Question 1

Sikkim was made an integral state of the Indian Union through which Constitutional Amendment Act?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The political integration of India after independence involved not only the merger of princely states but also later adjustments in the status of certain territories. Sikkim presents an interesting case, as it moved from being a protectorate and associate state to becoming a full fledged state of the Indian Union. This change required a Constitutional amendment. The question tests knowledge of which specific amendment act gave Sikkim this full statehood status, which is a frequent topic in Indian Polity and modern history questions. Given Data / Assumptions: The focus is the constitutional status of Sikkim within the Indian Union. The question asks which amendment made Sikkim an integral part and a full state. Four numbered amendment acts are provided as options. The aspirant needs to identify the amendment connected with Sikkim's statehood. Concept / Approach: Sikkim initially had a special relationship with India, first as a protectorate and then as an associate state linked by a special provision. In 1975, after political changes and a popular referendum, Sikkim was formally admitted as the twenty second state of the Indian Union. This required amending the Constitution, and that was done through the Thirty sixth Amendment Act. The other amendments listed are associated with different constitutional changes, such as emergency powers or general structural modifications, not with Sikkim's status. The approach is to recall this specific association of the Thirty sixth Amendment with Sikkim. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that Sikkim became the twenty second state of India in 1975 after a referendum and political agreement. Step 2: Recognise that this statehood required an amendment to the Constitution to include Sikkim in the First Schedule and adjust related provisions. Step 3: Remember that this change was carried out by the Thirty sixth Amendment Act. Step 4: Note that the Thirty ninth, Fortieth, and Forty second Amendments are known for other issues like emergency related provisions and centralisation, not for statehood of Sikkim. Step 5: Select Thirty sixth Amendment as the correct option. Verification / Alternative check: One quick verification method is to memorise a few landmark amendments with their main subjects: Seventh Amendment for states and union territories reorganisation, Forty second Amendment for so called mini Constitution, Forty fourth Amendment for emergency related corrections, and Thirty sixth Amendment for Sikkim's admission as a state. When this mapping is clear, confusion between amendment numbers is reduced. Checking any standard Indian Polity reference confirms that the Thirty sixth Amendment is associated specifically with making Sikkim a full state of the Union of India. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Thirty ninth Amendment: Mostly associated with issues relating to election disputes and certain officeholders, not with Sikkim's status. Fortieth Amendment: Linked with matters such as the inclusion of certain laws in the Ninth Schedule and other provisions, but not with Sikkim becoming a state. Forty second Amendment: Famous for wide ranging changes during the emergency period, including additions to the Preamble and restructuring of Centre state relations, but it did not make Sikkim a state. Therefore these amendments do not match the specific subject of the question. Common Pitfalls: Candidates often mix up amendment numbers, especially in the thirties and forties, because many of them were passed in a short span of time. There is also a tendency to guess the Forty second Amendment for any major constitutional change since it is called the mini Constitution. To avoid such pitfalls, aspirants should create a small list of ten to twelve very important amendments and link each one with a clear keyword, such as Sikkim statehood for Thirty sixth. Regular revision of this list helps in answering amendment related questions reliably. Final Answer: Sikkim became an integral state of the Indian Union through the Thirty sixth Amendment to the Constitution of India.

Question 2

The Instrument of Instructions contained in the Government of India Act 1935 was later incorporated into the Constitution of India in 1950 as which set of provisions?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The Government of India Act 1935 was the last major constitutional document of British rule and served as an important reference point for the framers of the Indian Constitution. One of its features was a set of Instrument of Instructions that guided the exercise of powers by the Governor General and Governors. When India framed its own Constitution, similar guidance was built into the document in a new and more democratic form. This question asks which part of the Indian Constitution corresponds most closely to those earlier Instrument of Instructions. This link is frequently tested in Indian Polity examinations. Given Data / Assumptions: The historical starting point is the Government of India Act 1935. The focus is on its Instrument of Instructions, which were guidelines to the executive authorities. The Indian Constitution has several parts, such as Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles, that might appear similar at first glance. The learner must identify the correct equivalence between old and new provisions. Concept / Approach: The Instrument of Instructions in the 1935 Act were essentially policy guidelines and directives for governance rather than directly enforceable rights of citizens. In the Indian Constitution, the Directive Principles of State Policy serve a similar purpose. They lay down broad socio economic, welfare, and governance goals that the state must strive to achieve, even though they are not directly justiciable in courts. Fundamental Rights, by contrast, are enforceable claims of citizens, and Fundamental Duties were added later by amendment. Hence, the correct conceptual match is between the Instrument of Instructions and the Directive Principles of State Policy. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that the Instrument of Instructions in the 1935 Act were directions for rulers and administrators about how to use their discretionary powers. Step 2: Note that these instructions were not legally enforceable by citizens in courts but were meant to guide policy and governance style. Step 3: Compare this with the Directive Principles of State Policy in Part IV of the Constitution, which similarly lay down non justiciable principles for the state to follow in making laws and policies. Step 4: Recognise that Fundamental Rights in Part III are enforceable rights, which is conceptually different from non justiciable instructions. Step 5: Conclude that the Instrument of Instructions correspond to the Directive Principles of State Policy. Verification / Alternative check: Standard Indian Polity textbooks explicitly state that the Directive Principles of State Policy were influenced by various sources, including the Irish Constitution and the Instrument of Instructions in the Government of India Act 1935. They highlight the similarity that both are guidelines for governance, not directly enforceable rights. No such linkage is typically drawn between the Instrument of Instructions and Fundamental Rights, Fundamental Duties, or Emergency provisions. Confirming this in at least one reliable text is an effective way to be sure of the answer in exam preparation. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Fundamental Rights: These are justiciable rights of individuals against the state, quite different from administrative instructions to rulers. Fundamental Duties: These were introduced later by constitutional amendment and focus on responsibilities of citizens, not on guiding executive discretion. Emergency provisions: These define exceptional powers of the state during crises and are not primarily policy guidelines. None of these parts plays the same guiding role as the Directive Principles, so they do not match the Instrument of Instructions. Common Pitfalls: Students often mix up the sources and influences of different constitutional parts. They may remember that Fundamental Rights were influenced by the United States Bill of Rights and that Directive Principles drew on the Irish Constitution, but forget the additional influence of the 1935 Act. Some also wrongly assume that any pre independence law must map to Fundamental Rights due to association with colonial repression. To avoid such errors, it helps to draw a small mapping chart showing the key influences for each major part of the Constitution, including this connection between the Instrument of Instructions and the Directive Principles. Final Answer: The Instrument of Instructions in the Government of India Act 1935 were incorporated into the Indian Constitution in the form of the Directive Principles of State Policy.

