Question 1

In the Indian constitutional framework, which body has the authority to decide election petitions related to elections to Parliament and state legislatures?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Free and fair elections are a core feature of a democratic system. In India, disputes about the validity of an election result are handled through election petitions. This question checks whether you know which authority hears and decides these petitions for elections to Parliament and state legislatures. Knowing this is essential for understanding the separation of powers between the Election Commission and the judiciary under the Representation of the People Act and the Constitution. Given Data / Assumptions: The question refers to election petitions that challenge election results. It concerns elections to Parliament and state legislative assemblies. The options list various constitutional bodies and institutions. Concept / Approach: While the Election Commission of India conducts and supervises elections, disputes about election results are adjudicated by the judiciary. The Representation of the People Act provides that election petitions for parliamentary and assembly elections shall be presented to and decided by the High Court of the state concerned. The Supreme Court is the final appellate authority but does not ordinarily serve as the court of first instance for these petitions. Parliament as a law making body and the Election Commission as a supervisory body do not decide these disputes. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recognise that the question is about resolving disputes after an election, not about conducting the election. Step 2: Recall that the Election Commission organises elections but does not decide legal disputes about results. Step 3: Under the Representation of the People Act, election petitions are to be filed in the High Court of the state concerned. Step 4: The High Court examines evidence, hears arguments and gives a judgement that can uphold or set aside the election. Step 5: Therefore, the body that decides election petitions at the first instance is the High Court. Verification / Alternative check: You can verify this by remembering that earlier, in some systems, legislatures themselves would decide disputes about membership. However, to ensure fairness and independence, this function in India is given to the judiciary. Also, exam oriented polity books clearly mention that election petitions for Lok Sabha and assembly elections are filed in the respective High Courts, with appeals lying to the Supreme Court. This confirms that High Courts have the power to decide these petitions. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Parliament: Parliament enacts laws and can decide some questions about membership under anti defection rules, but election petitions challenging the validity of elections are decided by courts, not Parliament. Supreme Court: The Supreme Court may hear appeals in election matters and directly handles election petitions for the offices of President and Vice President, but for parliamentary and assembly elections the first forum is the High Court. Election Commission: The Election Commission of India conducts elections, prepares electoral rolls and issues model code guidelines but does not act as a court to decide election petitions. Common Pitfalls: Many students wrongly select the Election Commission because they associate it strongly with elections in general. It is important to separate the functions of administering elections from the function of adjudicating disputes. Another common confusion is between different types of elections. For contests to Parliament and state legislatures, election petitions go to High Courts, while for President and Vice President they go directly to the Supreme Court. Keeping this distinction clear will help avoid errors in similar questions. Final Answer: Election petitions for elections to Parliament and state legislatures are decided by the High Courts.

Question 2

In the Union Government of India, who is officially designated as the first Law Officer of the country?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The Indian legal system includes several important offices that advise the government and interpret the Constitution. One key position is the chief legal advisor to the central government, often called the first Law Officer of India. This question tests whether you can correctly identify that office and distinguish it from other legal and judicial roles like the Law Minister or the Chief Justice. Given Data / Assumptions: The question asks for the first Law Officer of the Government of India. Options include both executive and judicial offices such as the Union Law Minister and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. We assume knowledge that some of these positions are political and others are constitutional law offices. Concept / Approach: The Attorney General for India is appointed under Article 76 of the Constitution. This office is described as the highest law officer of the Union. The Attorney General advises the Government of India on legal matters and can appear in courts on its behalf. The Union Law Minister is a member of the Council of Ministers and a political office holder. The Secretary in the Ministry of Law is a senior bureaucrat. The Chief Justice heads the judiciary but is not the government s law officer. Therefore, the term first Law Officer clearly refers to the Attorney General for India. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify that the phrase first Law Officer refers to the highest ranking legal advisor to the Union Government. Step 2: Recall that Article 76 creates the office of the Attorney General for India. Step 3: The Attorney General advises the government on legal matters and represents it in important cases before the Supreme Court and other courts when required. Step 4: Union Law Minister is a political head of the Ministry of Law and Justice, not the top law officer. Step 5: Therefore, the correct answer is Attorney General for India. Verification / Alternative check: Standard polity reference books clearly state that the Attorney General is the first Law Officer of the Government of India. A useful check is to note that similar terminology is used at the state level, where the Advocate General acts as the highest law officer for the state government. This parallel structure reinforces that Attorney General is the matching title at the Union level. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Union Law Minister: This is a cabinet level political position responsible for policy and administration in the legal field. It is not described as the first Law Officer in the constitutional sense. Secretary, Ministry of Law: The Secretary is a senior civil servant who assists in administration but does not hold the constitutional office of chief legal advisor to the government. Chief Justice of the Supreme Court: The Chief Justice heads the judiciary and presides over the Supreme Court. The position is independent from the government and is not a government law officer. Common Pitfalls: Some students confuse the Attorney General with the Law Minister because both are associated with laws and the central government. The key difference is that the Attorney General is a constitutional office and acts as a professional law officer, while the Law Minister is part of the political executive. To avoid confusion, remember the pair of terms: Attorney General for India at the Union level and Advocate General at the state level. Both are described as the highest law officers for their respective governments. Final Answer: The first Law Officer of the Government of India is the Attorney-General for India.

Question 3

Under which constitutional Act passed by the British Parliament was the system of diarchy first introduced in the provinces of British India?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Before India became independent, the British Parliament passed several Acts that gradually changed the structure of governance. One important experiment was diarchy in the provinces, where some subjects were administered by elected Indian ministers and others by British officials. This question asks under which Act this system was first introduced, a standard topic in Indian constitutional and freedom struggle history. Given Data / Assumptions: The question is about diarchy at the provincial level in British India. Options include four major Acts passed between 1909 and 1947. We assume awareness that each Act introduced specific reforms such as separate electorates, provincial autonomy or independence. Concept / Approach: Diarchy means dual rule. In the provincial context, it referred to dividing subjects into reserved and transferred categories. Reserved subjects like law and order remained under the control of the Governor and his executive council, while transferred subjects like education and health were handed to ministers responsible to the provincial legislature. This arrangement was introduced by the Government of India Act of 1919, also known as the Montagu Chelmsford Reforms. Later, the Government of India Act 1935 replaced diarchy in the provinces with provincial autonomy and introduced diarchy at the centre, but the first introduction was through the 1919 Act. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that the Indian Councils Act 1909 (Morley Minto Reforms) introduced separate electorates for Muslims but did not introduce diarchy. Step 2: The Government of India Act 1919 aimed to give more responsible government to Indians, especially in the provinces. Step 3: Under the 1919 Act, subjects in provinces were divided into reserved and transferred lists, forming the diarchy system. Step 4: The Government of India Act 1935 further changed the structure, giving provincial autonomy and planning diarchy at the centre, but it was not the first to introduce diarchy. Step 5: The Indian Independence Act 1947 simply ended British rule and did not introduce diarchy. Verification / Alternative check: A quick verification method is to match Acts with key features: 1909 is separate electorates, 1919 is diarchy in provinces, 1935 is provincial autonomy and a proposed federation, and 1947 is independence. Remembering this simple mapping helps fix the 1919 Act as the origin of diarchy in provincial governance. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Indian Councils Act, 1909: This Act expanded legislative councils and introduced separate electorates but did not divide provincial subjects into reserved and transferred categories. Government of India Act, 1935: This Act abolished diarchy in the provinces and aimed to introduce it at the centre, but it was not the first Act to introduce diarchy in India. Indian Independence Act, 1947: This Act granted independence to India and Pakistan and ended British sovereignty. It did not create any diarchic arrangement. Common Pitfalls: Students often mix up the provisions of the 1919 and 1935 Acts because both deal with provincial governance. A good way to avoid confusion is to remember that 1919 introduced diarchy in the provinces, while 1935 removed diarchy from provinces and expanded autonomy. Creating a small chronological summary of Acts and their main reforms can significantly improve accuracy in these types of questions. Final Answer: The system of diarchy in the provinces of British India was first introduced by the Government of India Act, 1919.

