Question 1

How many members were originally included in the Drafting Committee of the Indian Constitution that was chaired by Dr B. R. Ambedkar?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question is drawn from the history of the making of the Constitution of India. The Constituent Assembly set up several committees to deal with different aspects of constitution making. One of the most important among these was the Drafting Committee, chaired by Dr B. R. Ambedkar, which prepared the actual draft text of the Constitution. Remembering the number of members in this committee is a common factual requirement in civics and polity exams. Given Data / Assumptions: The committee in question is the Drafting Committee of the Constituent Assembly. It was chaired by Dr B. R. Ambedkar. Options suggest various possible sizes for the committee: seven, nine, eleven, thirteen, and five members. We assume standard historical accounts of the Constituent Assembly and its committees. Concept / Approach: The Drafting Committee was appointed on 29 August 1947 and consisted of Dr B. R. Ambedkar as Chairman along with six other members, making a total of seven. The names often noted include N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar, Alladi Krishnaswamy Ayyar, K. M. Munshi, Mohammad Saadulla, B. L. Mitter (later replaced by N. Madhava Rau) and D. P. Khaitan (later replaced by T. T. Krishnamachari). Many exam questions require you to recall this number and sometimes even the names of the members. Step-by-Step Solution: 1. Identify that the question is about the Drafting Committee and not about the Constituent Assembly as a whole. 2. Recall that the Drafting Committee was chaired by Dr B. R. Ambedkar. 3. Remember that including the Chairperson, the committee had seven members. 4. Therefore, out of the numerical choices given, seven is the correct total strength. 5. Mark Seven as the correct answer. Verification / Alternative check: Standard references on the formation of the Constitution consistently list seven members on the Drafting Committee. This figure appears in NCERT books, polity textbooks, and exam guides. The larger bodies like the Constituent Assembly itself had a much larger membership, so any number like eleven or thirteen would correspond to some other context, not the Drafting Committee. Verifying from multiple sources reinforces that seven is accurate. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Nine: There was no nine member Drafting Committee; this number is sometimes used to confuse students who recall that there were multiple important committees. Eleven: Does not match the documented size of the Drafting Committee. Thirteen: Also incorrect; some committees or commissions in other contexts had larger memberships, but not this one. Five: Too small and does not correspond to the historical record. Common Pitfalls: Learners sometimes confuse the Drafting Committee with the total number of committees or subcommittees set up by the Constituent Assembly. Another mistake is to remember that there were several prominent leaders and assume a larger number of members. A good strategy is to memorise a few core facts together: the Drafting Committee was set up on 29 August 1947, was chaired by Ambedkar, and had seven members including him. Final Answer: The Drafting Committee of the Indian Constitution, chaired by Dr B. R. Ambedkar, originally had seven members in total.

Question 2

When a Bill is referred to a joint sitting of both Houses of the Indian Parliament, by what kind of majority must it be passed in that joint sitting for it to become law?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question concerns the procedure followed when there is a deadlock between the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha over a Bill, and the President convenes a joint sitting of Parliament. Understanding what kind of majority is needed to pass a Bill in such a joint sitting is important for grasping how conflicts between the two Houses are resolved in the Indian parliamentary system. Article 108 of the Constitution deals with joint sittings and the rules governing them. Given Data / Assumptions: The situation is that a Bill has been referred to a joint sitting of both Houses of Parliament. We are asked about the majority required at that joint sitting for the Bill to pass. Options include different forms of majority: simple, three fourths, two thirds of total membership, absolute majority, and unanimous consent. We assume that standard constitutional provisions and rules of procedure apply. Concept / Approach: In most legislative voting contexts in India, unless a special majority is explicitly required (for example, for constitutional amendments), decisions are taken by a simple majority of members present and voting. A joint sitting for an ordinary Bill is meant to break a deadlock and does not generally require a special majority. The Constitution and parliamentary practice confirm that in a joint sitting convened under Article 108, the Bill is passed if it receives a simple majority of the members present and voting. Step-by-Step Solution: 1. Recognise that the question is about a joint sitting under Article 108, generally used for ordinary Bills. 2. Recall that special majorities such as two thirds of total membership are usually reserved for constitutional amendments, not ordinary Bills. 3. The rules for a joint sitting state that decisions are taken by a majority of the members present and voting, which is a simple majority. 4. Therefore, any requirement of three fourths, two thirds of total membership, absolute majority or unanimity is incorrect for this context. 5. Hence, the Bill must be passed by a simple majority of members present and voting in the joint sitting. Verification / Alternative check: Polity textbooks and exam guides clearly mention that in a joint sitting convened to resolve deadlock, each member present, whether from the Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha, has one vote, and the Bill is decided by a simple majority of those present and voting. There is no instruction for a super majority in this situation. Constitutional amendment Bills are treated differently and are not resolved by joint sittings, which further confirms that the joint sitting majority is simple and not special. Why Other Options Are Wrong: A three fourths majority of members present and voting: This is an unusually high threshold not prescribed for joint sittings. A two thirds majority of the total membership of both Houses: This kind of requirement is typical for certain constitutional amendments, not for ordinary Bills at joint sittings. An absolute majority of the total membership of both Houses: Again, this is a special majority not specified for joint sittings under Article 108. Unanimous consent of all members present: Unanimity is not required and would make the process impractical; the Constitution does not demand this. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes confuse the voting requirements for constitutional amendments with those for ordinary legislation. Another common mistake is to think that because a joint sitting is an exceptional procedure, it must require an exceptionally high majority. In reality, the purpose is to overcome a deadlock through a straightforward majority vote. A reliable approach is to remember that joint sittings apply to ordinary Bills and that ordinary Bills typically need only a simple majority of members present and voting. Final Answer: In a joint sitting of both Houses of Parliament, a Bill is passed if it secures a simple majority of members present and voting.