Question 3

Under the original Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections law, the name of a candidate for the office of President of India had to be proposed by how many members of the Electoral College?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The President of India is elected indirectly by an Electoral College that includes elected members of both Houses of Parliament and elected members of the Legislative Assemblies of states and certain Union territories. The process of nomination for the presidential election is regulated by law, which specifies how many electors must support a candidate. This question refers to the original requirement under the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections law, before later amendments increased the numbers. Knowing these details is useful for understanding how the system tries to ensure that only serious candidates contest for the highest office in the country. Given Data / Assumptions: The focus is on the nomination stage of the presidential election. The question refers to the original legal requirement, not the present increased figures. The term Electoral College includes all electors defined in Article 54. Four numerical options are given, based on citizens, members of Parliament, or members of the Electoral College. Concept / Approach: The idea behind the nomination requirement is to filter out non serious candidates by insisting that a minimum number of electors must endorse the nomination. Under the original law, a candidate's name had to be proposed by at least ten electors who were members of the Electoral College and supported further by an equal number as seconders. Later, this minimum was raised, but the question here targets the earlier figure. Among the given options, only the choice of any ten members of the Electoral College matches that older requirement. The other options either use too small a number or refer to citizens or only members of Parliament, which does not reflect the full Electoral College structure. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that the nomination for the office of President must be supported by a group of electors, not by ordinary citizens. Step 2: Remember that under the original law, at least ten electors had to sign as proposers and another ten as seconders for each valid nomination. Step 3: Review the options and note that only option stating any ten members of the Electoral College corresponds to this requirement. Step 4: Discard options mentioning five citizens or five members of Parliament, since citizens in general are not part of the Electoral College. Step 5: Eliminate the single member option, because that would not limit non serious candidates. Verification / Alternative check: To verify, one can consult standard polity references that describe the presidential election procedure. They generally mention that initially the requirement was ten proposers and ten seconders from the Electoral College, which was later increased by amendment to fifty and fifty. This historical description confirms that the correct number in the original arrangement was ten, and that it applied specifically to members of the Electoral College, not to ordinary citizens or only to members of Parliament. This cross check gives strong confirmation for option any ten members of the Electoral College. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Any five citizens of India: Citizens at large do not directly participate in the presidential election; only the Electoral College does, so this option is outside the legal framework. Any five members of Parliament: The Electoral College includes state legislators as well, so restricting proposers only to Parliament members and using the number five does not reflect the original law. Any one member of the Electoral College: Allowing a single proposer would not effectively screen candidates and does not match the original statutory requirement. These options therefore do not satisfy the condition described in the question. Common Pitfalls: Learners may confuse the original requirement with the revised figure of fifty proposers and fifty seconders that applies today. Another pitfall is confusing citizens with electors and assuming that any adult citizen can propose a candidate, which is not correct for this indirect election. To prevent such mistakes, aspirants should clearly distinguish between historical and current figures and remember that the Electoral College is the only body that directly participates in the presidential election, both in nomination and voting. Final Answer: Under the original law, the name of a candidate for the office of President of India had to be proposed by any ten members of the Electoral College.

Question 4

In which year was the Panchayati Raj system first formally introduced in India at the village level, starting with the experiment in Nagaur district of Rajasthan?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Panchayati Raj represents local self government in rural India and is a key part of democratic decentralisation. Although village councils existed in traditional forms, modern Panchayati Raj bodies with elected representatives and defined powers were introduced only after independence. This question asks about the year when the Panchayati Raj system was first formally launched in independent India, following the recommendations of the Balwantrai Mehta Committee. Knowing this date is important in both Indian Polity and post independence history topics. Given Data / Assumptions: The subject is the formal introduction of Panchayati Raj institutions in independent India. The question mentions the Nagaur district experiment in Rajasthan as the starting point. Four years are given, all in the mid twentieth century. The learner must recall which year marks the launch of this initiative. Concept / Approach: The Balwantrai Mehta Committee, set up to study Community Development and National Extension Service programmes, recommended establishing a three tier system of Panchayati Raj to involve people more directly in planning and development. Acting on these recommendations, Rajasthan became the first state to introduce Panchayati Raj in 1959, starting from Nagaur district on 2 October. Andhra Pradesh followed soon after. Nationally, the year 1959 is therefore remembered as the starting point for modern Panchayati Raj institutions, which much later received constitutional status through the Seventy third Amendment. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that the Balwantrai Mehta Committee submitted its report in the late nineteen fifties and recommended Panchayati Raj. Step 2: Remember that Rajasthan took the lead and implemented Panchayati Raj in Nagaur district on 2 October 1959. Step 3: Recognise that 1945 and 1950 are too early for this reform, since India was still under British rule in 1945 and had not yet adopted this system by 1950. Step 4: Note that 1962 is later and does not match the widely cited year for the first introduction. Step 5: Conclude that 1959 is the correct answer. Verification / Alternative check: A simple verification method is to connect Panchayati Raj with two key dates: 1959 for the first introduction in Rajasthan and 1992 for the passage of the Seventy third Constitutional Amendment that gave these bodies constitutional status. Many textbooks and exam guides emphasise the first date with the example of Nagaur district. Cross checking these memory anchors confirms that 1959 is the correct year for the first formal introduction of Panchayati Raj at the village level in independent India. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 1945: This was during colonial rule and before any such democratic local self government reform was formally attempted on modern lines. 1950: The Constitution had just been adopted and attention was still on consolidating the Union; Panchayati Raj as a system was not yet introduced. 1962: By this time Panchayati Raj experiments were already underway in several states, so it cannot be the starting year. These years therefore do not match the historic first introduction described in the question. Common Pitfalls: Some candidates confuse the year of initial introduction with the year of the Seventy third Amendment, which was in the early nineteen nineties, or with years when other states adopted the system. Others remember the launch date of 2 October but forget the exact year. To avoid such confusion, aspirants should memorise the paired information that Rajasthan's Nagaur district began Panchayati Raj on 2 October 1959 and that constitutional status came much later. This structured memory approach makes it easier to answer questions about dates correctly. Final Answer: The Panchayati Raj system was first formally introduced in India in 1959, starting with Nagaur district in Rajasthan.

Question 5

Which constitutional scholar famously described the Indian Constitution as a quasi federal system rather than a strictly federal or strictly unitary one?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The nature of the Indian Constitution has always been a topic of debate among constitutional scholars. While it clearly has a federal structure with division of powers between the Union and the states, it also contains strong unitary features, especially during emergencies. To capture this mixed character, one famous scholar used the phrase quasi federal. This question asks who that scholar was. Knowing this attribution helps students correctly interpret how experts view the design of Indian federation and is frequently tested in Indian Polity exams. Given Data / Assumptions: The focus is the descriptive term quasi federal applied to the Indian Constitution. The question mentions that the constitution is neither purely federal nor purely unitary. Four well known writers on constitutional law or Indian government are listed. The learner must recall which one coined or popularised this particular description. Concept / Approach: Indian federation differs from classical federal systems like those of the United States or Australia. The centre is relatively stronger, and during emergencies the Union can assume extensive powers over states. To describe this combination of federal structure and unitary tilt, K. C. Wheare, a leading authority on federal constitutions, called the Indian Constitution quasi federal in form but unitary in spirit. Other scholars have offered different characterisations, but this particular phrase is strongly associated with Wheare in exam oriented literature. Therefore, the approach is to match the term quasi federal with K. C. Wheare. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify the keyword quasi federal in the question and link it mentally with discussions on Indian federalism. Step 2: Recall that K. C. Wheare authored influential works on federal constitutions and analysed the Indian model using that phrase. Step 3: Recognise that D. D. Basu, Ivor Jennings, and M. V. Pylee also wrote on Indian constitutional law, but different quotes and formulations are associated with them. Step 4: Compare the options and point to K. C. Wheare as the scholar most closely linked with the quasi federal description. Step 5: Choose K. C. Wheare as the correct answer. Verification / Alternative check: A candidate can verify this by checking any standard Indian Polity textbook, where the nature of the Constitution is discussed under chapters on federalism. In these sections, the author usually cites K. C. Wheare and repeats his phrase describing India as a quasi federal state. Some books even directly quote him as saying that the Indian Constitution is quasi federal but with a unitary bias. As the same quotation appears across multiple reference works, this provides strong confirmation that K. C. Wheare is the correct answer to this question. Why Other Options Are Wrong: D. D. Basu: A respected Indian jurist and author of a standard commentary on the Constitution, but his name is not linked specifically with the quasi federal label. Ivor Jennings: A British constitutional expert who commented on the Indian Constitution, yet his best known remarks are different and not the source of this exact phrase in exam usage. M. V. Pylee: An Indian scholar who wrote on governance and constitutional topics, but again not commonly cited for coining quasi federal. As a result these three options do not match the specific quotation being tested. Common Pitfalls: Examinees sometimes confuse which quote belongs to which scholar, especially because several experts have commented on Indian federalism. Under time pressure, they may choose a familiar Indian name like D. D. Basu instead of the foreign scholar who actually coined the phrase. Another pitfall is mixing up quasi federal with other descriptions such as cooperative federalism or federation with a strong centre. To avoid these mistakes, students should make a short list of important quotations and match them with the correct authors as part of their revision strategy. Final Answer: The constitutional scholar who famously described the Indian Constitution as a quasi federal system is K. C. Wheare.