Question 4

During the rule of which central government in India was the Right to Property removed from the list of Fundamental Rights and converted into a legal right?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Originally, the Right to Property was included as a Fundamental Right in Part III of the Constitution of India. Over time, conflicts between land reform policies and this right led to several amendments. Finally, the Right to Property was removed from the list of Fundamental Rights and made a constitutional legal right under a different article. This question tests whether you can identify under which central government this important change took place. Given Data / Assumptions: The question asks about the period when Right to Property ceased to be a Fundamental Right. Options refer to different central governments headed by Indira Gandhi, Morarji Desai, P. V. Narasimha Rao and Atal Bihari Vajpayee. We assume familiarity with constitutional amendments after the Emergency period. Concept / Approach: The Right to Property was originally contained in Articles 19 and 31. After many disputes and amendments, the Forty Fourth Constitutional Amendment Act of 1978 removed it from the list of Fundamental Rights. The same amendment inserted Article 300A in Part XII, which protects property as a legal right rather than a Fundamental Right. The Forty Fourth Amendment was enacted during the rule of the Janata Party government headed by Prime Minister Morarji Desai, which came to power after the Emergency imposed during Indira Gandhi s earlier tenure. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that the Emergency period lasted from 1975 to 1977 during the government of Indira Gandhi. Step 2: After the Emergency, the Janata Party led by Morarji Desai came to power in 1977. Step 3: The new government passed the Forty Fourth Amendment Act in 1978 to restore some democratic safeguards and to modify the status of Right to Property. Step 4: This amendment removed Right to Property from Part III and placed it in Article 300A as a constitutional legal right. Step 5: Therefore, the government in power when this change occurred was the Morarji Desai Government. Verification / Alternative check: A cross check is to match amendment numbers with governments. The Forty Second Amendment, which is often called the mini Constitution, was passed during the Emergency under Indira Gandhi. The Forty Fourth Amendment, which reversed some provisions and changed Right to Property, was passed under the subsequent Janata Party government. Governments of Narasimha Rao and Vajpayee came much later in the 1990s. This timeline confirms that the relevant change occurred during the Morarji Desai era. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Indira Gandhi Government: While several amendments affecting property rights were passed during her rule, the complete removal of Right to Property as a Fundamental Right happened under the Forty Fourth Amendment, not under her government. Narasimha Rao Government: This government functioned in the early 1990s and focused on economic liberalisation, not on changing the status of Right to Property as a Fundamental Right. Vajpayee Government: This government came later in the late 1990s and early 2000s and did not carry out this particular constitutional change. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes assume that because Indira Gandhi s government introduced many controversial amendments during the Emergency, all major changes must be linked to her period. However, the specific shift of Right to Property from Part III to Article 300A occurred under the government that came to power after the Emergency. To avoid confusion, it is helpful to connect amendment numbers and dates with key political events, such as the end of the Emergency and the rise of the Janata Party. Final Answer: The Right to Property was removed from the list of Fundamental Rights during the rule of the Morarji Desai Government through the Forty Fourth Amendment.

Question 5

As of November 2014, how many Prime Ministers of India had been conferred with the Bharat Ratna, the country's highest civilian award?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The Bharat Ratna is the highest civilian award of India and is given for exceptional service in any field of human endeavour. Several former Prime Ministers of India have been honoured with this award. This question tests whether you can recall the correct count of such Prime Ministers as of a specific cut off date, November 2014. It combines knowledge of national awards with knowledge of political history. Given Data / Assumptions: The question asks for the number of Prime Ministers who had received the Bharat Ratna up to November 2014, not including later years. We assume awareness of which leaders served as Prime Minister and which among them were awardees before that date. The options are four consecutive numbers, so careful counting is required. Concept / Approach: To answer this, we need to list Prime Ministers who were Bharat Ratna recipients by that date. Up to November 2014, the following Prime Ministers had been honoured: Jawaharlal Nehru, Lal Bahadur Shastri, Indira Gandhi, Morarji Desai, Rajiv Gandhi and Gulzarilal Nanda. Each of these leaders served as Prime Minister at some point and received the Bharat Ratna in different years. Counting these names gives a total of six. It is important to stop at November 2014 and not include later awardees announced after that date. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: List the Prime Ministers known to have received the Bharat Ratna before the end of 2014. Step 2: Jawaharlal Nehru received the award in the 1950s. Step 3: Lal Bahadur Shastri received it posthumously in the 1960s. Step 4: Indira Gandhi was honoured in the early 1970s. Step 5: Morarji Desai and Rajiv Gandhi were conferred the award in the early 1990s. Step 6: Gulzarilal Nanda, who served twice as acting Prime Minister, was also awarded the Bharat Ratna in the 1990s. Step 7: Counting these names, we have six Prime Ministers or acting Prime Ministers who had received the award by November 2014. Verification / Alternative check: A useful check is to compare with later data. After November 2014, additional Prime Ministers, such as Atal Bihari Vajpayee, were announced for the Bharat Ratna. If you see higher totals in recent sources, remember that the question restricts you to November 2014. By deliberately excluding award announcements from late 2014 and beyond, you return to the count of six Prime Ministers who had already been conferred the award by that time. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 4: This would imply that only the earliest four awardee Prime Ministers are counted, which ignores later recipients such as Morarji Desai and Gulzarilal Nanda. 5: This number would still leave out one of the Prime Ministers who had been honoured by the 1990s, so it is too low. 7: This number is higher than the correct count for November 2014 and reflects confusion with later award announcements that occurred after that cut off date. Common Pitfalls: A common mistake is to mix up different time frames. Many competitive exam questions specify a cut off year or date, and candidates sometimes answer based on the latest information they have seen instead of the time bound data in the question. Another pitfall is failing to count acting Prime Ministers who also received the award. To avoid these errors, carefully read the time frame mentioned in the question and systematically list names before counting. For awards and honours, a small personal list of important recipients can be very helpful for revision. Final Answer: As of November 2014, a total of 6 Prime Ministers of India had been conferred with the Bharat Ratna.