Question 3

Former Union Minister Ashwani Kumar was conferred the prestigious "Order of the Rising Sun" in recognition of his services by which of the following countries?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question is from the area of current affairs and honours or decorations given by foreign governments to Indian personalities. The Order of the Rising Sun is one of the highest civilian honours conferred by a specific country, particularly for contributions in promoting relations with that country. Knowing which country awards this decoration and identifying it correctly in multiple choice questions is a useful piece of factual knowledge for competitive exams. Given Data / Assumptions: The subject is former Union Minister Ashwani Kumar. He was conferred the Order of the Rising Sun for his services. The options include India, China, Iraq, Japan and South Korea. We assume standard awareness of major international honours and their awarding countries. Concept / Approach: The Order of the Rising Sun is a Japanese order established in the nineteenth century. It is awarded by the Government of Japan to individuals, both Japanese and foreign, who have made distinguished achievements in international relations, promotion of Japanese culture, or advancement in their fields. When a question mentions the Order of the Rising Sun and an Indian recipient, the expected association is always with Japan. None of the other listed countries uses this name for their national honours. Step-by-Step Solution: 1. Recognise the phrase Order of the Rising Sun as the name of a national order of merit. 2. Recall that the rising sun symbol is strongly associated with Japan, historically and culturally. 3. The Government of Japan confers the Order of the Rising Sun on foreign nationals, including Indian leaders, for contributions to Japan India relations. 4. The other countries listed, such as China, Iraq or South Korea, have different names for their national honours. 5. Therefore, the country that conferred this order on Ashwani Kumar is Japan. Verification / Alternative check: News reports, press releases and government notifications about awards to Indian dignitaries frequently mention that the Order of the Rising Sun is a Japanese decoration. In exam oriented magazines, it is also listed under important honours from foreign governments. The consistent description of this award as a Japanese order leaves little room for confusion once you have encountered it at least once in your reading. Why Other Options Are Wrong: India: India has its own set of civilian honours such as Bharat Ratna, Padma Vibhushan, Padma Bhushan and Padma Shri, not the Order of the Rising Sun. China: China grants honours under names related to the People's Republic and Chinese symbols, not this Japanese title. Iraq: Has its own decorations and orders linked to its national history, not the Order of the Rising Sun. South Korea: Uses different national orders and medals; the rising sun symbol and this specific title are not associated with it. Common Pitfalls: The main difficulty arises when candidates do not recall the specific country linked to each foreign honour. Some may confuse the rising sun symbol with general Asian imagery and guess China or some other East Asian country. To avoid such errors, it is helpful to remember a few key associations: Order of the Rising Sun is Japan, Legion of Honour is France, and so on. Creating a small mental or written list of such pairs can be very useful for quick recall. Final Answer: The Order of the Rising Sun awarded to Ashwani Kumar is a national honour of Japan.

Question 4

What was the exact constitutional description of the Indian Republic on 26 January 1950, the day the Constitution of India was inaugurated and came into force?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question tests your knowledge of the exact wording of the Preamble and the constitutional status of India on 26 January 1950, the date on which the Constitution came into effect and India became a Republic. It is important to distinguish between the original text of the Preamble and the changes that were introduced later through constitutional amendments. Many exam questions ask you to identify which words were added later and what the original description of India was at the time of inauguration of the Constitution. Given Data / Assumptions: The date in focus is 26 January 1950. We are asked about the exact constitutional status of the Indian Republic on that date. Options include phrases such as Democratic Republic, Sovereign Secular Democratic Republic, Sovereign Democratic Republic, and Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic, as well as Federal Democratic Republic. We assume familiarity with the Preamble before and after the Forty Second Amendment. Concept / Approach: Originally, the Preamble described India as a Sovereign Democratic Republic. The words Socialist and Secular were inserted later by the Forty Second Amendment Act of 1976, which changed the description to Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic. Therefore, in 1950, the Preamble did not contain the terms Socialist or Secular. It already contained the word Sovereign, so the phrase A Sovereign Democratic Republic is the correct one for that time. The option that includes both Sovereign and Democratic Republic but not Socialist or Secular matches the original position. Step-by-Step Solution: 1. Recall the original Preamble before the Forty Second Amendment: it began with the words Sovereign Democratic Republic. 2. Note that the words Socialist and Secular were added much later in 1976, long after 1950. 3. Therefore, any option mentioning Socialist or Secular cannot describe the constitutional status on 26 January 1950. 4. The option A Democratic Republic omits the word Sovereign, which was present from the beginning and is thus incomplete. 5. Hence, the correct description for 1950 is A Sovereign Democratic Republic. Verification / Alternative check: You may verify this by comparing the Preamble text as printed in older editions of the Constitution or in standard polity textbooks. They clearly show the original wording as Sovereign Democratic Republic, with Socialist and Secular added in brackets or highlighted as later insertions. The Forty Second Amendment is well known precisely because it altered the Preamble in this way. Remembering this sequence is a common exam requirement and confirms that A Sovereign Democratic Republic is the correct option for the year 1950. Why Other Options Are Wrong: A Democratic Republic: Misses the important word Sovereign and thus does not reflect the full original description. A Sovereign Secular Democratic Republic: Includes Secular, which was not part of the Preamble in 1950. A Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic: Includes both Socialist and Secular, words inserted by the Forty Second Amendment in 1976, not present in 1950. A Federal Democratic Republic: The word Federal is not used in the Preamble in this way, so this is incorrect. Common Pitfalls: A frequent mistake is to memorise only the current Preamble and forget that some words are later additions. As a result, candidates sometimes choose the option with Socialist and Secular even when the question specifically refers to the situation in 1950. The best way to avoid this is to clearly mark in your notes which parts of the Preamble are original and which came via amendment. This will help you handle questions about the Preamble across different years and contexts. Final Answer: On 26 January 1950, at the inauguration of the Constitution, India was described in the Preamble as a Sovereign Democratic Republic.

Question 5

When and where was "Jana Gana Mana", which later became the National Anthem of India, officially sung in public for the first time?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question belongs to the area of Indian national symbols and modern history. Jana Gana Mana, composed by Rabindranath Tagore, is the National Anthem of India. It is important to know not only the composer but also when and where it was first sung publicly in a formal setting. Many exam questions test this specific detail, as it connects the freedom movement, the Indian National Congress, and the later adoption of the song as the National Anthem. Given Data / Assumptions: The song in question is Jana Gana Mana, later adopted as the National Anthem. Different dates and locations are offered, including years 1911, 1942 and 1950, and cities Allahabad, Delhi and Calcutta. The task is to identify the combination that corresponds to the first public rendition in an official session. We assume standard historical accounts of Congress sessions and national symbols. Concept / Approach: Jana Gana Mana was first sung on 27 December 1911 during the Calcutta Session of the Indian National Congress. This was a formal political gathering that provided a national platform for the song. Much later, on 24 January 1950, it was officially adopted as the National Anthem by the Constituent Assembly, but that is a separate event. The important distinction is between first sung and officially adopted. The question clearly asks about the first singing, which points to 27 December 1911 in Calcutta. Step-by-Step Solution: 1. Recall that Jana Gana Mana was composed by Rabindranath Tagore in the early twentieth century. 2. The first public rendition in a formal political context took place at the Calcutta Session of the Indian National Congress. 3. That session took place on 27 December 1911. 4. The dates in 1950 relate to its adoption as the National Anthem, not its first singing. 5. Therefore, the correct option is 27 December 1911 in Calcutta. Verification / Alternative check: History texts on the national movement and reference works on national symbols consistently state that Jana Gana Mana was first sung at the Calcutta Session of the Indian National Congress on 27 December 1911. They also mention that the Constituent Assembly adopted it as the National Anthem on 24 January 1950. By comparing the events, one can see clearly that 1911 and Calcutta are associated with the first singing, while 1950 is associated with adoption. This dual timeline confirms that option d is correct. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 24 January 1950 in Allahabad: The adoption of the Anthem took place in Delhi, not Allahabad, and this date concerns adoption, not first singing. 24 January 1950 in Delhi: This is the date and place of adoption as National Anthem but not the first public rendition. 26 December 1942 in Calcutta: No major event regarding the first singing of Jana Gana Mana took place on this date. 15 August 1947 in New Delhi: Although an important date for independence, it is not the date of the first singing of Jana Gana Mana in a formal session. Common Pitfalls: Students often confuse the date of adoption of the National Anthem with the date of its first singing. This is because both events are important and often mentioned together. Another confusion arises from mixing up cities, since both Calcutta and Delhi are historically significant. To avoid mistakes, remember the pattern: first sung at the Congress session in Calcutta in 1911, formally adopted as National Anthem by the Constituent Assembly in Delhi in January 1950. Final Answer: Jana Gana Mana was first sung publicly in a formal setting on 27 December 1911 in Calcutta.