Question 6

Who served as the chairman of the Provincial Constitution Committee of the Constituent Assembly of India?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The Constituent Assembly of India worked through a series of specialised committees to draft different parts of the Constitution. Each committee had a specific focus such as fundamental rights, union powers, or provincial arrangements. The Provincial Constitution Committee played a key role in deciding the structure of provincial or state governments within the federal framework. This question asks which national leader chaired that particular committee. Such questions test detailed knowledge of the drafting process and the roles played by major figures in framing the Constitution. Given Data / Assumptions: The setting is the Constituent Assembly of India between 1946 and 1950. The committee mentioned is the Provincial Constitution Committee. Four senior leaders of the freedom struggle and Constituent Assembly are given as options. The learner must know who chaired this specific committee. Concept / Approach: The Constituent Assembly had several key committees. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar chaired the Drafting Committee, which prepared the final text. Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel chaired the Advisory Committee on Fundamental Rights, Minorities, and Tribal and Excluded Areas. Jawaharlal Nehru chaired the Union Constitution Committee and also the Provincial Constitution Committee, reflecting his central role in designing both union and provincial structures. Dr. Rajendra Prasad was the president of the Constituent Assembly. Recognising this pattern of roles helps identify the correct match for the Provincial Constitution Committee. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: List the main committees and their chairpersons in the Constituent Assembly. Step 2: Recall that Dr. B. R. Ambedkar chaired the Drafting Committee, not the Provincial Constitution Committee. Step 3: Remember that Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel headed the Advisory Committee on Fundamental Rights and Minorities. Step 4: Recognise that Jawaharlal Nehru headed both the Union Constitution Committee and the Provincial Constitution Committee, dealing with centre and provinces. Step 5: Therefore select Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru as the correct answer. Verification / Alternative check: Standard summaries of the Constituent Assembly's working often list committee names alongside their chairs. In such lists, one can consistently see Nehru's name against both Union Constitution Committee and Provincial Constitution Committee. Ambedkar appears against the Drafting Committee, and Patel appears for the Advisory Committee. Dr. Rajendra Prasad is mentioned separately as president of the Assembly as a whole. Cross verifying with such tables provides a reliable way to confirm that Nehru chaired the Provincial Constitution Committee. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: He is rightly famous as the chairman of the Drafting Committee but did not head the Provincial Constitution Committee. Dr. Rajendra Prasad: He presided over the Assembly but is not associated with chairing this specific committee. Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel: He chaired the Advisory Committee on Fundamental Rights and Minorities and was deeply involved in integration of princely states, not in chairing the Provincial Constitution Committee. Since the question targets a particular committee, these other roles do not match and these options are incorrect. Common Pitfalls: Many aspirants tend to over associate Dr. Ambedkar with all aspects of constitution making and may wrongly pick his name whenever a committee is mentioned. Others confuse Patel's influential political role with his specific committee responsibility. The best way to avoid such errors is to memorise a concise mapping: Ambedkar for Drafting Committee, Nehru for Union and Provincial Constitution Committees, Patel for Advisory Committee on Fundamental Rights, and Rajendra Prasad as president of the Assembly. Keeping this mapping in mind ensures quick and accurate answers to related questions. Final Answer: The chairman of the Provincial Constitution Committee of the Constituent Assembly of India was Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru.

Question 7

In the Indian Parliament, the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee is appointed by which authority?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The Public Accounts Committee is one of the most important financial committees of the Indian Parliament. It examines the reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General and ensures that public money is spent according to the decisions of Parliament. The effectiveness of this committee depends in part on who leads it. This question asks which authority appoints the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. Understanding this mechanism highlights how Parliament organises its own internal oversight of the executive's financial operations. Given Data / Assumptions: The institution in focus is the Public Accounts Committee of Parliament. The specific matter is appointment of its Chairman. Four high offices or authorities are listed as options. The learner must know the correct appointing authority within the parliamentary framework. Concept / Approach: The Public Accounts Committee is composed of members of Parliament drawn from both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, but the chairmanship traditionally goes to a member of the opposition in the Lok Sabha. As the presiding officer and administrative head of the Lok Sabha, the Speaker is responsible for appointing the Chairman of this committee from among its members. Neither the Prime Minister, nor the President, nor the Finance Minister has this formal power. The approach is to link parliamentary committees with the authority of the Speaker in constituting and guiding them. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that the Public Accounts Committee is a committee of Parliament dealing with financial oversight. Step 2: Recognise that parliamentary committees, especially those relating to the Lok Sabha, are usually constituted and headed under the direction of the Speaker. Step 3: Remember that by convention the Chairman is normally chosen from the largest opposition party but the formal appointment is made by the Speaker. Step 4: Note that the Prime Minister and Finance Minister are part of the executive, not authorities for appointing committee chairs. Step 5: Conclude that the correct answer is the Speaker of the Lok Sabha. Verification / Alternative check: Standard parliamentary procedure manuals and polity textbooks describe the composition and functioning of the Public Accounts Committee. They clearly state that its members are elected or nominated from both Houses, and that the Speaker of the Lok Sabha appoints one of these members as the Chairperson. Modern practice also emphasises that this chairperson is usually an opposition leader, reinforcing the idea of legislative control over government spending. Cross checking these descriptions confirms that the Speaker, not any executive authority, appoints the Chairman. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Prime Minister of India: The Prime Minister leads the executive and appears before the House, but does not appoint the chairs of legislative committees. President of India: The President is the nominal head of the state and acts on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers; appointment of parliamentary committee chairs does not fall within this role. Union Finance Minister: This minister presents the budget and is subject to scrutiny by the Public Accounts Committee, so it would be inappropriate and contrary to parliamentary norms for the minister to appoint the committee's chair. These options therefore do not match the established procedure. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes assume that because the Public Accounts Committee deals with finance, the Finance Minister must have some direct role in its leadership. Others mistakenly think that the President appoints all important office holders. Such misconceptions overlook the separation between executive and legislative functions and the internal autonomy of Parliament. To avoid these errors, aspirants should remember that the Speaker controls the internal working of the Lok Sabha and therefore plays a key role in constituting and guiding its committees, including appointing the Chairperson of the Public Accounts Committee. Final Answer: In the Indian Parliament, the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee is appointed by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha.