Question 6

In the states of India, what is the official designation of the chief legal advisor who advises the State Government in legal matters?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Just as the central government has a top law officer, the states of India also have a chief legal advisor. This office plays an important role in advising the State Government on legal issues and representing it in courts. The question asks you to recall the exact title of this state level law officer. Understanding this helps you relate state institutions to their central counterparts in Indian polity. Given Data / Assumptions: The question focuses on the legal advisor to the State Government, not the Union Government. Options include Advocate General, Attorney General, Solicitor General and State Public Prosecutor. We assume knowledge that some of these titles are used at the Union level and others at the state level. Concept / Approach: Article 165 of the Constitution of India provides for the office of the Advocate General for the state. The Advocate General is appointed by the Governor and must be a person qualified to be appointed as a judge of a High Court. This office is the highest law officer of the state and parallels the Attorney General for India at the Union level. The Attorney General and Solicitor General are central law officers, while a public prosecutor primarily handles criminal prosecutions and is not the overall legal advisor for all state matters. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify that the question is about the chief legal advisor to the State Government. Step 2: Recall Article 165, which creates the office of the Advocate General for the state. Step 3: The Advocate General advises the State Government on legal matters and may appear in courts on its behalf. Step 4: The Attorney General for India is the equivalent office at the national level and therefore does not match the state context in the question. Step 5: Hence, the correct designation is Advocate General. Verification / Alternative check: A quick memory trick is to remember the pair of parallel offices: Attorney General for India at the Union level and Advocate General for each state. Both are described as the highest law officers of their respective governments. If a question refers to the Union Government, you select Attorney General; if it mentions the State Government, you select Advocate General. This simple pairing confirms that Advocate General is correct here. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Attorney-General: This office exists under Article 76 and is the highest law officer of the Union Government, not of an individual state. Solicitor-General: The Solicitor General is a law officer of the Union who assists the Attorney General but is not a constitutional office and does not serve as a state level advisor. State Public Prosecutor: The public prosecutor represents the state in criminal cases in trial courts and does important work, but this role is more limited than that of the Advocate General and does not describe the chief legal advisor for all state legal matters. Common Pitfalls: Students frequently confuse the titles of Attorney General and Advocate General because they sound similar. To avoid this, focus on the prefix: Attorney is for the Union, Advocate is for the state. When revising, it is useful to connect Article 76 with Attorney General and Article 165 with Advocate General. Also remember that the Solicitor General is not a constitutional post, which further differentiates these roles. Final Answer: The chief legal advisor to a State Government in India is known as the Advocate-General of the state.

Question 7

According to Article 1 of the Constitution of India, the country is described by which of the following expressions?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Article 1 of the Constitution gives the official description of India in constitutional terms. This simple but important statement reflects the nature of the Indian Union and has implications for how federalism is understood. Many exam questions ask you to recall the exact phrase used in Article 1 because it captures the idea that India is a union with an indestructible unity even though it has states with their own governments. Given Data / Assumptions: The question refers specifically to Article 1 of the Constitution. It asks which expression is used to describe India as a state. Options provide different possible characterisations such as federal state, unitary state and union of states. Concept / Approach: Article 1 states that India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States. The framers intentionally used the term Union rather than Federation. This choice emphasises that the Indian Union is not a result of an agreement among sovereign states and that the states have no right to secede. Although in practice India has many features of a federation, the constitutional text avoids the term federal state in Article 1 and instead uses Union of States as the formal description. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall the exact wording of Article 1, which begins India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States. Step 2: Note that the words federal state or unitary state do not appear in Article 1. Step 3: The idea of quasi federal is an academic description used by scholars, not the wording of Article 1. Step 4: Therefore, the only option that matches the constitutional text is Union of States. Verification / Alternative check: You can verify this by remembering how standard polity texts quote Article 1. The sentence India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States is often printed in full. If you mentally recite this sentence, you can immediately see that Union of States is the key descriptive phrase. The other terms in the options are analytic labels that political scientists use but are not part of the official constitutional wording. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Federal State: India is often described as a federal system with a strong centre, but Article 1 does not use the words federal state anywhere. Quasi Federal State: This term is used by scholars to highlight that India combines federal and unitary features. It is not an expression used in Article 1. Unitary State: India is not a strictly unitary state, because power is constitutionally divided between the Union and the states. Article 1 does not describe India in this way. Common Pitfalls: A common mistake is to answer based on descriptive labels rather than the exact constitutional text. Examiners often test whether candidates can distinguish between what the Constitution actually says and how scholars describe it in books. To avoid this, whenever a question mentions a specific article, focus on the precise words used in the article. For Article 1, always remember the phrase Union of States paired with India, that is Bharat. Final Answer: Article 1 of the Constitution of India describes the country as a Union of States.

Question 8

In the distribution of legislative subjects under the Constitution of India, the subject of Education belongs to which of the following lists?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The Constitution of India divides legislative subjects between the Union and the states through three lists: the Union List, the State List and the Concurrent List. Some subjects can be legislated upon by both levels of government. Education is a key area of policy that affects citizens directly, and this question tests whether you know which list currently includes Education. This is an important detail because it changed over time through constitutional amendments. Given Data / Assumptions: The question asks which list includes Education under the current constitutional arrangement. Options include Union List, State List, Concurrent List and residuary subjects. We assume awareness that at one time Education was a state subject but later moved. Concept / Approach: Originally, Education was in the State List, giving states primary authority. However, the Forty Second Constitutional Amendment Act of 1976 transferred Education from the State List to the Concurrent List. As a result, both Parliament and the state legislatures can now make laws on Education. In case of conflict, a central law usually prevails if it has been validly enacted. Therefore, the correct current position is that Education is a Concurrent List subject. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that there are three main lists in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. Step 2: Recognise that before 1976, Education was included in the State List, giving states primary control. Step 3: The Forty Second Amendment Act of 1976 transferred Education to the Concurrent List to allow uniform national level policies along with state initiatives. Step 4: After this amendment, both Parliament and state legislatures can legislate on Education. Step 5: Hence, the present answer is that Education belongs to the Concurrent List. Verification / Alternative check: A practical way to verify this is to think of major central schemes and laws related to Education, such as centrally sponsored programmes and nation wide regulations about school standards and entrance exams. These would be difficult to implement if Education were purely a state subject. The fact that Parliament can pass such laws indicates that Education must be on the Concurrent List. Standard polity guides confirm this change after the Forty Second Amendment. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Union List: If Education were on the Union List, only Parliament would make laws on it, which is not the case because states also have significant powers in this area. State List: This was true before the Forty Second Amendment, but after 1976 Education was moved out of the State List, so it is no longer correct to mark it as a state subject in exams. Residuary subjects: Residuary powers in India are with the Union, but Education is not a residuary matter. It is explicitly listed in the Concurrent List. Common Pitfalls: A frequent error is to recall outdated information and still think of Education as exclusively a state subject. This happens when students study older material that predates the Forty Second Amendment or forget the effect of that amendment. To avoid this, always keep in mind that some subjects have shifted lists due to amendments, and Education is one of the most commonly examined examples of such a shift. Final Answer: Under the present Constitution, the subject of Education is placed in the Concurrent List.