Question 6

In democratic theory, the phrase "consent of the people" generally means the approval or agreement of which section of the population?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question is rooted in basic political theory and the idea of popular sovereignty. In a democracy, governments are said to derive their authority from the consent of the governed. However, in practical terms, it is not possible to obtain the explicit approval of every single individual on every decision. The phrase consent of the people is therefore interpreted through mechanisms such as elections and majority rule. Understanding that this phrase implies the will of the majority rather than unanimity is essential for correctly interpreting democratic principles. Given Data / Assumptions: The phrase being interpreted is consent of the people. Options include all the people, majority of the people, leader of the people, a few people, and only elected representatives. We assume a standard textbook understanding of democratic consent, elections and majority rule. Concept / Approach: In democratic practice, laws and governments are considered legitimate when they are supported by the will of the majority expressed through free and fair elections or representative institutions. While minority rights are protected, decision making generally follows the principle of majority rule. It is impossible to satisfy every individual on every issue, so the idea of consent of the people is operationalised as the consent of a majority, subject to constitutional limits that safeguard fundamental rights and minority interests. Step-by-Step Solution: 1. Recognise that the phrase comes from democratic theory, where political authority must be justified by popular support. 2. Understand that it is practically impossible to secure the agreement of every single citizen on every policy. 3. In elections and legislative votes, decisions are normally taken based on majority rule among those who participate. 4. Therefore, consent of the people is interpreted as consent of the majority of the people, while still respecting minority rights. 5. Hence, the correct answer is majority of the people. Verification / Alternative check: Political science textbooks often define democracy as government by the people, usually through representatives chosen by the majority. They emphasise that while unanimity is ideal, majority consent is the practical standard. Electoral systems, referendums and legislative voting procedures all rely on majority decisions. This consistent pattern confirms that consent of the people essentially means consent of the majority, not of every individual or of a small elite. Why Other Options Are Wrong: All the people: Unanimous consent is extremely rare and not required for normal democratic decision making. Leader of the people: Democracy is based on the will of the people, not just the preference of a single leader. A few influential people: That would describe oligarchy or rule by an elite, not genuine popular consent. Only elected representatives: Representatives act on behalf of the people, but their legitimacy comes from majority support of voters, not from their own consent alone. Common Pitfalls: Some candidates misread the phrase and assume that because democracy is supposed to be by all the people, consent must be literally unanimous. Others are distracted by the idea that leaders or representatives alone give consent. To avoid such confusion, always connect abstract phrases like consent of the people back to their practical expression through elections and majority rule. This will guide you to majority of the people as the correct interpretation in most basic theory questions. Final Answer: In democratic practice, consent of the people is understood as the consent of the majority of the people.

Question 7

In the Indian constitutional framework, which of the following is regarded as the ultimate custodian and interpreter of the Constitution of India?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question explores the role of different organs of the Indian state in relation to the Constitution. While all organs are bound by the Constitution, one institution has the special responsibility of interpreting the Constitution and ensuring that laws and executive actions conform to it. This institution is often described as the guardian or custodian of the Constitution. Knowing which body plays this role is crucial for understanding judicial review, separation of powers and constitutional supremacy. Given Data / Assumptions: The options include the Supreme Court, Cabinet Ministers, President, Parliament and the Election Commission of India. The phrase custodian of the Constitution refers to the authority that ultimately interprets and safeguards the Constitution. We assume standard understanding of the powers given by the Constitution to each organ. Concept / Approach: In India, the Supreme Court has the power of judicial review, which allows it to examine the constitutionality of laws and executive actions. When there is a dispute about the meaning of a constitutional provision, the Supreme Court gives the authoritative interpretation. Its judgments become binding precedents. The President and Parliament are important constitutional organs but they are not the final interpreters of the Constitution. Therefore, the Supreme Court is widely described as the guardian and custodian of the Constitution of India. Step-by-Step Solution: 1. Identify that the question is about who finally interprets the Constitution and ensures its supremacy. 2. Recall that the Supreme Court has the power of judicial review over laws and executive actions. 3. Note that Parliament can make laws, but those laws are subject to constitutional limits and can be struck down by the Supreme Court if they violate the Constitution. 4. The President acts on the advice of the Council of Ministers and does not independently decide constitutional validity. 5. Thus, the Supreme Court is the ultimate custodian and interpreter of the Constitution. Verification / Alternative check: Polity books frequently state that the Supreme Court is the guardian of the Constitution. They explain that one of the most important functions of the Supreme Court is to protect fundamental rights and to interpret the Constitution in cases of dispute. Historical judgments, such as those on basic structure doctrine, illustrate that the Court can even limit parliamentary amendments if they violate core constitutional principles. This confirms its custodial role. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Cabinet Ministers: They are part of the executive and must function within the limits set by the Constitution and judicial interpretations. President: The President is the head of the State but generally acts on ministerial advice and does not directly interpret the Constitution in a binding way. Parliament: Parliament is the supreme law making body, but its laws and even its constitutional amendments are subject to judicial review. Election Commission of India: It administers elections and ensures they are free and fair, but does not serve as the final interpreter of the Constitution. Common Pitfalls: A common misconception is to think that Parliament is supreme in all respects because it represents the people. In India, however, constitutional supremacy prevails, and Parliament itself is bound by constitutional limitations enforced by the judiciary. Another source of confusion is the ceremonial position of the President as head of the Union, but without the role of deciding constitutional disputes. Remembering that judicial review is the key mechanism for constitutional protection will direct you to the Supreme Court as the correct answer. Final Answer: The ultimate custodian and interpreter of the Constitution of India is the Supreme Court.