Question 8

In political theory and modern democratic practice, civil equality primarily implies which one of the following principles?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Equality is a central value in political theory and democratic constitutions, but it can be understood in different ways, such as civil equality, political equality, or economic equality. Civil equality in particular deals with the legal status of individuals in a state. This question asks which principle best captures the meaning of civil equality. Being able to distinguish among these related but distinct ideas helps aspirants interpret constitutional guarantees and analyse social justice debates more accurately. Given Data / Assumptions: The key term is civil equality. Four possible interpretations of equality are offered. These options touch on law, opportunity, wealth, and political participation. The task is to identify which one aligns most closely with civil equality in political theory. Concept / Approach: Civil equality focuses on legal status and treatment. It means that all citizens are equal in the eyes of the law and that there are no arbitrary legal privileges or disabilities based on birth, caste, religion, or similar factors. This is expressed in phrases like equality before law and equal protection of the laws. Political equality, by contrast, is about equal voting rights and participation in political processes, while economic equality concerns distribution of wealth and resources. Equality of opportunity can bridge several domains but is wider than the narrow legal sense of civil equality. Therefore, equality before law is the best match for the idea of civil equality. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that civil equality deals with the relationship between the individual and the legal system. Step 2: Recognise that equality before law means no person is above the law and all are treated alike under the same legal rules. Step 3: Distinguish this from equality of opportunity, which goes beyond legal status and involves access to education, jobs, and other life chances. Step 4: Understand that equal distribution of wealth refers to economic equality, which is not the narrow meaning of civil equality. Step 5: Note that equal right to participate in the affairs of the state is a description of political equality, mainly linked with democratic suffrage and representation. Verification / Alternative check: Political theory texts and civics books often divide equality into civil, political, social, and economic dimensions. In these categorizations, civil equality is almost always defined as equality before law or equality of rights under the law. The other forms of equality are discussed separately. Cross checking with such definitions confirms that in the context of this question, equality before law is the most accurate representation of civil equality. This mapping is also consistent with constitutional provisions that guarantee equality before law as a fundamental right in modern democratic states. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Equality of opportunity: This is broader than civil equality and includes social and economic aspects, such as access to education and employment. Equal distribution of wealth: This relates to economic equality and socialist ideals, not to basic legal status. Equal right to participate in affairs of the state: This describes political equality, which focuses on voting rights and political participation. While all these forms of equality are important, they do not specifically capture the legal dimension referred to by civil equality in this question. Common Pitfalls: Under exam pressure, candidates may choose equality of opportunity because it sounds modern and attractive, or equal right to participate because they associate equality with democracy. This happens when they do not carefully distinguish different dimensions of equality as explained in political theory. To avoid such mistakes, aspirants should learn clear definitions and link each form of equality with its primary domain: civil with law, political with voting, social with status, and economic with wealth. This structured understanding makes it easier to pick the correct option quickly in similar questions. Final Answer: In political theory, civil equality primarily implies equality before law for all citizens.

Question 9

The Girglani Committee, appointed in the context of Andhra Pradesh and the Telangana region, was set up to examine which specific issue?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The Girglani Committee is an example of a specialised commission set up to investigate regional grievances within a state. In the context of Andhra Pradesh and the Telangana region, there were long standing issues relating to employment, service conditions, and implementation of certain safeguards for local candidates. Government Order 610, often referred to simply as G.O. 610, was meant to correct some of these imbalances. Allegations that this order was not properly implemented led to the creation of the Girglani Committee. This question asks what specific issue the committee was asked to examine, which is important for understanding the administrative history of regional demands within Andhra Pradesh and later Telangana. Given Data / Assumptions: The context is state level administrative issues in Andhra Pradesh, especially in the Telangana region. The committee mentioned is the Girglani Committee. Four possible issues are listed, ranging from funds to political roles and farmer suicides. The learner must link the committee with the correct subject of its enquiry. Concept / Approach: Government Order 610 was issued to implement certain safeguards arising from the Mulki rules and agreements intended to protect local employment opportunities in the Telangana region. Over time, there were complaints that many non local employees continued in violation of these norms. The Girglani Committee was therefore appointed to examine the implementation of G.O. 610, identify violations, and recommend corrective measures. The other options in the question relate to different policy debates but are not the central mandate of this committee. The correct approach is to recall this direct association between Girglani Committee and violation of G.O. 610. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that regional employment and service issues in Telangana led to several agreements and government orders, including G.O. 610. Step 2: Remember that complaints arose that this order was not properly implemented and that non local employees were still occupying posts meant for locals. Step 3: Note that the state government appointed the Girglani Committee specifically to review implementation of G.O. 610 and to document its violations. Step 4: Compare the options and see that only the choice referring to violation of G.O. 610 exactly matches this mandate. Step 5: Select violation of Government Order 610 as the correct answer. Verification / Alternative check: Regional movement histories and administrative reports on Telangana repeatedly mention the Girglani Committee in connection with G.O. 610. They describe how the committee analysed service records, identified excess non local postings, and suggested repatriation of employees to their native regions. No similar connection is drawn between this committee and broader topics like surplus funds, party politics, or agriculture related distress in official summaries. Reviewing such sources or credible summaries confirms that the committee's central task was to examine violation and non implementation of G.O. 610. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Surplus funds of Telangana: This issue relates more to financial devolution and regional development debates, not to the specific mandate of the Girglani Committee. Role of political parties: While parties took positions on regional questions, no official committee named after Girglani was set up just to study party roles. Farmer suicides: This is a serious socio economic problem, but it was addressed through other commissions and policy measures, not by the Girglani Committee. These options therefore do not reflect the actual assignment given to the committee mentioned in the question. Common Pitfalls: Students unfamiliar with Andhra Pradesh regional history may guess based on the most familiar issue in the news, such as farmer suicides, instead of the specific administrative context. Others may remember that the committee dealt with Telangana grievances but fail to connect it with the exact government order number. To avoid such mistakes, aspirants from all regions should take some time to review major committees and agreements related to regional movements, including the link between Girglani Committee and G.O. 610, as this often appears in state and national level competitive exams. Final Answer: The Girglani Committee was appointed to examine the violation of Government Order 610 and related implementation issues in Andhra Pradesh and the Telangana region.