Question 9

What is considered the most essential feature of the parliamentary form of government as adopted in India under its Constitution?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: India follows a parliamentary form of government at the Union and state levels, inspired largely by the British model. Many features characterise this system, such as a nominal head of state, a real head of government drawn from the legislature and collective responsibility. This question asks you to identify the core or most essential feature that distinguishes the parliamentary system from other forms like the presidential system. Given Data / Assumptions: The question is about the essential feature of the parliamentary form of government. Options mention sovereignty of Parliament, written constitution, accountability of the executive and independent judiciary. We assume awareness that some of these features also exist in other systems, so we must select the one that best defines the parliamentary system. Concept / Approach: The defining characteristic of a parliamentary system is that the executive (Council of Ministers headed by the Prime Minister) is collectively responsible to the legislature, usually the lower house. If it loses the confidence of the majority, it must resign. This feature of political and legal accountability sets the parliamentary system apart from a presidential system, where the executive does not depend on the confidence of the legislature for its survival. While a written constitution and independent judiciary are important, they are not unique to the parliamentary system. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that in India the Council of Ministers is collectively responsible to the Lok Sabha. Step 2: If the Lok Sabha passes a no confidence motion, the Council of Ministers must resign, showing direct accountability. Step 3: Understand that this relationship between executive and legislature is central to the idea of cabinet government. Step 4: Note that other options like written constitution and independent judiciary describe broader constitutional features that may exist in both parliamentary and presidential systems. Step 5: Therefore, the most essential feature in a parliamentary system is accountability of the executive to the legislature. Verification / Alternative check: You can verify this by comparing India with a classic presidential system such as that of the United States. In the United States, the President has a fixed term and does not lose office simply because Congress passes a vote of no confidence. This difference in how the executive is tied to the legislature is the key distinction. Since the Indian system requires the ministry to enjoy the confidence of the Lok Sabha at all times, accountability of the executive to the legislature emerges as the central feature. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Sovereignty of the Parliament: In India, Parliament is powerful but not fully sovereign in the British sense because the Constitution is supreme and judicial review exists. Written constitution: A written constitution can be found in both parliamentary and presidential systems. It is important but not unique to the parliamentary form. Independent judiciary: An independent judiciary is a feature of many democratic systems regardless of whether they follow a parliamentary or presidential model. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes pick sovereignty of Parliament because they associate the parliamentary model with the British system where Parliament is supreme. However, in India the Constitution is supreme, and the courts can strike down laws. Another confusion arises when candidates treat general democratic institutions like an independent judiciary as defining features of a specific system. To avoid this, always remember that what truly distinguishes the parliamentary form is the political responsibility of the executive to the legislature through mechanisms like confidence and no confidence motions. Final Answer: The most essential feature of the parliamentary form of government is the accountability of the executive to the legislature.

Question 10

After the Eighty Sixth Constitutional Amendment, how many Fundamental Duties are listed in the Constitution of India for citizens?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Apart from Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles, the Constitution of India also contains Fundamental Duties of citizens, listed in Article 51A. These duties remind citizens of their obligations towards the nation and society. The number of Fundamental Duties has changed once since they were introduced, and this question asks you to recall the current count after all relevant amendments, especially the Eighty Sixth Amendment. Given Data / Assumptions: The question asks for the total number of Fundamental Duties after the Eighty Sixth Amendment. Options include various numbers, some of which correspond to earlier situations or are clearly too high. We assume awareness that Fundamental Duties were not part of the original Constitution but were added later. Concept / Approach: Fundamental Duties were added to the Constitution by the Forty Second Amendment Act of 1976, which inserted Article 51A. At that time, ten duties were listed. Later, the Eighty Sixth Amendment Act of 2002 added one more duty, which requires parents or guardians to provide opportunities for education to children between six and fourteen years of age. This increased the total number from ten to eleven. Therefore, the present count of Fundamental Duties is eleven. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that the original Constitution did not contain Fundamental Duties. Step 2: The Forty Second Amendment Act 1976 inserted Article 51A and listed ten Fundamental Duties. Step 3: The Eighty Sixth Amendment Act 2002, which also dealt with the Right to Education, added an additional duty for parents and guardians regarding children s education. Step 4: This raised the total number of Fundamental Duties from ten to eleven. Step 5: Therefore, the current number of Fundamental Duties is eleven. Verification / Alternative check: To verify, you can mentally list the main themes of the duties, such as respecting the Constitution, cherishing the freedom struggle, defending the nation, promoting harmony, protecting the environment and ensuring education for children. When you count these themes in a standard textbook or chart, you reach eleven items. Since there has been only one amendment affecting the number of duties, and it added exactly one duty, the total must be eleven. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Nine: This number is less than the original ten duties introduced in 1976 and does not match any stage in constitutional history. Twelve: There has been only one additional duty added after the original ten, so the total has not reached twelve. Twenty: This is far higher than any actual count and is clearly incorrect. It may be used as a distractor in the options. Common Pitfalls: Some students remember that there were originally ten Fundamental Duties but forget that the Eighty Sixth Amendment added one more. Others may confuse the amendment numbers related to Fundamental Duties with those related to Fundamental Rights. To avoid this, it is helpful to revise timelines: ten duties were added in 1976 by the Forty Second Amendment, and an eleventh duty was added in 2002 by the Eighty Sixth Amendment. Keeping this simple story in mind helps you answer questions about both the number and the evolution of Fundamental Duties. Final Answer: After the Eighty Sixth Amendment, the Constitution of India lists eleven Fundamental Duties for citizens.

Question 11

Who presided over the very first meeting of the Indian Constituent Assembly held in December 1946 as its temporary chairman?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The Constituent Assembly of India was responsible for drafting the Constitution that came into force in 1950. Its first meeting in December 1946 is an important landmark in constitutional history. This question asks you to identify who presided over that very first meeting as the temporary chairman. The answer helps distinguish between the temporary presiding officer and the person who later became the permanent President of the Assembly. Given Data / Assumptions: The question refers to the first meeting of the Constituent Assembly in December 1946. It specifically asks about who presided as temporary chairman at that meeting. Options list prominent figures associated with the Assembly and the Constitution. Concept / Approach: When the Constituent Assembly first met on 9 December 1946, it needed a temporary presiding officer until a permanent President could be elected. The oldest member, Dr. Sachchidananda Sinha, was requested to act as the temporary chairman. Later, on 11 December 1946, the Assembly elected Dr. Rajendra Prasad as its permanent President. Many exam questions separate these two facts, so it is important to remember that Sachchidananda Sinha chaired the first meeting, while Rajendra Prasad became the regular President. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that the first meeting of the Constituent Assembly was held on 9 December 1946. Step 2: The first session required a temporary chairman to oversee proceedings until a permanent President was chosen. Step 3: Dr. Sachchidananda Sinha, being the senior most member, was appointed to act as the temporary chairman and presided over the first meeting. Step 4: Only later was Dr. Rajendra Prasad elected as the permanent President of the Assembly. Step 5: Therefore, for the specific question about the first meeting, the correct answer is Sachchidananda Sinha. Verification / Alternative check: You can verify this by pairing names with roles. Rajendra Prasad is associated with being the permanent President of the Constituent Assembly and later the first President of India. Sachchidananda Sinha is specifically associated with the role of temporary chairman at the first session. B. R. Ambedkar is associated with chairing the Drafting Committee, and H. V. Kamath was a member but not the presiding officer. This mapping of roles confirms that Sachchidananda Sinha must be the correct choice. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Dr. Rajendra Prasad: He was elected as the permanent President of the Constituent Assembly, but he did not preside over the very first meeting as temporary chairman. B. R. Ambedkar: He was the chairman of the Drafting Committee and played a crucial role in framing the Constitution, but he did not preside over the first session of the Assembly. H. V. Kamath: He was an active member of the Assembly and participated in debates but did not hold the office of temporary chairman or permanent President. Common Pitfalls: Many candidates see the name Rajendra Prasad and select it automatically because he is strongly associated with the Constituent Assembly and the Republic. However, examiners often frame the question carefully using phrases like first meeting, temporary chairman or presided over the first session. Reading the question slowly and noting these phrases helps you recall that Sachchidananda Sinha performed this initial role before Rajendra Prasad took over as permanent President. Final Answer: The first meeting of the Indian Constituent Assembly was presided over by Sachchidananda Sinha as its temporary chairman.