Question 8

How many sessions of the Indian Constituent Assembly were held in total for the purpose of framing and finalising the Constitution of India?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question concerns the working of the Constituent Assembly of India, the body that drafted and adopted the Constitution. The Assembly did not sit continuously; instead, it met in a series of sessions over nearly three years. Questions about the total number of sessions are common in exams, and remembering this basic numerical fact is part of mastering the chapter on the making of the Constitution. Given Data / Assumptions: The subject is the Indian Constituent Assembly that framed the Constitution. We are asked for the total number of sessions it held. Options include 7, 11, 12, 15 and 9 sessions. We assume standard historical information as given in NCERT and polity books. Concept / Approach: The Constituent Assembly met for a total of 11 sessions between December 1946 and November 1949. During these sessions, it debated various provisions, considered committee reports, and gradually finalised the text of the Constitution. Knowing the start and end dates (9 December 1946 for the first meeting and 26 November 1949 for adoption) is useful, but the specific question here is about the count of sessions, which is eleven. Step-by-Step Solution: 1. Recall that the Constituent Assembly began its work in December 1946 and completed it in November 1949. 2. Over this period, it met periodically rather than continuously. 3. Historical records show that the Assembly held 11 separate sessions in total. 4. Therefore, out of the numerical options given, 11 is the correct number. 5. Select 11 as the final answer. Verification / Alternative check: Textbooks typically provide a table or note stating that the Constituent Assembly met for 11 sessions over approximately 2 years and 11 months, holding 165 sittings in that period. This specific figure of 11 sessions is standard and is repeated in many exam preparation materials. Cross checking with more than one source will show the same number, confirming that 11 is correct and not 7, 12, 15 or 9. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 7: Too few and does not match documented counts. 12: Slightly above the correct number and may be used as a distractor for those who remember an approximate figure. 15: Much larger than the actual number of sessions. 9: Also incorrect and likely included to confuse candidates who do not recall the exact number. Common Pitfalls: Many students remember the duration of the Assembly but not the exact number of sessions. Others confuse the number of sessions with the number of days or sittings. A useful tip is to memorise a small set of core facts together: the Constituent Assembly worked for about 2 years and 11 months, held 11 sessions, and took 165 days of formal sittings to complete the Constitution. Linking these facts makes it easier to recall the correct numbers during the exam. Final Answer: The Indian Constituent Assembly held a total of 11 sessions for framing and finalising the Constitution of India.

Question 9

In which country was the first full fledged parliamentary form of government, often called the Westminster model, historically developed?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question is about the historical origin of the parliamentary form of government. Many modern democracies today are parliamentary, presidential or mixed, but the classic parliamentary model, often referred to as the Westminster model, evolved in one specific country. India adopted this parliamentary system from that country, and exam questions frequently ask you to identify its origin in order to connect comparative politics with Indian polity. Given Data / Assumptions: The focus is on the first parliamentary form of government, historically developed in one country. Options include Britain, Belgium, France, Switzerland and the United States. We assume standard political science understanding of the Westminster model and its origin. Concept / Approach: The parliamentary system emerged gradually in Great Britain, where the monarch's powers were progressively limited and the Cabinet became responsible to Parliament, particularly the lower house, the House of Commons. Over time, this system came to be known as the Westminster model, named after the Palace of Westminster where the British Parliament meets. India and many other Commonwealth countries adopted and adapted this model. Therefore, when asked about the first parliamentary government, the correct answer is Britain. Step-by-Step Solution: 1. Recognise that the parliamentary system in its classic form is called the Westminster model. 2. Westminster refers to the seat of the British Parliament in London. 3. It was in Britain that the Cabinet became collectively responsible to the elected House of Commons, a key feature of parliamentary government. 4. Other countries like Belgium, France and Switzerland later adopted different variants of parliamentary or mixed systems, but they were not the origin. 5. Hence, the first parliamentary form of government was developed in Britain. Verification / Alternative check: Comparative politics texts often divide democracies into Westminster style parliamentary systems, continental parliamentary systems, presidential systems and semi presidential systems. Under Westminster style, the model country is Great Britain. Indian polity books explicitly mention that India borrowed its parliamentary system from the British model. These cross references confirm that Britain is the correct answer when the question asks about the origin of the parliamentary form of government. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Belgium: It has a parliamentary system today but did not originate the Westminster model. France: Associated with republicanism and has used both parliamentary and presidential or semi presidential systems but is not the birthplace of the Westminster system. Switzerland: Known for direct democracy mechanisms and a special kind of collegial executive, not the original parliamentary model. United States of America: Origin of the modern presidential system, not the parliamentary system. Common Pitfalls: Some candidates misinterpret the phrase parliamentary form of government and confuse it with general democratic government, leading them to select countries like France or the United States that are well known democracies but not originators of the parliamentary model. The safest approach is to link parliamentary government with the Westminster model, remember that Westminster is in London, and thereby associate the origin with Britain. Final Answer: The first full fledged parliamentary form of government, the Westminster model, was historically developed in Britain.

Question 10

At which session of the Indian National Congress did the organisation officially accept the objective of establishing a "socialistic pattern of society" in India?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question belongs to the area of post independence political history and economic policy. After independence, the Indian National Congress as the ruling party had to articulate a clear long term economic and social vision. The phrase socialistic pattern of society became famous when the Congress officially adopted it as its goal at a particular session. Knowing the name, place and year of that session is a favourite theme in competitive exams. Given Data / Assumptions: We are asked about the specific Congress session where the socialistic pattern of society was accepted as an objective. Options include sessions at Bombay 1953, Avadi 1955, Calcutta 1957, Nagpur 1959 and Lahore 1929. We assume familiarity with important Congress resolutions and their chronology. Concept / Approach: At the Avadi Session of the Indian National Congress in 1955, the Congress officially declared that it stood for a socialistic pattern of society. This meant that planned economic development would aim at reducing inequalities, preventing concentration of wealth and ensuring that the basic needs of the people were met. Later, this idea influenced Five Year Plans and policy measures. Other sessions listed in the options are important for different reasons, such as the Lahore Session of 1929 for the Purna Swaraj resolution, but they are not associated with the adoption of the socialistic pattern. Step-by-Step Solution: 1. Recall that the term socialistic pattern of society entered official Congress resolutions in the mid 1950s. 2. The Avadi Session held in 1955 is well known for this declaration. 3. Bombay 1953, Calcutta 1957 and Nagpur 1959 were important sessions but did not introduce this exact phrase as the guiding objective. 4. The Lahore Session of 1929 is associated with the demand for complete independence, not with post independence economic policy. 5. Therefore, the correct answer is the Avadi Session of 1955. Verification / Alternative check: Standard Indian history and polity texts mention that the Avadi Session of the Congress in 1955 adopted the resolution that the Congress stands for the establishment of a socialistic pattern of society. This fact is repeated in discussions about planning, mixed economy and public sector expansion. None of the other sessions listed in the options are given this specific credit, which confirms that Avadi 1955 is the correct identification. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Bombay Session of 1953: Important for political discussions, but not for formally adopting the socialistic pattern phrase. Calcutta Session of 1957: Took place after Avadi and dealt with many issues but did not introduce this objective. Nagpur Session of 1959: Associated with other organisational and policy matters, not the first adoption of the socialistic pattern. Lahore Session of 1929: Famous for the Purna Swaraj resolution and independence demand, long before independence and planned economic policy debates. Common Pitfalls: Candidates sometimes mix up various Congress sessions and their resolutions because there are many important dates to remember. To avoid confusion, link each major phrase with a specific session: Purna Swaraj with Lahore 1929, socialistic pattern of society with Avadi 1955, and so on. Creating a small chart of Congress sessions and key resolutions is a practical revision tool that can reduce such errors in the exam hall. Final Answer: The Indian National Congress officially accepted the objective of a socialistic pattern of society at the Avadi Session of 1955.