Question 10

During which period were the first general elections of independent India to the Lok Sabha conducted on the basis of universal adult franchise?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The first general elections in independent India marked a historic moment, as they implemented universal adult franchise on a massive scale for the first time. Conducted for the Lok Sabha and state legislatures, these elections laid the foundation for the country's democratic practice. Because of the size of the electorate and administrative challenges, the polling had to be spread over several months. This question asks in which period these first general elections took place, a piece of factual history that every serious civil services or competitive exam candidate should know. Given Data / Assumptions: The event is the first general election of independent India. The focus is on the period in which voting took place. Four two year ranges are given around the early nineteen fifties. The aspirant must recall the correct range that matches the actual election timeline. Concept / Approach: India adopted its Constitution in 1950 and needed to hold general elections soon afterward to elect the first Lok Sabha and new state assemblies. These first general elections were organised between late 1951 and early 1952. The process involved several phases to include remote areas. The year range therefore is remembered as 1951–52, and this period appears in nearly every history and polity text that discusses the birth of electoral democracy in India. The other ranges provided in the options do not match this known timeline. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that the Constitution came into effect on 26 January 1950, after which preparations for the first elections began. Step 2: Recognise that holding such a large scale election required time for creating electoral rolls, establishing polling stations, and training staff. Step 3: Remember that actual voting took place in multiple phases from late 1951 to early 1952. Step 4: Compare the options and see that only 1951–52 corresponds to this period. Step 5: Select 1951–52 as the correct answer. Verification / Alternative check: Verification is straightforward by consulting any textbook chapter titled first general elections or electoral system of India. The details nearly always mention that the first Lok Sabha elections were held during 1951–52. They also note the estimated number of voters, the grand scale, and sometimes mention leaders like Sukumar Sen, the first Chief Election Commissioner, who oversaw this process. Since this date range is widely and consistently recorded, using multiple sources to cross check will again yield 1951–52 as the correct period. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 1948–49: During this period, India was still in a transitional phase and had not yet adopted the Constitution or established the Election Commission for such nationwide polls. 1949–50: This period covers the adoption of the Constitution but is still too early for the completed electoral preparations. 1950–51: Although preparatory work intensified during these years, the polling itself extended into 1952, so this range is incomplete. Therefore, these ranges do not accurately represent the full period over which the first general election was actually held. Common Pitfalls: Some candidates wrongly associate the date with either the year of independence, 1947, or the year of constitutional adoption, 1950. Others remember 1952 as the date when the first Lok Sabha was constituted and mistakenly think that all voting occurred entirely within that year. To avoid these mistakes, aspirants should remember that the election spanned parts of two years, 1951 and 1952, due to the logistical scale. A simple mnemonic is that independence came in 1947, Constitution in 1950, and first elections in 1951–52, forming a clear chronological sequence. Final Answer: The first general elections of independent India to the Lok Sabha were conducted during the period 1951–52.

Question 11

Who became the first full time woman Defence Minister of India at the Union level?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Representation of women in high offices is an important indicator of progress in democratic societies. In India, several women have served as cabinet ministers in various portfolios, but the Defence Ministry is seen as one of the most significant and sensitive positions. This question asks who became the first full time woman Defence Minister of India at the Union level. Knowing this milestone helps aspirants understand the evolving role of women in Indian politics and governance. Given Data / Assumptions: The focus is on the Defence Ministry of the Government of India. The question specifies first full time woman Defence Minister. Four prominent women politicians are listed as options. The learner must identify which one held this particular portfolio in a full time capacity. Concept / Approach: Indira Gandhi had earlier handled the Defence portfolio, but she did so while also serving as Prime Minister, and often on an additional charge basis. The question here emphasises full time, meaning that Defence was the primary cabinet responsibility of the minister. Nirmala Sitharaman was appointed as the Defence Minister of India with full time charge, becoming the first woman to hold that specific role in such a capacity. The other women listed have held important cabinet postings, such as External Affairs or Human Resource Development, but not Defence as their main independent portfolio. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that several women have served in high cabinet positions, including External Affairs, Information and Broadcasting, and Human Resource Development. Step 2: Recognise that Indira Gandhi dealt with Defence as part of her additional responsibilities as Prime Minister, but the question targets a full time Defence Minister role. Step 3: Remember that Nirmala Sitharaman was appointed as Defence Minister with full cabinet rank and complete charge of the ministry. Step 4: Note that Sushma Swaraj served as External Affairs Minister, Uma Bharti as a minister in various portfolios, and Smriti Irani in Human Resource Development and other ministries. Step 5: Conclude that Nirmala Sitharaman is the correct answer. Verification / Alternative check: News reports and cabinet lists from the period when Nirmala Sitharaman was appointed provide confirmation. They highlight her appointment as the first woman to hold the Defence portfolio in a full time capacity. Later briefings and analyses often mention this as a significant milestone for women in Indian politics. Comparing this with lists of ministries held by Sushma Swaraj, Uma Bharti, and Smriti Irani shows that none of them held Defence as their primary responsibility at the Union level, which further verifies the correct answer. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Sushma Swaraj: She served as Minister of External Affairs and is remembered for her diplomatic and consular work, not as Defence Minister. Uma Bharti: She held portfolios related to water resources and other sectors but not Defence. Smriti Irani: She was Minister for Human Resource Development and later held other portfolios, again not Defence. Since the question is specifically about the Defence Ministry, these options are incorrect. Common Pitfalls: Some candidates may mix up first woman Defence Minister with first woman to hold any powerful cabinet post and mistakenly choose Sushma Swaraj because of her visibility in foreign affairs. Others may recall Indira Gandhi's occasional control of Defence and assume that any later woman minister must also have held the post. To avoid such confusion, aspirants should remember that Nirmala Sitharaman is recorded as the first full time woman Defence Minister, while earlier and other women leaders held different or additional portfolios. Final Answer: The first full time woman Defence Minister of India at the Union level was Nirmala Sitharaman.

Question 12

The national legislature of the United States of America is officially known by which of the following names?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Understanding comparative political systems is an important part of general knowledge and political science. The national legislature of each major democracy has a specific name that reflects its historical and constitutional traditions. In the United States of America, the central legislative body is bicameral, with two houses. This question asks for the official collective name of that national legislature. Being familiar with such basic terminology is useful for both international relations and comparative government topics in competitive exams. Given Data / Assumptions: The subject is the national legislature of the United States of America. Four names are given: Commons, Congress, Parliament, and Senate. The learner must know which one is the official term for the entire legislative branch. Some options refer to just one chamber or to legislatures of other countries. Concept / Approach: The Constitution of the United States establishes a bicameral legislature consisting of the Senate and the House of Representatives. Together, these two bodies are collectively called Congress. The term Parliament is used for the national legislatures of many countries with the Westminster model, such as the United Kingdom and India, but not for the United States. The House of Commons is only one chamber of the British Parliament. The Senate is only one chamber of the United States Congress, not the entire body. Therefore, the correct concept is that Congress is the official name of the national legislature in the United States. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that the United States has a bicameral legislature with the Senate and the House of Representatives. Step 2: Remember that the collective name for these two houses is Congress. Step 3: Note that Commons is specific to the House of Commons in the United Kingdom and is not used in the United States system. Step 4: Recognise that Parliament is the term used for the central legislature in systems like the United Kingdom and India, but not for the United States. Step 5: Understand that the Senate alone is just the upper chamber of Congress, not the entire legislative branch, and therefore cannot be the correct answer. Verification / Alternative check: Verification is simple through any basic civics or international relations text, or even by recalling common phrases from news and media. Expressions such as United States Congress, members of Congress, and acts of Congress are widely used to refer to the legislative branch as a whole. In contrast, the term Parliament is never used in official American contexts for their national legislature. These repeated uses in global news and reference materials confirm that Congress is the established and correct term for the legislature of the United States of America. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Commons: This term refers to the House of Commons, which is one chamber of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, and has no official standing in the United States system. Parliament: This is the name for legislative bodies in countries such as the United Kingdom, India, and Canada, but it is not used to describe the American legislature. Senate: The Senate is only the upper house of the United States Congress and does not represent the entire legislature by itself. Since the question asks for the name of the national legislature as a whole, these three options are incorrect. Common Pitfalls: Some candidates may over generalise the term Parliament and think every democratic legislature is called by that name, which is not correct. Others may wrongly treat the Senate as synonymous with the entire legislative branch because it is often highlighted in news. To avoid such errors, aspirants should learn at least the basic legislative terminology of major countries, particularly the pairing Parliament with the United Kingdom and India, and Congress with the United States. This simple mental mapping is enough to handle common comparative polity questions like this one. Final Answer: The national legislature of the United States of America is officially known as the Congress.