Question 12

From which country did the framers of the Indian Constitution borrow the idea of a federal system with a strong centre?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: India is often described as having a federal system with unitary features. One commonly asked area in Indian polity is the foreign sources from which specific constitutional ideas were borrowed. This question focuses on the idea of a federal system with a strong centre, a feature which shapes the relationship between the Union and the states in India. Given Data / Assumptions: The question asks about the origin of the concept federal system with strong centre adopted in India. Options include constitutions of the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom and France. We assume awareness that different features in the Indian Constitution are mapped to different foreign models. Concept / Approach: While the general idea of federalism is strongly associated with the United States, the specific model where the central government is relatively stronger and residuary powers are given to the centre is more similar to the Canadian model. The framers of the Indian Constitution directly acknowledged borrowing this concept from Canada. They adapted it to Indian conditions to ensure national unity while still allowing for state governments with their own legislative powers. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that in India, powers are divided between the Union and the states through three lists. Step 2: Recognise that India grants residuary powers to the Union, which is a feature mirrored in the Canadian federation. Step 3: Standard polity tables show that the federal system with strong centre and residuary powers are borrowed from the Canadian constitution. Step 4: The United States provided inspiration for other features such as judicial review and fundamental rights, but not this exact pattern of strong central federalism. Step 5: Therefore, the correct answer for the origin of this concept is Canada. Verification / Alternative check: You can verify this by recalling the classic comparison table used in exam preparation. From the United Kingdom, India took the parliamentary system and cabinet responsibility. From the United States, India took a written constitution, federal structure in general and judicial review. From Canada, India took the model of federalism with a strong centre. From Ireland, India borrowed Directive Principles of State Policy. This organised mapping confirms that for the idea of a strong central federation, Canada is the relevant source. Why Other Options Are Wrong: USA: Although India drew the basic idea of federalism and some constitutional practices from the United States, the Indian model of a strong centre and residuary powers is more in line with Canada. UK: The United Kingdom does not have a true federal system. India borrowed the parliamentary form of government and conventions of cabinet responsibility from the UK, not the federal structure. France: From France, India mainly drew inspiration for concepts like liberty, equality and fraternity that appear in the Preamble, not the specific pattern of federalism. Common Pitfalls: Candidates often assume that anything related to federalism must come from the United States, since it is a textbook example of a federal country. This leads to incorrect answers when questions ask specifically about a strong centre or residuary powers. To avoid this, firmly associate Canada with the expression federal system with strong centre and residuary powers with the Union. Writing out a small table of features and their foreign sources several times during revision can fix these connections in memory. Final Answer: The idea of a federal system with a strong centre in the Indian Constitution was borrowed from Canada.

Question 13

In Indian polity, which of the following sources exercised the most profound and wide ranging influence on the framing of the Constitution of India?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This Indian polity question checks whether the learner knows which single legal source influenced the Constitution of India more than any other. Many comparative sources are often mentioned in textbooks, such as the British Constitution or the Constitution of the United States, but the most direct and detailed influence came from a colonial statute that already operated in the subcontinent, namely the Government of India Act of 1935. Understanding this helps candidates connect historical governance structures with modern constitutional provisions. Given Data / Assumptions: The question lists four possible sources of influence on the Constitution of India. These sources include three foreign constitutions and one British statute that applied directly in India. The task is to identify which source had the deepest and most extensive impact. It is assumed that the learner is aware of the overall drafting process and borrowing of features. Concept / Approach: The standard approach is to recall how the Constituent Assembly borrowed features from different models. From the British Constitution, India adopted parliamentary form of government, rule of law and cabinet responsibility. From the United States came the ideas of a written constitution, federalism and fundamental rights. From Ireland came Directive Principles. However, the Government of India Act of 1935 provided the basic administrative framework, federal scheme, provincial autonomy and many institutional details that were carried over almost intact into the new Constitution. Therefore, it is considered the most profound and direct influence among the options given. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that multiple foreign constitutions influenced the drafters of the Constitution of India, including British, United States and Irish models. Step 2: Note that the British Constitution is unwritten and was a conceptual influence rather than a detailed structural template. Step 3: The United States Constitution contributed key ideas such as a written document, federalism and judicial review but not the day to day administrative blueprint. Step 4: The Irish Constitution mainly inspired Directive Principles of State Policy and some electoral devices, which is important but limited in scope. Step 5: The Government of India Act, 1935 supplied the federal structure, distribution of powers, provisions regarding governors, public service commissions and other administrative details. Step 6: Because this Act was already in operation in the country and large parts of it were adopted with modification, it is regarded as the most profound influence on the Indian Constitution. Verification / Alternative check: A good verification method is to recall how often the Government of India Act of 1935 is mentioned in standard polity books. Many chapters explain that nearly the entire administrative framework, including subjects like federal structure, provincial autonomy, bicameralism in some legislatures and emergency provisions, can trace their immediate origin to this Act. While the British, United States and Irish Constitutions provided valuable ideas, the 1935 Act provided the operational skeleton. This repeated emphasis in study material confirms that the most correct answer among the given options is the Government of India Act of 1935. Why Other Options Are Wrong: British Constitution: This was an important conceptual influence but did not provide a complete written template that could simply be adapted and adopted. US Constitution: It influenced rights, federal design and separation of powers, yet it did not supply the core administrative scheme used in India at independence. Irish Constitution: It mainly contributed Directive Principles and some electoral concepts, which are significant but narrower in influence than the 1935 Act. Common Pitfalls: A frequent mistake is to assume that because the Indian system is parliamentary, the British Constitution must be the most important influence. Another error is to focus only on the presence of fundamental rights and therefore guess the United States Constitution. Learners sometimes overlook how much of the 1935 Act was copied or adapted while drafting. It is important to read not just lists of borrowed features but also to understand the practical impact and breadth of each source. Remember that the term most profound influence refers to depth and extent, not just prestige of the model country. Final Answer: The source that exercised the most profound influence in framing the Constitution of India was the Government of India Act, 1935.

