yojana is a pension scheme for unorganised workers launched under the NDA Government and named after former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee. Common Pitfalls: Candidates may confuse origin with continuation. Because the NDA Government continued and modified MGNREGA, some may mistakenly think it started the scheme. Another issue is that several schemes have similar sounding names or multiple phases, such as Indradhanush in different sectors. To avoid errors, always focus on the year of launch and which coalition or government was in power at that time. Final Answer: The scheme that was not originally started by the NDA Government is the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA).

Question 17

Damodar Valley Corporation, which operates in the Damodar River region, is best described as which of the following types of organisations in the Indian administrative system?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The Damodar Valley Corporation, commonly known as DVC, is an important multi purpose organisation in eastern India that deals with power generation, flood control and irrigation in the Damodar River basin. Understanding its legal nature helps in appreciating how large infrastructure and river valley projects are organised in the country. This question asks you to correctly identify the type of organisation DVC is under Indian public administration. Given Data / Assumptions: The organisation in focus is Damodar Valley Corporation. The geographical area is the Damodar Valley region. The options include different types of bodies such as statutory bodies, municipal corporations, private enterprises and non government organisations. The question expects you to know under what kind of law or statute DVC was created. Concept / Approach: DVC was created by a specific Act of Parliament to carry out river valley development functions. Bodies that are established by a special Act passed by the legislature are called statutory bodies because their powers, functions and structure are defined in that statute. DVC is not a municipal corporation, which is a city level local body, nor is it a private company or a non government organisation. Its multi state, multi purpose role and its creation by a dedicated law make it a classic example of a statutory corporation. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that Damodar Valley Corporation was formed for flood control, irrigation, power generation and other river valley development activities. Step 2: Note that it was not set up by a municipal law for a single city but by a separate Act of Parliament for a river basin covering parts of different states. Step 3: Understand that such corporations created by law with their own legal personality are usually called statutory bodies or statutory corporations. Step 4: Compare this with private enterprises and non government organisations, which are not created by a specific Act of Parliament for public purposes in this manner. Step 5: Select Statutory body as the correct description for Damodar Valley Corporation. Verification / Alternative check: Standard public administration and Indian economy textbooks list DVC along with other statutory corporations like the Life Insurance Corporation and Oil and Natural Gas Corporation in discussions on public sector undertakings. They emphasise that DVC was created as a river valley corporation under a special law and not as a municipal or private entity. This classification clearly supports the choice statutory body. Why Other Options Are Wrong: A municipal corporation is a local government body for a city or town and has jurisdiction primarily over urban civic services, not an entire river basin across states. A private enterprise located in Bihar would be owned and managed by private shareholders, whereas DVC is a public sector body created by law. A non government organisation is a voluntary association outside the formal government structure, which again does not match the legal and administrative nature of DVC. A departmental undertaking within a ministry remains part of the ministry itself without separate legal identity, but DVC is separate and is governed by its establishing statute. Common Pitfalls: Candidates sometimes confuse statutory bodies with government departments or public sector companies. The key distinction is that statutory bodies are created by a specific Act of the legislature, which defines their powers and structure. Departments are part of a ministry, while companies are incorporated under company law. DVC falls clearly in the statutory body category, and remembering this will help in similar questions about large public sector organisations. Final Answer: Damodar Valley Corporation is best described as a Statutory body.

Question 18

As per the latest practice after the change approved in 2020, what is the current accounting year of the Reserve Bank of India for preparing its annual accounts?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question focuses on a factual but important change related to the Reserve Bank of India, the country s central bank. Earlier, the Reserve Bank of India followed a different financial year from that of the Government of India. In recent years, a decision was taken to align the RBI accounting year with the government s financial year. Examinations now often ask about this updated accounting year, so it is important to know the latest arrangement rather than the older system. Given Data / Assumptions: The institution in question is the Reserve Bank of India. The topic is its accounting or financial year, that is, the twelve month period for which it prepares its annual accounts. The options include several possible twelve month cycles such as April to March and July to June. The question expects awareness of the change that brought RBI in line with the central government s financial year. Concept / Approach: For many decades, the Reserve Bank of India followed a financial year from July to June. However, to simplify budgeting, reporting and coordination with the central government, a decision was made to shift the RBI s accounting year to align with the government s financial year of April to March. After the change took effect, the RBI now uses April to March as its accounting year. Therefore, when a current affairs oriented question asks about the accounting year, the correct answer is April to March. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that historically the RBI financial year used to run from July to June, which was different from the government financial year. Step 2: Note that a policy decision was taken to align the RBI accounting year with the government financial year to improve comparability and planning. Step 3: Remember that the government financial year in India runs from 1 April to 31 March. Step 4: From the options provided, identify April to March as matching this pattern. Step 5: Select April to March as the correct current accounting year of the Reserve Bank of India. Verification / Alternative check: If you consult recent annual reports of the RBI or official press releases, you will see that they clearly state the period of the financial year as from April 1 to March 31, in line with the Government of India. This is a clear change from earlier documents which used July to June. Such official sources remove any doubt about the present position. Why Other Options Are Wrong: July to June was the older accounting year used historically, but it has been changed and is no longer the current practice. October to September is not used as a financial year by the RBI or by the central government in India. January to December, while used as a calendar year and in some countries as a financial year, is not the accounting year adopted by the RBI. June to May is not a recognised financial year in this context and appears only as a distractor. Common Pitfalls: Many learners memorised the earlier information that RBI uses July to June and have not updated their knowledge. As a result, they may still mark July to June in exams even though the official position has changed. Another pitfall is to assume that because the question may be based on older material, the old answer is correct. In current affairs and banking awareness, you should always revise changes to institutional practices and update your facts to the latest available information. Final Answer: The current accounting year of the Reserve Bank of India is April to March.