Question 13

In the Constitution of India, Part IV specifically deals with which of the following subjects of governance?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Part IV of the Constitution of India is a very important portion of the text that guides how the state should work towards social and economic justice. This part lays down the Directive Principles of State Policy, which act as broad guidelines for all future laws and policies. Even though these principles are not directly enforceable in a court of law, they reflect the vision of the framers for building a welfare state in India. Competitive exams often test whether a student can correctly link the Part number of the Constitution with the correct subject, such as Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles, or the Union Executive. Given Data / Assumptions: The question refers specifically to Part IV of the Constitution of India. Several important constitutional subjects are given as options, including Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy. The task is to identify which subject is actually covered in Part IV. Concept / Approach: The Constitution is divided into Parts, each dealing with a different area. Part III covers Fundamental Rights. Part IV, which spans Articles 36 to 51, lays down the Directive Principles of State Policy. These principles direct the state to promote social and economic welfare, reduce inequalities, protect the environment, ensure just working conditions, and provide adequate means of livelihood. They are not enforceable by courts, but they are fundamental in the governance of the country and are meant to guide policy makers. By recalling this structure, one can match Part IV with Directive Principles of State Policy rather than Fundamental Rights or the Union Executive. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that Part III of the Constitution contains Fundamental Rights, from Article 12 to Article 35.Step 2: Recall that Part IV of the Constitution runs from Article 36 to Article 51.Step 3: Remember that Articles 36 to 51 are collectively known as the Directive Principles of State Policy.Step 4: Note that the Union Executive is covered in Part V, and Citizenship is dealt with mainly in Part II.Step 5: Therefore, Part IV must be associated with Directive Principles of State Policy. Verification / Alternative check: A quick cross check is to remember the common pairing taught in civics: Part III equals Fundamental Rights, Part IV equals Directive Principles, and Part IVA equals Fundamental Duties. If you can recall that Fundamental Duties were added later by the Forty Second Amendment and placed in Part IVA, then it becomes clear that Part IV could not be Fundamental Duties. This reconfirms that Part IV deals with Directive Principles of State Policy only. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Fundamental Rights are contained in Part III, not Part IV. Citizenship provisions appear mainly in Part II, which comes before both Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles. The Union Executive, including the President, Vice President, Prime Minister, and Council of Ministers, is covered in Part V, not Part IV. Fundamental Duties were inserted into Part IVA by a later amendment, so they are also not the subject of Part IV. Hence all other options do not match the Part number asked in the question. Common Pitfalls: Students often confuse Part III and Part IV because both are core to Indian polity and are frequently studied together. Another common mistake is to assume that because Fundamental Rights are more famous, they must be placed first, and then to mix up the numbering. Some learners also confuse Directive Principles with Fundamental Duties because both talk about desirable conduct in society. Keeping a simple mental map of the Parts and their key topics helps avoid this confusion in exams. Final Answer: Directive Principles of State Policy

Question 14

The National Police Academy located in Hyderabad is named after which national leader of India?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The National Police Academy in Hyderabad is the premier training institution for officers of the Indian Police Service. It plays a central role in shaping senior police leadership across the country. Because of the deep connection between policing, national integration, and administrative unity, the academy was named in honour of a key national leader associated with unifying India. Exams in general knowledge and Indian polity often ask about the full name of this academy and the leader it commemorates, so remembering this association is very useful. Given Data / Assumptions: The institution referred to is the National Police Academy located in Hyderabad. The question asks after which leader this academy has been named. Options list several prominent leaders of the freedom struggle and early post independence era. Concept / Approach: The full name of the academy is Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel National Police Academy. Sardar Patel served as the first Deputy Prime Minister and Home Minister of independent India and guided the integration of princely states into the Indian Union. His work in building a unified administrative structure, including the civil services and police, earned him the title Iron Man of India. Because of this strong link to internal security and administrative unity, it is appropriate that the top police training institution carries his name. Recognising which leader is most closely associated with police and internal affairs helps in selecting the correct option. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify that the academy in question is the main training centre for Indian Police Service officers at Hyderabad.Step 2: Recall the official name, which is Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel National Police Academy.Step 3: Connect Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel with his role as Home Minister and his contribution to national integration and organisation of services.Step 4: Compare this association with other leaders in the options who are not directly linked with police training institutions.Step 5: Conclude that the academy is named after Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel. Verification / Alternative check: An alternative way to verify is to recall that many institutions are named after national leaders, but their domains usually match that leader. For example, a major medical institution may be named after a leader linked with social welfare or health. In the case of a police academy, the connection with internal security points naturally to the Home Minister who integrated the country. Official government and academy websites clearly refer to the institution as Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel National Police Academy, which confirms the correct option beyond doubt. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Mahatma Gandhi is the Father of the Nation and the key figure of the freedom struggle, but the police academy is not named after him. Jawaharlal Nehru was the first Prime Minister and is associated with planning and industrialisation rather than a police institution. Lal Bahadur Shastri is remembered for his leadership during war and his slogan about food security. Dr B R Ambedkar is closely linked with the drafting of the Constitution and social justice. None of these leaders lend their names to the National Police Academy at Hyderabad. Common Pitfalls: Many students quickly choose Mahatma Gandhi or Jawaharlal Nehru simply because they are very famous names. Others may confuse different academies or institutions scattered across the country. A safe strategy is to remember one key institution for each major leader, for example, associating Sardar Patel with national integration and internal security. This makes it easier to avoid guesswork and answer such factual questions accurately in competitive exams. Final Answer: Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel

Question 15

In political science, which one of the following is NOT usually classified as a social right but instead as a political right?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Modern constitutions and political theory often classify rights into different groups, such as civil rights, political rights, social rights, and economic rights. Understanding how these categories differ is important for exams in civics, polity, and general studies. Social rights are related to conditions that allow individuals to live a dignified life in society, while political rights deal with participation in the political process. This question checks whether the learner can distinguish between social rights like education or social security and a core political right such as voting in elections. Given Data / Assumptions: The question asks which right is not normally regarded as a social right. All options list specific rights such as education and voting. We assume the standard classification used in political science, where different rights serve different functions. Concept / Approach: Social rights typically include rights that secure minimum conditions of welfare and social participation, such as the right to education, health, social security, and protection from exploitation or discrimination. Political rights, on the other hand, allow citizens to participate in the governance of the country. Key political rights include the right to vote, the right to contest elections, and the right to hold public office. Therefore, to answer this question, we classify each option: if it ensures welfare or social conditions it is a social right, and if it is directly about participation in political decision making it is a political right. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Examine the right to education. This right relates to access to schooling and learning, which is a classic example of a social right.Step 2: Examine the right to social security. It concerns support in times of unemployment, sickness, or old age, which is also a social right.Step 3: Examine the right to vote. This right allows citizens to choose their representatives and participate in elections, which is a political right.Step 4: Examine the right to equal access to public places and the right to protection from exploitation. These support equality and dignity in society and are treated as social rights or closely related civil rights.Step 5: Conclude that the right to vote is the one that does not belong to the category of social rights. Verification / Alternative check: An alternative check is to group rights by the questions they answer. If a right answers the question how can a person participate in choosing the government, it is a political right. If it answers the question what conditions are needed for a decent life in society, it is a social right. Only the right to vote directly deals with political participation. Confirming this logic once again shows that the right to vote stands apart from the other options as a political right. Why Other Options Are Wrong: The right to education ensures social development and is recognised as a social right in many constitutions and international covenants. The right to social security supports welfare and security in adverse conditions, which is also social in nature. The right to equal access to public places promotes social equality and non discrimination in daily life. The right to protection from exploitation protects vulnerable groups from unfair treatment and is again social and protective, not directly political. None of these rights directly relate to participating in elections. Common Pitfalls: Candidates sometimes assume that every right mentioned in the Constitution is either a fundamental right or a social right, and they overlook the special nature of political rights. Another common mistake is to treat social and political rights as the same because both sound important and public oriented. To avoid such confusion, it helps to remember that political rights focus on actions like voting, contesting, and forming parties, while social rights focus on education, health, security, and fairness in society. Final Answer: Right to vote