Question 14

In the study of Indian federalism, who described the Indian model as a system of co operative federalism?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question belongs to Indian polity and constitutional theory. It asks about the scholar who characterised Indian federalism as co operative federalism. Examinations often test not only the bare text of the Constitution but also important academic interpretations, because these phrases are widely quoted in textbooks, judgments and lectures about the nature of the Indian Union and the relation between the Union and the states. Given Data / Assumptions: The question provides names of four constitutional scholars and commentators. The task is to identify who used the phrase co operative federalism in relation to India. It is assumed that the learner knows basic features of Indian federalism, such as a strong centre and state governments. No additional numerical or legal data is required to attempt this question. Concept / Approach: The correct approach is to recall the standard descriptions of the Indian Constitution provided by leading authors. Granville Austin, a noted constitutional historian, famously described the Indian system as an example of co operative federalism. This phrase highlights that while the Constitution establishes a federal structure, it expects the Union and states to work together rather than in constant competition. Other scholars like K. C. Wheare described the Constitution in different terms, such as quasi federal. Remembering which scholar used which phrase allows quick elimination of wrong options. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Read the stem carefully and identify that the key phrase is co operative federalism in relation to India. Step 2: Recall that Granville Austin studied the working of Indian institutions and wrote influential books on the Indian Constitution. Step 3: Remember that Austin emphasised how the Constitution was designed to encourage co operation between the Union and state governments, especially in planning and development. Step 4: Compare this with K. C. Wheare, who is usually associated with the description of India as quasi federal rather than fully federal. Step 5: Recognise that Sir Ivor Jennings and D. D. Basu are also important commentators but are not known for co operative federalism as a signature phrase. Step 6: Conclude that the most accurate match is Granville Austin, listed in the options as G. Austin. Verification / Alternative check: To verify, think of how polity manuals present this topic. Most standard books on Indian Constitution have a section that lists important observations by foreign and Indian scholars. Under the heading Nature of Indian federalism, they usually cite Wheare with quasi federal or unitary with subsidiary federal features and Austin with co operative federalism. If one reviews multiple sources and finds consistent attribution of co operative federalism to Granville Austin and not to the other three names, that is strong confirmation that the correct option is G. Austin. Why Other Options Are Wrong: K. C. Wheare: He famously described the Indian Constitution as quasi federal, stressing the dominance of the centre, not primarily as co operative federalism. Sir Ivor Jennings: He wrote on constitutional law and parliamentary government but is not associated with this specific expression regarding India. D. D. Basu: A leading Indian jurist and author of a standard commentary on the Constitution, yet the phrase co operative federalism is not usually credited to him. Common Pitfalls: A common mistake is to confuse descriptions given by different scholars and treat them as interchangeable. Learners sometimes memorise the phrases quasi federal and co operative federalism without pairing them with the correct author. Another pitfall is guessing based only on familiarity with Indian writers and ignoring that Granville Austin, although not Indian, is extremely important for the study of Indian constitutional development. Building a small mental table with scholars on one side and their best known phrases on the other can greatly reduce confusion in such questions. Final Answer: The scholar who described Indian federalism as a system of co operative federalism is G. Austin (Granville Austin).

Question 15

According to the Eighty Fourth Constitutional Amendment, the total number of existing Lok Sabha seats based on the 1971 Census will remain frozen until after which year's Census is taken?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question relates to constitutional amendments dealing with representation in the Lok Sabha. Population based representation is usually revised after every Census through delimitation, but the Constitution of India has frozen the total number of seats for a defined period. The Eighty Fourth Amendment clarified how long the freeze based on the 1971 Census would last. Knowing the correct terminal year is important for understanding why current seat distribution does not yet reflect more recent population shifts. Given Data / Assumptions: The total number of existing Lok Sabha seats has been fixed using figures from the 1971 Census. The Eighty Fourth Constitutional Amendment specifies a future Census after which changes may again be allowed. Four possible terminal years are offered in the options, namely 2010, 2015, 2021 and 2026. The task is to choose the year after which the first Census will permit fresh readjustment of seats. Concept / Approach: The approach is to recall both the Forty Second Amendment and subsequent amendments like the Eighty Fourth and Eighty Seventh, which extended the freeze. Originally the freeze on readjusting seats and constituencies was until the year 2000. Later amendments extended this period up to the first Census to be held after the year 2026. The intention was to give states that had succeeded in population control efforts a fair treatment in representation. Therefore, the key phrase to remember is after the year 2026, which directly answers the question when linked with the next Census. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Note that the question refers specifically to the Eighty Fourth Amendment Act and the freeze on Lok Sabha seats based on the 1971 Census. Step 2: Recall that the original freeze extended up to the year 2000 and that later amendments pushed this further into the future. Step 3: The Eighty Fourth Amendment, along with related provisions, clearly mentions that readjustment of seats will be possible only after the first Census conducted after the year 2026. Step 4: Interpret this correctly. It does not say that the freeze ends exactly in 2026, but that the relevant Census taken after 2026 will form the basis for the next delimitation. Step 5: Among the options, only 2026 matches the phrase after the year 2026 that appears in the constitutional text. Step 6: Select 2026 as the correct reference year connected with the future Census that will allow modification of the total seats. Verification / Alternative check: One way to verify is to think of contemporary debates about delimitation and regional representation. Policy discussions and exam oriented books repeatedly mention that the freeze on the number of seats in the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies continues up to the first Census after 2026. No major text suggests alternate cut off years like 2010 or 2015. Although a Census was scheduled around 2021, the amendment language attaches the condition to the year 2026, not to 2010 or 2015. This consistency in teaching material confirms that the correct answer from the options is 2026. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 2010: This year does not appear in the constitutional provisions regarding the freeze and is too early relative to the known policy of extension. 2015: Again, there is no amendment that links the end of the freeze to this year in the context of delimitation based on the 1971 Census. 2021: Although associated with a scheduled Census, the constitutional phrase refers to after the year 2026, not 2021, so this option is misleading. Common Pitfalls: A frequent error is to confuse separate amendments and remember only that the freeze was extended without internalising the exact reference year. Some learners also mix up Census years with amendment years, leading them to guess 2010 or 2021. Another pitfall is to assume that the freeze ends in 2026 itself, rather than understanding that it is the first Census after 2026 that actually allows change. Exam preparation should focus on linking each amendment number with its core content and key dates to avoid such confusion. Final Answer: Under the Eighty Fourth Amendment, the total number of existing Lok Sabha seats based on the 1971 Census remains frozen until readjustment after the Census taken following the year 2026.