Question 19

From among the following prominent Indian women leaders, who was the first woman to serve as Speaker of the Lok Sabha, the lower house of the Parliament of India?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question is about a significant milestone in the representation of women in India s parliamentary leadership. The Speaker of the Lok Sabha is one of the highest constitutional offices in the country and plays a crucial role in presiding over the proceedings of the lower house of Parliament. Knowing who the first woman Speaker was is an important part of both political history and gender related achievements in Indian democracy. Given Data / Assumptions: The office in question is the Speaker of the Lok Sabha. The question specifically asks for the first woman to hold this position. The options list several well known women leaders including Sushma Swaraj, Margaret Alva, Meira Kumar and Sarojini Naidu. It is assumed that you can distinguish between roles such as Speaker, Governor, minister and other positions these leaders have held. Concept / Approach: Meira Kumar, a senior leader and former diplomat, became the first woman Speaker of the Lok Sabha. She was elected Speaker after the general elections when a new Lok Sabha was formed, and her appointment marked a historic first for women in this high constitutional role. While other women listed in the options have held important positions such as ministers, Governors and party leaders, they did not serve as Speaker of the Lok Sabha before Meira Kumar. Therefore, she is the correct answer to this question. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall the names of women who have served as Speaker of the Lok Sabha and note that Meira Kumar was the first among them. Step 2: Compare this with the careers of Sushma Swaraj, Margaret Alva and Sarojini Naidu, who held other high offices but not this specific one. Step 3: Identify Meira Kumar in the list of options. Step 4: Confirm that she indeed served as Speaker and that no woman preceded her in this role. Step 5: Select Meira Kumar as the correct answer. Verification / Alternative check: Biographical information and parliamentary records clearly show that Meira Kumar served as Speaker of the Lok Sabha and that she was the first woman to do so. No earlier Lok Sabha Speaker was a woman. Other women leaders in the options have distinguished careers, but their roles did not include this position. Cross checking a list of Speakers of the Lok Sabha quickly confirms this fact. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Sushma Swaraj served as a Union Minister in several portfolios and was also Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, but she was never Speaker. Margaret Alva has been a Governor of different states and an important political figure, yet she did not serve as Speaker of the Lok Sabha. Sarojini Naidu was a freedom fighter, poet and later the Governor of Uttar Pradesh, but not the Speaker. Indira Gandhi, although a former Prime Minister of India and one of the most prominent leaders, never occupied the office of Lok Sabha Speaker. Common Pitfalls: Candidates may sometimes mix up different constitutional positions held by the same leader, especially when there are multiple high offices such as Prime Minister, Governor, Speaker and minister. Another common mistake is to assume that a very famous woman leader like Indira Gandhi or Sarojini Naidu must have held every high office. It helps to remember that the first woman Speaker was Meira Kumar specifically, not any of the more globally famous names. Final Answer: The first woman to serve as Speaker of the Lok Sabha was Meira Kumar.

Question 20

Which of the following bodies is not provided for directly in the text of the Constitution of India and therefore is not a constitutional body?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question assesses your understanding of which important institutions in India are constitutional bodies and which are created by executive resolution or statute without being written into the Constitution. Constitutional bodies are expressly mentioned in specific Articles, while other institutions may be set up by ordinary law or executive order. The Planning Commission, though historically important, had a different legal status from bodies like the Election Commission or Finance Commission. Given Data / Assumptions: Several well known institutions are listed as options. The question asks which body is not provided for in the Constitution of India. It is understood that some of these bodies are clearly named in Articles of the Constitution, while others are not. You are expected to recognise which one is non constitutional in origin. Concept / Approach: The Election Commission, Finance Commission, Public Service Commissions and the Comptroller and Auditor General are all constitutional bodies with clear Articles devoted to them. The Planning Commission, on the other hand, was established by an executive resolution of the Government of India after independence and was not mentioned in the Constitution. It enjoyed significant influence in planning and allocation of resources, but its existence did not depend on any constitutional provision and it has since been replaced by NITI Aayog. Therefore, among the options given, Planning Commission is the one that is not provided for in the Constitution. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify which of the listed bodies you remember having a specific Article in the Constitution. Step 2: Recall that the Election Commission is created under Article 324, the Finance Commission under Article 280, Public Service Commissions under Article 315 and the Comptroller and Auditor General under Article 148. Step 3: Note that the Planning Commission never had such an Article in the Constitution; it was created by an executive resolution. Step 4: Compare all options and see that only Planning Commission falls outside the category of constitutional bodies. Step 5: Choose Planning Commission as the correct answer. Verification / Alternative check: Checking any standard Indian polity book or the bare text of the Constitution confirms that there is no Article creating a Planning Commission. However, you will find detailed Articles for the Election Commission, Finance Commission, Public Service Commissions and the Comptroller and Auditor General. This clear difference in constitutional status confirms which option is not provided in the Constitution. Why Other Options Are Wrong: The Election Commission is explicitly provided for in Article 324 and is a key constitutional body for overseeing elections. The Finance Commission is set up under Article 280 to recommend the distribution of financial resources between the Union and the states. Public Service Commissions, including the Union Public Service Commission and State Public Service Commissions, are provided for under Article 315 and related Articles. The Comptroller and Auditor General of India is a constitutional authority established under Article 148 to audit government accounts. Common Pitfalls: A frequent mistake is to assume that any important body must be in the Constitution. However, importance does not automatically mean constitutional status. Many significant institutions like the Planning Commission, now replaced by NITI Aayog, and various commissions were created outside the constitutional text. It is crucial to memorise which key bodies are constitutional, statutory or created by executive orders to answer such questions accurately. Final Answer: The body that is not provided for in the Constitution of India is the Planning Commission.

Indian Politics Questions