Question 11

For the enforcement and protection of Fundamental Rights in India, which of the following can a court issue under its constitutional powers?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question is about the legal remedies available for enforcing Fundamental Rights in India. Part III of the Constitution guarantees these rights, and Article 32 and Article 226 empower the Supreme Court and High Courts respectively to issue specific legal instruments to protect them. Knowing the name of these instruments and distinguishing them from other legal or executive measures is a key part of Indian polity. Given Data / Assumptions: The focus is on enforcement of Fundamental Rights by courts. Options include decree, ordinance, notification, writ and money bill. We assume familiarity with basic constitutional provisions about remedies and the jurisdiction of higher courts. Concept / Approach: Article 32 of the Constitution gives the Supreme Court the power to issue writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights. Similarly, Article 226 empowers High Courts to issue writs not only for Fundamental Rights but also for other legal rights. Typical writs include habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari. Decrees, ordinances, notifications and money bills are different legal or legislative instruments and are not specifically remedies for protecting Fundamental Rights. Step-by-Step Solution: 1. Understand that the question asks specifically about enforcement of Fundamental Rights, which leads you to think of Articles 32 and 226. 2. Recall that these Articles mention the power of courts to issue writs such as habeas corpus and mandamus. 3. Decrees are final orders passed by civil courts in suits, not special constitutional remedies for rights. 4. Ordinances are temporary laws issued by the President or Governors, and notifications are administrative communications. 5. Therefore, the correct constitutional instrument for enforcing Fundamental Rights is a writ. Verification / Alternative check: Polity textbooks emphasise Dr B. R. Ambedkar's description of Article 32 as the very soul of the Constitution because it allows citizens to approach the Supreme Court directly for enforcement of Fundamental Rights through writs. High Courts have similar powers under Article 226. None of the other terminologies listed in the options are associated with this special jurisdiction. This confirms that writ is the correct answer. Why Other Options Are Wrong: A decree: It is a formal expression of adjudication in a civil suit, not a special constitutional remedy for Fundamental Rights. An ordinance: A temporary law promulgated by the President or a Governor when the legislature is not in session; it does not enforce Fundamental Rights by itself. A notification: An administrative tool used by the government to communicate decisions; it is not a judicial remedy. A money bill: A type of bill dealing with financial matters, introduced in the legislature, unrelated to court enforcement of rights. Common Pitfalls: Some candidates confuse general legal terms like decree or notification with constitutional remedies. Another mistake is to focus on ordinances as powerful laws and think they might somehow be used to protect rights. Remember that enforcement of Fundamental Rights is primarily a judicial function using writ jurisdiction. Keeping this distinction clear between judicial remedies and legislative or executive instruments will help answer many similar questions correctly. Final Answer: For enforcing and protecting Fundamental Rights, a court in India can issue a writ under its constitutional powers.

Question 12

Which of the following is not listed as a Fundamental Right in the Constitution of India, but instead belongs to other parts such as the Directive Principles of State Policy?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question checks your ability to distinguish between Fundamental Rights in Part III of the Constitution and other important provisions such as Directive Principles of State Policy in Part IV. Many rights sounding phrases appear in different parts of the Constitution, but only some of them are enforceable as Fundamental Rights through the courts. Understanding which rights are justiciable and which are non justiciable policy directions is essential for mastering Indian polity. Given Data / Assumptions: The options list several rights related expressions: freedom of speech, equality before law, Constitutional remedies, equal wages for equal work, and protection against exploitation. We are asked to identify which one is not a Fundamental Right. We assume familiarity with the structure of Part III and Part IV of the Constitution. Concept / Approach: Fundamental Rights in Part III include the Right to Equality, Right to Freedom, Right against Exploitation, Right to Freedom of Religion, Cultural and Educational Rights and the Right to Constitutional Remedies. Within these, equality before law and freedom of speech are clearly specified. The Right to Constitutional Remedies allows citizens to move the courts for enforcement of these rights. On the other hand, the principle of equal pay for equal work appears as a Directive Principle of State Policy in Article 39, which is not directly enforceable as a Fundamental Right, although courts may use it for interpretation. Step-by-Step Solution: 1. Identify which of the listed rights clearly belong to Part III of the Constitution. 2. Right to freedom of speech is part of Article 19 under the Right to Freedom. 3. Right to equality before law is part of Article 14 under the Right to Equality. 4. Right to Constitutional remedies is covered by Article 32 and is itself a Fundamental Right. 5. Right against exploitation covers Articles 23 and 24, forming another Fundamental Right. 6. Equal wages or equal pay for equal work is mentioned in Directive Principles, not in Part III, so it is not a Fundamental Right. Verification / Alternative check: If you refer to a standard listing of Fundamental Rights, you will not find equal wages for equal work as a separate right. Instead, this concept is mentioned in Article 39 under the Directive Principles which guide state policy in areas like livelihood and social justice. While the Supreme Court has sometimes read aspects of equality into labour rights, the phrase equal pay for equal work still belongs mainly to the Directive Principles. This confirms that it is not itself a Fundamental Right, unlike the other options listed. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Right to freedom of speech: Explicitly guaranteed in Article 19(1)(a) as a Fundamental Right. Right to equality before law: Guaranteed under Article 14 as part of the Right to Equality. Right to Constitutional remedies: Provided by Article 32, enabling enforcement of Fundamental Rights. Right against exploitation: Enshrined in Articles 23 and 24 as a Fundamental Right. Common Pitfalls: Because the phrase equal wages for equal work sounds very much like an individual right, students sometimes assume it must be a Fundamental Right. The key is to remember the division of the Constitution: Part III contains enforceable rights, while Part IV contains non justiciable policy guidelines such as Article 39 on equal pay. Developing a habit of mapping each important phrase to its correct Article and Part of the Constitution will help avoid such confusions. Final Answer: The expression that is not a Fundamental Right in the Indian Constitution is the right to equal wages for equal work, which is part of the Directive Principles of State Policy rather than Part III.