Question 16

In the context of Indian public finance, in which year was the wealth tax first formally introduced in India?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Wealth tax was a form of direct tax that was levied on the net wealth of individuals and certain entities in India. Although it has now been abolished, questions about its origin and the year of its introduction remain important for exams covering Indian economy, taxation, and financial history. Knowing when this tax was first introduced helps learners understand the evolution of the country tax system and the policy focus on equity by taxing not only income but also accumulated wealth. Given Data / Assumptions: The question asks about the year in which wealth tax was first introduced in India. We are given four main years related to different tax and economic reforms plus one extra year. We assume the reference is to the Wealth Tax Act enacted at the national level. Concept / Approach: The Wealth Tax Act was passed in the late nineteen fifties as a part of the policy to reduce inequality in the distribution of wealth. It came into effect from the assessment year following its introduction. The key task here is to match the correct historical year with the introduction of this Act. Many economic and taxation reforms took place in the nineteen nineties and nineteen seventies, but the specific law on wealth tax belongs to the nineteen fifties. Remembering this helps separate it from later reforms related to liberalisation or changes in income tax laws. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that the Wealth Tax Act was introduced in the late nineteen fifties as a direct tax on net wealth.Step 2: Eliminate years that do not match this timeline, such as 1976 and 1991, which are much later and associated with other economic events.Step 3: Compare the remaining options 1948 and 1957. The year 1948 is too early, since the new tax framework was still evolving after independence.Step 4: Identify 1957 as the year in which the Wealth Tax Act was enacted and implemented.Step 5: Select 1957 as the final answer. Verification / Alternative check: An additional check can be done by recalling that many Indian taxation laws including the Income Tax Act 1961 and others followed after the 1957 period. Wealth tax was one of the earlier experiments with direct taxes on assets. Textbooks on public finance and standard exam guides consistently state that wealth tax was first introduced in 1957. Comparing this with known dates of other major reforms makes 1957 stand out as the only historically consistent option. Why Other Options Are Wrong: The year 1948 is very soon after independence and is not the correct date for the Wealth Tax Act, though many financial adjustments were happening then. The years 1976 and 1991 are associated with different types of reforms; 1991 in particular is linked with liberalisation, not the birth of wealth tax. The extra option 1969 is linked with events like bank nationalisation, again not with wealth tax introduction. Therefore these years do not match the specific law being asked about. Common Pitfalls: Students often confuse the introduction of wealth tax with broad economic reforms in 1991 or with the Income Tax Act of 1961, because those events are widely discussed. Another mistake is to guess a year close to independence. A helpful strategy is to place key economic laws on a mental timeline and remember that wealth tax falls between independence and the Income Tax Act time period, making the late nineteen fifties the correct zone. Final Answer: 1957

Question 17

Under the Constitution of India, the power to carve out or create a new state is vested in which of the following authorities?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: India is a federal country with a strong centre, and the power to alter the map of the country is an important constitutional subject. The Constitution lays down a specific procedure under which new states can be created, boundaries can be changed, or names can be altered. Questions about who finally holds this power are very common in exams on Indian polity. This question checks whether the learner knows that the authority is not an ad hoc commission or the President alone, but the Parliament acting under a constitutional provision. Given Data / Assumptions: The question refers to the power to carve out a new state within the Union of India. Several authorities are suggested, including Parliament, the President, the Council of Ministers, a commission, and the Supreme Court. We assume the procedure is the one laid down mainly in Article 3 of the Constitution. Concept / Approach: Article 3 of the Constitution of India empowers the Parliament to form new states, change areas, boundaries, or names of existing states. The President plays a role by recommending a Bill to Parliament and by referring it to the concerned state legislature for its views. However, the opinion of the state legislature is not binding on Parliament. Commissions like the States Reorganisation Commission may advise, but they do not enjoy constitutional law making power. The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution but does not itself pass such laws. Therefore, the key concept is that the final law making authority in this matter is the Parliament of India. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that the power to create a new state is contained in Article 3 of the Constitution.Step 2: Note that a Bill for this purpose can be introduced in Parliament only with the prior recommendation of the President.Step 3: Understand that the President then refers the Bill to the concerned state legislature to seek its opinion.Step 4: Recognise that despite this consultation, the actual law creating or altering a state is passed by Parliament as an ordinary law.Step 5: Conclude that the power to carve out a new state is vested in the Parliament of India. Verification / Alternative check: A cross check can be made by recalling recent state formations, such as the creation of Telangana. In each case, a Reorganisation Act was passed by the Parliament after the constitutional procedure. While the President was involved in recommending the Bill and state legislatures gave their views, it was Parliament that passed the law. The Supreme Court did not create the state through a judgment, and no commission directly created it by an order. This practical example confirms that the final power lies with Parliament. Why Other Options Are Wrong: The Council of Ministers advises the President but does not itself enact the law. The President has to recommend the Bill and perform a consultative role, yet does not alone exercise the power to create states. The States Reorganisation Commission, historically important in recommending changes, had advisory status only. The Supreme Court may review constitutional questions that arise, but it does not itself pass the Reorganisation Act. Hence these bodies are involved in different ways but are not the primary holders of this power. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes assume that because the President gives prior recommendation, the President must be the real authority. Others confuse advisory commissions with constitutional organs. It is important to remember that in a parliamentary democracy, law making power lies in Parliament. For questions about creation or alteration of states, the safe rule is to link the final power with Parliament, not with the President acting alone. Final Answer: The Parliament of India