Question 16

In the Constitution of India, the Fundamental Rights are grouped under how many broad categories?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Fundamental Rights are a central feature of the Constitution of India and form an important topic for all competitive examinations. They are not presented as one undivided list; rather, the Constitution arranges them into distinct groups or categories based on the types of freedoms and protections they provide. This question checks whether the learner remembers the correct count of these categories as given in Part III of the Constitution. Given Data / Assumptions: The Constitution contains several Fundamental Rights under Part III. These rights are organised into thematic groups, such as equality and freedom. The options suggest four possible numbers of categories, namely 5, 6, 7 and 8. The learner is assumed to be familiar with the standard classification used in textbooks and exam syllabi. Concept / Approach: The usual classification identifies six groups of Fundamental Rights. These are the Right to Equality, Right to Freedom, Right against Exploitation, Right to Freedom of Religion, Cultural and Educational Rights, and Right to Constitutional Remedies. Earlier, there was also the Right to Property, which used to be a Fundamental Right but has now been moved out of Part III and converted into a constitutional legal right. Even after this change, the commonly taught grouping for Fundamental Rights in Part III remains six categories. Therefore, recalling this list gives the correct answer directly. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: List the groups of Fundamental Rights as studied in Part III of the Constitution. Step 2: Identify the Right to Equality as the first group, covering Articles related to equality before the law and prohibition of discrimination. Step 3: Identify the Right to Freedom as the second group, covering freedoms such as speech, movement and occupation. Step 4: Identify the Right against Exploitation as the third group, with provisions banning trafficking and forced labour. Step 5: Identify the Right to Freedom of Religion as the fourth group, safeguarding religious freedom and managing religious affairs. Step 6: Identify Cultural and Educational Rights as the fifth group, protecting the interests of minorities in education and culture. Step 7: Identify the Right to Constitutional Remedies as the sixth group, enabling individuals to move courts for enforcement of Fundamental Rights. Step 8: Count these groups and observe that there are exactly six categories. Verification / Alternative check: To verify, one can quickly recall the standard table printed in most polity books where Fundamental Rights are summarised group wise. The table almost always lists six headings corresponding to the groups mentioned above. Another cross check is to remember that older editions of some books used to mention seven rights, including Right to Property, but after amendment that right was removed from Part III. Even then, the grouping of the remaining rights is still shown as six categories. As multiple reputable sources agree on this figure, the answer can be trusted. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 5: This undercounts the groups and would require merging two distinct categories, which is not how the Constitution organises them. 7: This often confuses learners with the earlier list of seven rights including Right to Property, but the question asks about present categories of Fundamental Rights in Part III. 8: There is no standard or constitutional basis for eight categories, so this option is clearly incorrect. Common Pitfalls: Learners sometimes mix up the older and newer classifications and may still think in terms of seven rights as found in some historical references. Another common pitfall is to count individual Articles rather than the broad groups and become confused by the larger number. To avoid this, candidates should memorise the group names and remember that, after the relevant amendment, the effective grouping of Fundamental Rights in Part III is into six categories. Regular revision of the list ensures that this simple but frequently asked fact is not missed in the examination. Final Answer: The Fundamental Rights in the Constitution of India are grouped under six categories in Part III.

Question 17

The Emergency provisions included in the Constitution of India were primarily borrowed from which foreign constitutional model?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question tests knowledge of the sources from which different features of the Constitution of India were borrowed. Emergency provisions, which allow the Union to assume special powers during serious crises, did not originate entirely in isolation. The drafters studied several foreign constitutions and colonial statutes and chose elements that suited Indian conditions. Remembering which foreign document inspired these provisions is a common requirement in competitive examinations on Indian polity. Given Data / Assumptions: The question focuses specifically on Emergency provisions in the Indian Constitution. Four possible foreign sources are listed as options, including constitutions of Germany, Canada, Ireland and the United States. The learner is assumed to know at least some mapping between foreign models and the features borrowed into the Indian system. There is no numerical calculation involved; this is a pure recall and understanding based topic. Concept / Approach: The standard approach is to recall the conventional table of borrowed features. From the British model India borrowed parliamentary government and cabinet responsibility. From the United States came the idea of a written constitution and judicial review. From Canada came a federal system with a strong centre. From Ireland came Directive Principles. For Emergency provisions, such as National Emergency, President rule and financial emergency, the primary inspiration was the Weimar Constitution of Germany, which contained strong central powers during emergencies. Keeping this mapping clear allows quick elimination of wrong options. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Read the question to identify that it is narrow and specific, asking only about Emergency provisions. Step 2: Recall the list of foreign sources often printed in Indian polity books, linking each major feature with a country. Step 3: Note that Canada is associated with federalism and distribution of powers with a strong centre, not with emergency powers. Step 4: Observe that the Constitution of Ireland is associated mainly with Directive Principles of State Policy. Step 5: Remember that the Constitution of the United States of America is linked with fundamental rights, judicial review and separation of powers, not with the structure of emergencies in India. Step 6: Identify that the Weimar Constitution of Germany experimented with sweeping emergency powers that could suspend civil liberties, and this became a reference point when drafting similar provisions for India. Step 7: Therefore, select Weimar Constitution of Germany as the correct answer. Verification / Alternative check: A good verification technique is to check how multiple independent sources teach the topic. Almost every standard Indian polity text lists Weimar Germany as the source of Emergency provisions, often in a table that maps other countries to their respective contributions. If one quickly reviews that table from at least two books or reliable notes, the same mapping appears repeatedly. The consistency of this information across sources confirms that linking Emergency provisions with Weimar Germany is correct and that the other listed options are meant as distractors. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Constitution of Canada: Known mainly for the federal scheme with a strong centre, not the design of Emergency provisions in India. Constitution of Ireland: A major influence on Directive Principles of State Policy and certain electoral procedures, but not on Emergency provisions. Constitution of the United States of America: Influenced fundamental rights and judicial review, yet its emergency framework is not the basis for the Indian model. Common Pitfalls: Learners sometimes mix up the several foreign influences because they focus only on memorising country names without associating each with its specific contribution. Another pitfall is to rely on vague statements such as many features were borrowed from Britain and the United States, which may cause confusion when answering more detailed questions. To avoid errors, aspirants should create a compact chart that links each country with the particular features it inspired in the Indian Constitution. Revisiting this chart regularly helps fix the correct association between Emergency provisions and the Weimar Constitution of Germany. Final Answer: The Emergency provisions in the Constitution of India were primarily borrowed from the Weimar Constitution of Germany.

Question 18

Under the Constitution of India, who is constitutionally authorised to transfer a judge from one High Court to another High Court?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question belongs to the area of Indian judiciary and constitutional provisions regarding High Court judges. It asks who holds the formal authority to transfer a judge from one High Court to another. Although the practical process involves consultation with senior judges, the Constitution itself clearly specifies which authority makes the final order. Understanding this distinction between constitutional authority and consultative procedures is important for examinations. Given Data / Assumptions: The transfer in question concerns judges of High Courts within India. The options list four possible authorities, including the President, Chief Justice of India, a collegium and the Law Minister. The learner is expected to know the relevant Article of the Constitution and the basic procedure for such transfers. No numerical or time bound components are involved in this concept based question. Concept / Approach: Article 222 of the Constitution of India deals with the transfer of High Court judges. It states that the President may, after consultation with the Chief Justice of India, transfer a judge from one High Court to another. Thus, the constitutional authority that issues the order is the President. The Chief Justice of India plays a crucial advisory role, and in practice judicial collegium decisions have great weight, but the formal act of transfer is done in the name of the President. Therefore, when asked who is authorised, the correct answer remains the President of India. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify that the subject matter is transfer of a High Court judge from one state to another under Article 222. Step 2: Recall the constitutional wording that the President may transfer a judge from one High Court to another after consultation with the Chief Justice of India. Step 3: Understand that consultation with the Chief Justice of India is mandatory, but consultation and formal authority are not the same thing. Step 4: Evaluate each option by asking who actually issues the order of transfer in constitutional practice. Step 5: The Chief Justice of India and the collegium give recommendations, yet the official transfer notification is always in the name of the President. Step 6: The Law Minister of India may process files administratively, but has no constitutional authority to independently transfer judges. Step 7: Conclude that the constitutionally authorised authority is the President of India. Verification / Alternative check: To verify, one can consult any standard Indian polity text that explains Articles 214 to 231 regarding High Courts. Under the heading Transfer of judges, the text will reproduce or summarise Article 222 and clearly mention that the President orders the transfer after consultation with the Chief Justice of India. Supreme Court judgments on judicial appointments and transfers, such as those known as the Judges cases, primarily interpret the consultation requirement and collegium process but still recognise that the formal order is issued by the President. This confirms that the correct answer among the given options is the President of India. Why Other Options Are Wrong: The Chief Justice of India: Plays an essential advisory role and leads the collegium but does not issue the transfer order as a constitutional authority. A collegium of judges of the Supreme Court: Recommends transfers through internal judicial consultation, yet the Constitution does not assign final transfer powers to the collegium directly. The Law Minister of India: Handles administrative processing but has no independent constitutional power to transfer High Court judges. Common Pitfalls: A common mistake is to confuse who advises with who actually decides in constitutional terms. Because debates about the collegium system receive a lot of attention, some learners think that the collegium as such has formal constitutional power. Others overemphasise the role of the Chief Justice of India and forget the requirement that the President must act. To avoid such errors, aspirants should repeatedly connect specific Articles with the precise authority mentioned in the constitutional text. This ensures that even when procedures evolve, the basic answer to such questions remains clear. Final Answer: Under Article 222 of the Constitution of India, a judge of one High Court can be transferred to another High Court by the President of India after consultation with the Chief Justice of India.