Question 13

In the Constitution of India, which Article provides protection against arrest and detention in certain cases?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Protection of individual liberty is a central theme of the Constitution of India. One of the most important safeguards in this regard is the protection against arbitrary arrest and detention by the State. This question tests awareness of the specific Article that guarantees such protection in certain cases, which is very important for exams on Indian Polity and for understanding the fundamental rights framework. Given Data / Assumptions: - The question refers to the Constitution of India. - It asks specifically about protection against arrest and detention in certain cases. - The options list different Articles dealing with various rights and protections. - Only one Article directly and primarily deals with procedural safeguards in cases of arrest and detention. Concept / Approach: Fundamental Rights under Part III of the Constitution cover equality, freedom, protection from exploitation, freedom of religion, cultural and educational rights, and constitutional remedies. Within this structure, Articles 20 to 22 deal with protections in respect of conviction for offences and personal liberty. Article 22 is specifically designed to protect persons who are arrested or detained. It lays down important safeguards such as the right to be informed of the grounds of arrest, the right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner, and production before a magistrate within 24 hours, along with special provisions regarding preventive detention. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that Article 21 guarantees protection of life and personal liberty in a broad sense, stating that no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. Step 2: Remember that Articles 20, 21, and 22 together form a group of protections relating to criminal justice and personal liberty. Step 3: Article 22 specifically deals with protection against arrest and detention in certain cases. It sets out procedural safeguards such as informing the arrested person of the grounds of arrest and producing the person before a magistrate within 24 hours. Step 4: Compare this with Articles 23 and 24, which deal with prohibition of traffic in human beings, forced labour, and child labour, not with arrest and detention. Step 5: Article 21A is about the right to education, while an option like Article 24B is not an actual fundamental right Article in the Constitution. Step 6: Therefore, the correct Article that deals with protection against arrest and detention in certain cases is Article 22. Verification / Alternative check: A quick way to verify is to remember the sequence: Article 20 (protection in respect of conviction for offences), Article 21 (protection of life and personal liberty), and Article 22 (protection against arrest and detention in certain cases). Standard Indian Polity textbooks and bare acts of the Constitution clearly state that Article 22 contains safeguards regarding arrest and preventive detention. This corroborates that Article 22 is the correct choice. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Article 24B: This is not a recognised fundamental right Article in the Constitution, so it cannot be correct. Article 23: Deals with prohibition of traffic in human beings and forced labour, not arrest and detention procedures. Article 21A: Provides for the right to free and compulsory education for children between six and fourteen years of age, unrelated to arrest or detention. Article 20: Deals with protection in respect of conviction for offences, such as no ex post facto laws, double jeopardy, and self incrimination, but not the specific procedural safeguards for arrest and detention that Article 22 covers. Common Pitfalls: A common mistake is to pick Article 21 because it is famous for the right to life and personal liberty and is widely cited in court judgments. However, Article 21 is broad and general, while the question asks about specific protection against arrest and detention in certain cases, which is handled by Article 22. Another pitfall is confusion among Article numbers, especially in a fast-paced exam, so candidates must revise the exact scope and numbering of Articles 20 to 24 carefully. Final Answer: The Article that deals with protection against arrest and detention in certain cases under the Constitution of India is Article 22.

Question 14

In the context of economic policy making in India, which institution is primarily responsible for formulating the country's fiscal policy?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Public finance is a key pillar of governance in any country. In India, fiscal policy refers to the use of government spending and taxation to influence the overall economy, manage growth, and achieve developmental goals. This question checks whether the learner can correctly distinguish between the roles of various financial and regulatory institutions in India and identify who is primarily responsible for framing fiscal policy. Given Data / Assumptions: - The question is about fiscal policy, not monetary policy. - Several important economic institutions are listed in the options: Ministry of Finance, Reserve Bank of India, SEBI, Finance Commission, and NITI Aayog. - Only one body has direct constitutional and administrative responsibility for preparing and implementing the Union government budget and tax policies. Concept / Approach: Fiscal policy is essentially about government revenue and expenditure decisions. It includes tax policies, allocation of funds to different sectors, subsidies, and borrowing. In India, this role is carried out by the elected government through the Ministry of Finance at the Union level. Monetary policy, in contrast, covers interest rates, money supply, and credit control, and is handled primarily by the Reserve Bank of India. SEBI regulates securities markets, the Finance Commission recommends the distribution of tax revenues between Union and states, and NITI Aayog acts as a policy think tank. Hence, the key is to match fiscal policy with the institution that prepares and presents the Union Budget and frames taxation and expenditure strategies. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall the definition of fiscal policy as policy related to government taxation, spending, and borrowing decisions. Step 2: Identify which institution prepares and presents the Union Budget in Parliament every year. This is done by the Ministry of Finance on behalf of the Government of India. Step 3: Distinguish this from monetary policy, which is handled by the Reserve Bank of India and focuses on money supply, interest rates, and banking regulation. Step 4: Recognise that SEBI mainly regulates the securities and capital markets, including stock exchanges and mutual funds. Step 5: Remember that the Finance Commission recommends how tax revenues are shared between the Union and the states but does not itself frame the entire fiscal policy. Step 6: Conclude that the Ministry of Finance is the primary institution responsible for formulating fiscal policy in India. Verification / Alternative check: A quick confirmation is to recall that the Union Budget, which is the main instrument of fiscal policy, is called the annual financial statement under Article 112 of the Constitution. It is prepared, presented, and defended in Parliament by the Finance Minister, who heads the Ministry of Finance. This clearly shows that fiscal policy formulation is a core function of the Ministry of Finance, supported by its various departments such as Revenue, Expenditure, and Economic Affairs. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Reserve Bank of India: Primarily responsible for monetary policy and regulation of the banking system, not for setting overall government tax and spending plans. Securities and Exchange Board of India: Regulates the securities markets, protects investor interests, and oversees stock exchanges; it does not frame the Union government's fiscal policy. Finance Commission of India: Recommends the distribution of tax proceeds between the Union and states and among states, but does not formulate overall fiscal policy or prepare the Budget. NITI Aayog: Acts as a policy think tank, offering strategic and long-term policy inputs, but does not directly frame or implement fiscal policy. Common Pitfalls: Many learners confuse fiscal policy with monetary policy and therefore mistakenly choose the Reserve Bank of India. Another error is to assume that any economic institution involved with finance or planning, such as SEBI or NITI Aayog, must be responsible for fiscal policy. It is important to carefully read whether the question refers to government spending and taxation (fiscal) or money supply and interest rates (monetary). Final Answer: The institution that formulates fiscal policy in India is the Ministry of Finance, Government of India.

Question 15

Which state government launched the "People First" mobile application to provide a real time grievance redressal platform for citizens?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Digital governance and citizen centric grievance redressal are important themes in modern Indian administration. State governments increasingly use mobile applications to connect with citizens, handle complaints, and ensure accountability. This question checks knowledge of one such initiative, the "People First" mobile application, and the state that launched it as part of a real time governance system. Given Data / Assumptions: - The app is named "People First". - It is a mobile application for grievance redressal and real time governance. - The options list different Indian states including Andhra Pradesh and others. - The task is to identify which state government launched this specific application. Concept / Approach: "People First" is associated with the real time governance initiative of the Government of Andhra Pradesh. It aims to empower citizens to raise complaints, especially regarding corruption, service delivery, and local issues, through a dedicated helpline and mobile platform. By recalling major e governance and grievance redressal initiatives and matching app names to states, one can correctly answer the question. This type of current affairs based polity question is common in competitive exams. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that Andhra Pradesh launched a system under its real time governance initiative to improve grievance redressal and fight petty corruption. Step 2: Remember that this system included a helpline number (often associated with dialing 1100) and a mobile application branded as "People First". Step 3: Note that while other states like Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh have their own grievance platforms, the specific brand name "People First" is well known as an Andhra Pradesh initiative. Step 4: Compare each option. Gujarat and Karnataka are also progressive in e governance but are not primarily associated with this particular app name. Step 5: Conclude that the state government that launched the "People First" mobile application is Andhra Pradesh. Verification / Alternative check: A simple verification is to connect "People First" with news reports about Andhra Pradesh launching a grievance redressal channel and mobile app under the leadership of its state government. Standard current affairs compilations and administrative case studies on real time governance identify Andhra Pradesh as the state behind this initiative, which confirms the answer. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Uttar Pradesh: Has e governance projects like Jansunwai and other portals, but these are not branded as "People First". Maharashtra: Known for various digital initiatives and portals, but the "People First" app is not its flagship grievance redressal brand. Gujarat: Also active in citizen service centres and digital governance, yet the specific "People First" name is not linked to Gujarat. Karnataka: Has its own platforms and helplines but is not associated with launching the "People First" application for grievance redressal. Common Pitfalls: A frequent mistake is to guess a large or more frequently mentioned state like Uttar Pradesh or Maharashtra without recalling the exact linkage between initiative names and states. Another pitfall is mixing up different schemes and apps that sound people oriented, such as those using words like "Jan", "Lok", or "Saral", which belong to other states. Careful revision of state specific current affairs helps avoid such confusion. Final Answer: The "People First" mobile application for real time grievance redressal was launched by the Government of Andhra Pradesh.