Question 18

Who is the only Speaker of the Lok Sabha who later went on to become the President of India?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Indian constitutional history includes several distinguished leaders who have held more than one high constitutional post. The Speaker of the Lok Sabha is the presiding officer of the lower house, while the President of India is the head of state. It is therefore a notable fact when one person has occupied both roles. This question asks about the only leader who first served as Speaker of the Lok Sabha and later became President of India, which is a favourite factual point in polity and general knowledge exams. Given Data / Assumptions: The focus is on someone who has been both Lok Sabha Speaker and later President. Options list several presidents and senior leaders. We need to recall their earlier positions before they became President. Concept / Approach: Neelam Sanjiva Reddy was the first person to be elected unopposed as President of India and is also remembered as a former Speaker of the Lok Sabha. He served as the sixth Speaker of the Lok Sabha before assuming the office of President. Other leaders in the options also became President, but they did not serve as Speaker of the Lok Sabha. To answer correctly, we link each name with their primary constitutional roles and eliminate those who never held the Speaker office. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that Neelam Sanjiva Reddy was Speaker of the Lok Sabha in the early years after independence.Step 2: Remember that he later became President of India and was elected to that post without any rival candidate.Step 3: Check the other options. V V Giri served as Vice President and then President but was not Speaker.Step 4: Zail Singh was a former Chief Minister and Union Home Minister, not Speaker.Step 5: S Radhakrishnan and Pranab Mukherjee held other high offices but never served as Speaker of the Lok Sabha. Therefore the only correct option is Neelam Sanjiva Reddy. Verification / Alternative check: An alternative confirmation is to review the list of Speakers and Presidents in standard polity books. Among all Presidents listed, only the name of Neelam Sanjiva Reddy appears in the list of former Speakers. Additionally, exam guides often highlight him with the special note that he was elected President unopposed, which is another unique fact associated with him. Matching this with the historical record confirms that no other name in the options satisfies both conditions. Why Other Options Are Wrong: V V Giri was the fourth President of India and earlier served as Vice President, but he did not chair the Lok Sabha as Speaker. Zail Singh was a former Chief Minister of Punjab and Union Home Minister. S Radhakrishnan was a philosopher and served as Vice President and then President. Pranab Mukherjee held offices like Finance Minister and External Affairs Minister, later becoming President, but he was never Speaker. Hence, these names do not match the combination asked in the question. Common Pitfalls: Many learners confuse the posts of Speaker and Vice President because both have roles in the Parliament. Another common mistake is to assume that popular Presidents like S Radhakrishnan or Pranab Mukherjee must have held all major offices. The safest approach is to memorise one or two unique facts about each President. For Neelam Sanjiva Reddy, the key facts are his unopposed election and his earlier role as Speaker of the Lok Sabha. Final Answer: Neelam Sanjiva Reddy

Question 19

In parliamentary practice, when the Speaker of the Lok Sabha asks a member to stop speaking and allows another member to speak, this action is known as what?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Parliamentary procedure uses a number of specialised terms to describe what happens on the floor of the house. Members speak, raise motions, and sometimes yield time to others. Understanding these terms is important for learning how debates are conducted and controlled by the Speaker. This question focuses on the specific expression used when one member stops speaking and allows another to take the floor at the direction or suggestion of the presiding officer. Given Data / Assumptions: The scenario describes a member stopping a speech so that another can speak. The Speaker is involved in managing the change of speakers. Several options mention common parliamentary terms such as calling attention motions and points of order. Concept / Approach: In parliamentary language, the expression yield the floor means that a member who is currently speaking gives up the right to speak so that someone else may speak. This may happen either voluntarily, when a member willingly allows another to intervene, or under the guidance of the Speaker, who regulates the proceedings. Crossing the floor refers to changing party allegiance or voting against the party line. Calling Attention Motion and Adjournment Motion are specific devices to raise issues. A point of order is raised when a member believes that rules are not being followed. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Note that the key feature in the question is a member stopping a speech so another may speak.Step 2: Recall that in procedural language, this act is described as yielding the floor.Step 3: Compare this with crossing the floor, which relates to voting behaviour rather than speaking time.Step 4: Recognise that calling attention and adjournment motions are formal motions to raise issues and not simple changes in who is speaking.Step 5: Observe that a point of order is about questioning procedure, not voluntarily stopping a speech. Hence, the correct term is yielding the floor. Verification / Alternative check: A second way to check is to think about the word floor. In legislative bodies, having the floor means having the right to speak at that moment. Therefore, to yield the floor logically means to give up that right. Most standard books on parliamentary procedure, including those that discuss the practices in the Indian Parliament and other commonwealth legislatures, use this expression in exactly this sense. This supports the choice beyond simple memorisation. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Crossing the floor describes members who change sides or vote against their party and is sometimes used when they physically move to a different side of the house. Calling Attention Motion is a tool allowing members to call the attention of a minister to a matter of urgent public importance. A point of order is raised to question whether rules and procedures are being followed correctly. Adjournment Motion is used to interrupt normal business to discuss a matter of urgent importance. None of these terms describes a member simply allowing another to speak. Common Pitfalls: Learners sometimes confuse all parliamentary terms with one another because they sound technical and are rarely heard outside the legislature. Another error is to link any action governed by rules to a point of order, although that term has a very narrow meaning. A good strategy is to connect each term with a short story or image, such as imagining a member physically yielding the floor to another when you think of the phrase yielding the floor. Final Answer: Yielding the floor

Question 20

Which Article of the Constitution of India provides for free and compulsory education for children between 6 and 14 years of age?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Education is a key element of social development, and the Indian Constitution has gradually strengthened the commitment to educate children. Originally, the obligation was stated as a Directive Principle, but later a specific Fundamental Right was added. This question tests whether the learner can correctly identify the Article that guarantees free and compulsory education for children in the age group of 6 to 14 years. Knowing the relevant Article number is important for exams that cover education policy and constitutional amendments. Given Data / Assumptions: The subject is free and compulsory education for children between 6 and 14 years. Options mention Article 21A and other nearby provisions. Article 45 is also given, which historically dealt with education as a Directive Principle. Concept / Approach: Originally, Article 45 in Part IV directed the state to provide free and compulsory education to children up to a certain age, but it was not justiciable. Later, the Constitution was amended by inserting Article 21A in Part III, making education a Fundamental Right for children between 6 and 14 years. Article 21A states that the state shall provide free and compulsory education to all children in that age group, in such manner as the state may by law determine. Therefore, while Article 45 remains important as a Directive Principle, the enforceable right is now associated with Article 21A. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that the right to education for children aged 6 to 14 was made a Fundamental Right through a constitutional amendment.Step 2: Remember that this new right was placed in Part III and numbered as Article 21A, close to Article 21 which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.Step 3: Note that Articles 21B, 21C, and 21D are not the standard designations for this right in the Constitution.Step 4: Recognise that Article 45, in the Directive Principles, earlier talked about providing free and compulsory education but is not the Fundamental Right itself.Step 5: Conclude that Article 21A is the correct answer. Verification / Alternative check: One more way to verify is to recall that the right to education law, the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, is often linked in exam guides with Article 21A. Textbooks on Indian polity clearly state that Article 21A was inserted by the Eighty Sixth Amendment. They also explain that Article 45 was modified to focus on early childhood care and education. This cross reference confirms that Article 21A is the constitutional anchor for free and compulsory education between 6 and 14 years. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Articles 21B, 21C, and 21D are not recognised as the provisions creating this right. They are distractors included simply to test memory. Article 45, while historically connected with education, is a Directive Principle and not the Fundamental Right introduced later. It therefore does not fully meet the description given in the question, which is about the constitutional Article that guarantees free and compulsory education as a right within the fundamental rights framework. Common Pitfalls: Some students remember that education appears in Article 45 and choose it out of habit, forgetting that the status of education changed after the constitutional amendment. Others see the cluster of 21 type Articles and get confused among them. A good memory aid is to link the right to education directly with the right to life and recall that the number 21A sits next to Article 21, symbolising that education supports a life of dignity. Final Answer: Article 21A

Indian Politics Questions