Question 19

In the Constituent Assembly of India, who served as the Chairman of the Union Powers Committee?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The Constituent Assembly of India created several important committees to handle different aspects of constitution making. One of these was the Union Powers Committee, which examined how powers should be distributed between the Union and the provinces in the federal system. This question checks whether the learner knows who chaired that particular committee, an often asked fact in examinations on Indian constitutional history. Given Data / Assumptions: The question refers specifically to the Union Powers Committee of the Constituent Assembly. Four prominent leaders and jurists are listed as possible chairpersons. It is assumed that the learner recognises these names and has some awareness of their roles in constitution making. No dates or numerical calculations are required; this is a fact based recall question. Concept / Approach: The approach is to remember the distribution of leadership roles within the Constituent Assembly committees. Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel chaired the Advisory Committee on Fundamental Rights, Minorities and Tribal and Excluded Areas. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar headed the Drafting Committee. Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru chaired the Union Powers Committee as well as the Union Constitution Committee. Sir Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar was a respected jurist and member, but not the chair of this specific committee. Knowing these assignments allows the candidate to match each body with its chairperson accurately. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify that the committee in question is the Union Powers Committee, not the Drafting Committee or Advisory Committee. Step 2: Recall that Dr. B. R. Ambedkar was Chairman of the Drafting Committee, so option with his name likely relates to drafting, not union powers. Step 3: Remember that Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel chaired the Advisory Committee dealing with Fundamental Rights and Minorities, which is different from the Union Powers Committee. Step 4: Note that Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru chaired both the Union Powers Committee and the Union Constitution Committee, focusing on the federal structure and division of powers. Step 5: Recognise that Sir Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar played a vital role as a legal expert but did not serve as chairman of the Union Powers Committee. Step 6: Based on this mapping, conclude that the correct answer is Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru. Verification / Alternative check: Verification can be done by consulting any standard history of the Constituent Assembly. Tables listing major committees usually pair the Union Powers Committee with Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru as chairperson. The same books list Ambedkar with the Drafting Committee and Patel with the Advisory Committee. When several independent sources confirm this pairing of Nehru and the Union Powers Committee, the likelihood of error becomes very low. This cross checking habit is helpful for exam preparation where many similar names appear in different roles. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel: Chaired the Advisory Committee on Fundamental Rights, Minorities and Tribal and Excluded Areas, not the Union Powers Committee. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Headed the Drafting Committee responsible for converting decisions into legal language, rather than leading the Union Powers Committee. Sir Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar: An influential member and legal mind, but he did not hold the chair of this particular committee. Common Pitfalls: The major pitfall is confusion among different committees due to overlapping subject areas and the prominence of the leaders involved. Because the same few names appear repeatedly, learners sometimes assign them incorrectly. A practical strategy is to make a small table linking each major committee to its chair and to revise it frequently. For example, remember Ambedkar as Drafting Committee chair, Patel as Advisory Committee chair and Nehru as chair for Union Powers and Union Constitution Committees. This association prevents mistakes in questions like this. Final Answer: The Union Powers Committee of the Constituent Assembly of India was chaired by Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru.

Question 20

In the preparation of the original hand written Constitution of India, which artist was mainly entrusted with the task of illuminating and decorating the document?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The original Constitution of India is not only a legal document but also a remarkable work of art. It was hand written and beautifully decorated with motifs from Indian culture and history. This question focuses on the artist who was primarily responsible for illuminating and decorating the document. Such cultural details often appear in examinations to test a learner's broader awareness of constitution making. Given Data / Assumptions: The question refers to the original hand written Constitution of India. The key phrase is illuminating the document, which refers to artistic decoration and illustrations. Four noted artists are listed as options. It is assumed that the learner is familiar with the role of Shantiniketan artists in this project. Concept / Approach: The approach here is straightforward factual recall. Nandalal Bose, a leading artist from Shantiniketan and a pioneer of modern Indian art, was entrusted with the task of decorating and illuminating the original Constitution. He, along with his team of students, created illustrations that appear at the beginning of each part of the document, depicting scenes from Indian history and culture. Although the other artists listed made major contributions to Indian art, they were not primarily responsible for this particular work. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify that the question is about the artistic decoration of the Constitution, not about drafting or legal work. Step 2: Recall that the original Constitution was hand written by Prem Behari Narain Raizada and artistically decorated at Shantiniketan. Step 3: Remember that Nandalal Bose was the chief artist who supervised and executed the illumination and illustrative work. Step 4: Note that Benode Behari Mukherjee, Abanindranath Tagore and Ramkinkar Baij were also famous artists but are not associated as the principal illuminator of the Constitution. Step 5: From this association, select Nandalal Bose as the correct answer. Verification / Alternative check: Verification can be done by consulting standard references on the making of the Constitution. Many articles and books mention that while Prem Behari Narain Raizada hand wrote the text in calligraphy, the decorative borders and illustrations were prepared under the guidance of Nandalal Bose. Photographs of the original pages often credit Nandalal Bose and his team from Shantiniketan. When multiple sources confirm this attribution, it becomes clear that no other option fits the description given in the question. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Benode Behari Mukherjee: A respected modernist painter and teacher, but not the principal artist for the Constitution's illumination. Abanindranath Tagore: A founder of the Bengal school of art, yet he was not tasked with decorating the Constitution document. Ramkinkar Baij: A renowned sculptor and painter, mainly known for his sculptures at Shantiniketan, not for work on the Constitution. Common Pitfalls: A typical pitfall is confusing the roles of different Shantiniketan associated artists and assuming that any famous name from that circle might have done this work. Another mistake is to mix up the contributions of the calligrapher with those of the illustrator. To avoid this, learners should remember a simple pairing: Prem Behari Narain Raizada as the scribe who hand wrote the document and Nandalal Bose as the chief artist who illuminated it. This clear mental association helps answer many related questions with confidence. Final Answer: The artist principally entrusted with illuminating and decorating the original hand written Constitution of India was Nandalal Bose.

Indian Politics Questions