Question 16

In the institutional framework of India, who serves as the Chairperson of the National Integration Council?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The National Integration Council (NIC) is an important advisory body in India that addresses issues of communal harmony, casteism, regionalism, and threats to national unity. Knowledge of who chairs such high level councils is frequently tested in exams on Indian polity and governance. This question focuses on identifying the ex officio Chairperson of the National Integration Council. Given Data / Assumptions: - The body mentioned is the National Integration Council of India. - The options include top constitutional functionaries such as the President, Vice President, Prime Minister, Chief Justice of India, and Speaker of the Lok Sabha. - The council is headed by one particular functionary who presides over its meetings and provides overall direction. Concept / Approach: The National Integration Council was set up to deliberate on issues affecting national integration and communal harmony. By convention and design, it is chaired by the Prime Minister of India. This reflects the political and administrative responsibility of the elected head of government to lead efforts that promote social cohesion and unity. The President and Vice President are constitutional heads with different roles, while the Chief Justice and Speaker have judicial and legislative functions respectively and do not head this particular council. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify the nature of the National Integration Council as a high level advisory and deliberative body dealing with national unity and communal harmony. Step 2: Recall that such councils linked to governance and policy deliberation are often chaired by the head of government rather than the head of state. Step 3: Remember that in India, the head of government is the Prime Minister, who presides over the Union Council of Ministers and many inter governmental and national level councils. Step 4: Check that the President usually acts as the constitutional head and is not typically the chairperson of policy councils like the NIC. Step 5: Conclude that the ex officio Chairperson of the National Integration Council is the Prime Minister of India. Verification / Alternative check: One can verify by checking standard Indian polity references or government documents which state that the NIC is chaired by the Prime Minister. Past meetings of the NIC are reported in official press releases that explicitly mention the Prime Minister presiding over the sessions, which confirms this role. Why Other Options Are Wrong: The President of India: Functions as the constitutional head of state and does not usually chair councils like the NIC, which are geared toward policy and coordination under the executive government. The Vice President of India: Serves primarily as the ex officio Chairperson of the Rajya Sabha and does not chair the National Integration Council. The Chief Justice of India: Heads the judiciary and the Supreme Court, maintaining independence from the executive, and therefore does not preside over the NIC. The Speaker of the Lok Sabha: Presides over the lower House of Parliament and manages legislative proceedings, not the NIC. Common Pitfalls: A common mistake is to assume that because the council deals with national integration, it must be chaired by the President, who is often seen as the symbol of the nation. Another pitfall is confusing roles in the separation of powers, such as thinking the judiciary or legislature might head such a body. Remembering that most executive councils and committees are chaired by the Prime Minister is a useful rule of thumb. Final Answer: The Chairperson of the National Integration Council is the Prime Minister of India.

Question 17

Who was elected as the 13th Vice President of India in the year 2017?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The office of the Vice President of India is the second highest constitutional office in the country. The Vice President is also the ex officio Chairperson of the Rajya Sabha. Questions about the numerical order of Presidents and Vice Presidents are common in competitive examinations. This question asks specifically about the individual who became the 13th Vice President of India in 2017. Given Data / Assumptions: - The post is Vice President of India, not President. - The question refers to the 13th person to hold this office. - The year of election mentioned is 2017. - The options include well known political figures like M Venkaiah Naidu, Gopalkrishna Gandhi, Hamid Ansari, Ram Nath Kovind, and Pranab Mukherjee. Concept / Approach: M Venkaiah Naidu, a senior leader and former Union Minister, was elected as the 13th Vice President of India in 2017. He succeeded Hamid Ansari, who had served as the 11th and 12th Vice President in two consecutive terms. Ram Nath Kovind was elected as the 14th President of India in 2017, while Pranab Mukherjee was the preceding President. Gopalkrishna Gandhi was the opposition candidate in the 2017 Vice Presidential election but did not win. By matching these facts with the question, one can easily identify the correct answer. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that in 2017, India held both Presidential and Vice Presidential elections. Step 2: Remember that Ram Nath Kovind was elected as the 14th President of India in 2017, while the separate election for Vice President resulted in M Venkaiah Naidu becoming the 13th Vice President. Step 3: Note that Hamid Ansari had already completed two terms as Vice President and was therefore not the newly elected 13th Vice President in 2017. Step 4: Gopalkrishna Gandhi was the opposition candidate in the Vice Presidential election and did not win. Step 5: Pranab Mukherjee was the outgoing President in 2017, not the Vice President. Step 6: Therefore, the correct answer is M Venkaiah Naidu. Verification / Alternative check: This information can be verified from official notifications of the Election Commission of India and media reports from 2017, which clearly state that M Venkaiah Naidu was elected as the 13th Vice President of India after securing a majority of votes in the Electoral College for the post of Vice President. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Gopalkrishna Gandhi: He was the opposition candidate in the 2017 Vice Presidential election but lost to M Venkaiah Naidu. Hamid Ansari: He served as Vice President before 2017 and completed two terms but was not elected as the 13th Vice President in that year. Ram Nath Kovind: Elected as the 14th President of India in 2017, not as Vice President. Pranab Mukherjee: Served as President of India before Ram Nath Kovind and was never the 13th Vice President. Common Pitfalls: A common error is to confuse the numbering of Presidents and Vice Presidents or to mix up the roles held by leaders around the same time. For example, some candidates may incorrectly choose Ram Nath Kovind because they remember that he was elected in 2017 but forget that the question is about the Vice President, not the President. Careful reading of the post and number in the question helps avoid this confusion. Final Answer: The 13th Vice President of India, elected in 2017, is M Venkaiah Naidu.

Question 18

Which one of the following countries is widely regarded as a classic example of a federal form of government?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Federalism is a system of government in which power is divided between a central authority and various constituent units such as states or provinces. Constitutional law and political science often refer to certain countries as classic or textbook examples of federal systems. This question asks the learner to identify which country among the given options is widely recognised as such a classic example. Given Data / Assumptions: - The focus is on the federal form of government. - The options list China, United States of America, Cuba, Belgium, and Sri Lanka. - Only one of these is traditionally presented in textbooks as the classic model of federalism. Concept / Approach: In comparative politics, the United States of America is often treated as the archetypal or classic federal state. Its Constitution clearly divides powers between the federal government and the states, with a written Constitution and strong judicial review. China and Cuba follow socialist single party systems with unitary structures, while Sri Lanka is also largely unitary though it has experimented with devolution. Belgium is a federal state today, but in many introductory texts the United States is still cited as the standard model when explaining federalism. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall the meaning of a federal government as one where power is constitutionally divided between a central authority and constituent units. Step 2: Identify that the Constitution of the United States of America is one of the oldest written constitutions and clearly embodies a federal system with states having their own powers and the federal government having enumerated powers. Step 3: Understand that China is a socialist republic with a unitary structure and strong central control by the Communist Party, not a classic federation. Step 4: Recognise that Cuba is also a socialist state with a unitary system of government. Step 5: Belgium is indeed a federal state, but in basic Indian polity exams, the United States is usually cited as the primary classic example of federalism. Step 6: Hence, the best answer that matches the phrase classic example is the United States of America. Verification / Alternative check: Standard Indian polity textbooks like those used for civil services preparation explicitly describe the United States as a classic federal system, in contrast to India's quasi federal structure. These sources often start their explanation of federalism by referring to the United States model, which confirms this answer. Why Other Options Are Wrong: China: Operates as a highly centralised socialist republic with a unitary system; provincial governments do not enjoy constitutional autonomy comparable to states in a federation. Cuba: Also a socialist unitary state with centralised authority, not a classic federal system. Belgium: It is a federal state in contemporary times, but the question emphasises the widely known classic example, which is the United States of America in most standard references. Sri Lanka: Has a unitary constitution with some devolution of power to provinces, but it is not recognised as a federal state. Common Pitfalls: Learners sometimes choose Belgium because they know it is a federal state, but they overlook the wording classic example that usually points to the United States in exam oriented polity discussions. Another mistake is to equate regional autonomy or devolution with full federalism and therefore mislabel countries like Sri Lanka as federal. A clear understanding of constitutional division of powers helps avoid such errors. Final Answer: The country widely regarded as a classic example of a federal form of government is the United States of America.

Question 19

From which foreign constitution did India borrow the idea of including detailed Emergency provisions in its own Constitution?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The Constitution of India is often described as a blend of features borrowed from various constitutions around the world. Understanding the sources of specific features is a frequent theme in Indian Polity questions. This question asks about the origin of India's Emergency provisions, which give the Union government special powers during extraordinary situations such as war, external aggression, or armed rebellion. Given Data / Assumptions: - The focus is on Emergency provisions in the Constitution of India. - The options list constitutions of several countries: Canada, Germany (Weimar Constitution), Ireland, United States, and Australia. - Only one of these was explicitly used as the model for Emergency provisions in India. Concept / Approach: While drafting the Constitution, the Constituent Assembly examined many foreign constitutions. Federal features and division of powers were partly inspired by Canada, fundamental rights and judicial review by the United States, directive principles by Ireland, and the idea of an all India civil service by the United Kingdom. The Emergency provisions, particularly those allowing suspension of rights and centralisation of power during crises, were largely borrowed from the Weimar Constitution of Germany, which had similar mechanisms that were misused during the inter war period. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that Part XVIII of the Constitution of India (Articles 352 to 360) deals with Emergency provisions. Step 2: Remember that the Weimar Constitution of Germany contained detailed provisions for emergency powers that allowed the central government to suspend certain rights. Step 3: Note that the drafting committee studied and drew from this German model when framing India's own Emergency provisions. Step 4: Check the other options: Canada is known for federal structure with a strong centre; Ireland for directive principles of state policy; the United States for fundamental rights and judicial review; Australia for the idea of concurrent list and trade provisions. Step 5: Therefore, the Emergency provisions in the Indian Constitution were borrowed mainly from the Weimar Constitution of Germany. Verification / Alternative check: Most standard Indian Polity books, which summarise the sources of constitutional features, explicitly state that Emergency provisions were taken from the Weimar Constitution of Germany. They list this alongside other borrowings such as parliamentary system from the United Kingdom and directive principles from Ireland, confirming the answer. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Constitution of Canada: Known as a model for federalism with a strong centre and for distribution of powers, not for emergency provisions. Constitution of Ireland: Source of Directive Principles of State Policy in India rather than Emergency provisions. Constitution of the United States of America: Provided inspiration for fundamental rights and judicial review, not for the emergency scheme adopted in Part XVIII. Constitution of Australia: Contributed ideas like concurrent list and trade and commerce provisions but is not the source of India's Emergency provisions. Common Pitfalls: A typical mistake is to confuse the sources of different features and to assume that emergency powers must have come from the United Kingdom or United States because they are widely studied democracies. Another pitfall is mixing up the Canadian strong centre model with emergency centralisation of power. The key is to memorise the specific mapping between constitutional features and their foreign inspirations. Final Answer: India borrowed the idea of detailed Emergency provisions for its Constitution from the Weimar Constitution of Germany.

Question 20

What is the present capital city of the Indian state of Telangana?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: State capitals are basic but important facts in Indian geography and polity. Telangana, the newest state of India created in 2014, has a designated capital city where the main organs of the state government function. This question tests whether the learner can correctly recall the present capital of Telangana from among several well known cities in the region. Given Data / Assumptions: - The state in question is Telangana, formed in 2014. - The options list major cities within or near the region: Warangal, Hyderabad, Nizamabad, Adilabad, and Karimnagar. - The task is to identify the current capital city where the state government is headquartered. Concept / Approach: When Andhra Pradesh was bifurcated to create Telangana, Hyderabad was designated as the joint capital of both states for a transitional period, and it serves as the capital of Telangana. It is a large metropolitan city, historically the capital of the former Hyderabad State and then Andhra Pradesh. Other cities like Warangal, Nizamabad, Adilabad, and Karimnagar are important urban centres but are not the state capital. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that Telangana became a separate state on 2 June 2014 after the bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh. Step 2: Remember that Hyderabad was designated as the capital of Telangana and, for a limited period, also acted as the joint capital for Andhra Pradesh. Step 3: Review the options. Warangal, Nizamabad, Adilabad, and Karimnagar are well known cities and districts but do not serve as the capital. Step 4: Hyderabad is the only city among the options that is officially recognised as the capital of Telangana. Step 5: Therefore, select Hyderabad as the correct answer. Verification / Alternative check: A quick verification can be done by recalling major state institutions such as the Telangana Secretariat, the Legislative Assembly, and the High Court, which are located in Hyderabad. Maps, atlases, and official government websites also list Hyderabad as the capital of Telangana, which confirms the answer. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Warangal: A significant historical city and former capital of the Kakatiya dynasty, but not the present state capital of Telangana. Nizamabad: An important district headquarters and urban centre but not the seat of the state government. Adilabad: Primarily known as a district in northern Telangana, not the capital city. Karimnagar: Another major town and district but not the capital. Common Pitfalls: Some learners get confused due to ongoing discussions about possible future capitals or regional development plans, but for exam purposes the officially recognised current capital remains Hyderabad. Another pitfall is mixing up regional importance of cities with their status as administrative capitals. Always rely on official designations rather than population size or historical fame alone. Final Answer: The present capital city of Telangana is Hyderabad.

Indian Politics Questions