Question 1

In June 2017, which Union cabinet minister of India was in charge of the Ministry of Defence?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The composition of the Union Council of Ministers and the portfolios they hold are frequent topics in current affairs and polity questions. After the resignation of a minister or a reshuffle, some ministers may hold additional charges of important ministries. This question focuses on the situation in June 2017 and asks who was handling the Defence portfolio at that time. Given Data / Assumptions: - The time frame is clearly mentioned as June 2017. - The ministry in question is the Ministry of Defence. - The options list prominent leaders: Narendra Modi, Rajnath Singh, Kalraj Mishra, Arun Jaitley, and Nirmala Sitharaman. - Only one of them held the Defence portfolio in June 2017. Concept / Approach: Manohar Parrikar, who had been the Defence Minister, resigned to become Chief Minister of Goa in March 2017. After his departure, Arun Jaitley, who was already serving as Finance Minister, was given additional charge of the Defence Ministry until a later cabinet reshuffle in September 2017, when Nirmala Sitharaman became Defence Minister. Therefore, during June 2017, the Defence portfolio was with Arun Jaitley, not with Rajnath Singh or Nirmala Sitharaman. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that Manohar Parrikar left the post of Defence Minister in March 2017 to become Chief Minister of Goa. Step 2: Remember that after this change, Arun Jaitley, already serving as Finance Minister, took additional charge of the Defence Ministry. Step 3: Identify that Nirmala Sitharaman was appointed Defence Minister only in September 2017, so she was not holding the post in June 2017. Step 4: Rajnath Singh was the Home Minister at that time, and Narendra Modi was the Prime Minister, not specifically the Defence Minister. Step 5: Therefore, in June 2017, the cabinet minister dealing with the Ministry of Defence was Arun Jaitley. Verification / Alternative check: Press releases and cabinet portfolios listed by the Government of India for mid 2017 show Arun Jaitley as Minister of Finance and also holding additional charge of Defence. Later in September 2017, Nirmala Sitharaman took over the Defence portfolio, which confirms that Jaitley was the Defence Minister in June 2017. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Shri Narendra Modi: As Prime Minister, he leads the government but does not usually hold individual ministry charges like Defence in that period. Shri Rajnath Singh: Served as Home Minister, looking after internal security, not Defence. Shri Kalraj Mishra: Held the portfolio of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises, not Defence. Shrimati Nirmala Sitharaman: Became Defence Minister only later in September 2017, not in June 2017. Common Pitfalls: A common mistake is to mark Nirmala Sitharaman because she is a well known Defence Minister in recent years, but the question clearly specifies June 2017, before she took charge. Another pitfall is overlooking the possibility of a minister handling two portfolios, as Arun Jaitley did with Finance and Defence, which may seem unusual but is not uncommon in practice. Final Answer: In June 2017, the Union cabinet minister in charge of the Ministry of Defence was Shri Arun Jaitley.

Question 2

Which Indian state became the second state in the country to accept online applications by launching an e RTI portal?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The Right to Information (RTI) Act is a landmark transparency law in India. To make RTI more accessible, some states have introduced online RTI portals that accept applications electronically. This question asks which state became the second in India to accept online RTI applications through its own e RTI portal. Given Data / Assumptions: - The focus is on a state level e RTI portal accepting online applications. - The question highlights that this state was the second in the country to do so. - The options list Maharashtra, Telangana, Haryana, Delhi, and Kerala. - It is known that Maharashtra pioneered several RTI innovations, which is relevant to identifying the second state. Concept / Approach: Maharashtra is widely recognised for early RTI initiatives, but this question asks for the second state that launched its own e RTI portal for online applications. Delhi introduced such an e RTI portal, becoming the second state or union territory based jurisdiction to accept RTI applications online after Maharashtra. Therefore, the correct choice is Delhi, not Maharashtra or the other states listed. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that Maharashtra was among the earliest innovators in implementing RTI effectively. Step 2: Note that the question does not ask about the first state but the second state to launch an e RTI portal for online applications. Step 3: Remember that Delhi launched its online e RTI portal and was widely reported as the second state level jurisdiction to provide such a facility. Step 4: Compare each option and eliminate those that do not match this specific distinction. Step 5: Conclude that Delhi is the correct answer. Verification / Alternative check: News reports and government announcements at the time of the launch of Delhi's e RTI portal specifically described Delhi as becoming the second state or union territory to provide an online RTI application facility after Maharashtra. This corroborates that Delhi is the correct choice in this question. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Maharashtra: Recognised as the first state level jurisdiction with strong RTI implementation and related innovations, not the second. Telangana: Has its own RTI mechanisms but was not identified as the second state to launch an e RTI portal of this nature. Haryana: Also implements RTI but does not fit the specific description given in the question. Kerala: Well known for e governance initiatives, yet not identified as the second state to launch an e RTI portal for online applications in this context. Common Pitfalls: Some learners may quickly choose Maharashtra because it is strongly associated with RTI reforms, overlooking the detail that the question is about the second state, not the first. Others may guess based on general impressions of e governance without recalling the specific fact about Delhi's portal. Paying attention to the qualifiers in the question, such as second state, is essential to select the right option. Final Answer: The second state in India to accept online RTI applications by launching an e RTI portal was Delhi.

Question 3

Who became the 14th President of India in July 2017?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The President of India is the head of state and the supreme commander of the armed forces. The numerical order of Presidents is often asked in competitive exams, especially when recent changes take place. This question checks knowledge of the person who became the 14th President of India following the 2017 Presidential election. Given Data / Assumptions: - The post is President of India, not Vice President. - The question specifies the 14th President. - The year of assumption of office is July 2017. - The options include Ram Nath Kovind, Meira Kumar, and some distractor names, as well as Pranab Mukherjee who was the outgoing President. Concept / Approach: In 2017, India held a Presidential election in which Ram Nath Kovind was the National Democratic Alliance candidate and Meira Kumar was the opposition candidate. Ram Nath Kovind won the election and took office as the 14th President of India, succeeding Pranab Mukherjee, who had been the 13th President. Therefore, the correct answer is Ram Nath Kovind. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that the 2017 Presidential election was contested mainly between Ram Nath Kovind and Meira Kumar. Step 2: Remember that Ram Nath Kovind was elected with a clear majority as the 14th President of India. Step 3: Note that Pranab Mukherjee, who held office before Ram Nath Kovind, was the 13th President, not the 14th. Step 4: Recognise that the other names in the options, such as Sreedharan and Vaidyanathan, are distractors and have not served as President. Step 5: Therefore, identify Ram Nath Kovind as the correct option. Verification / Alternative check: Official records from the Election Commission of India and Rashtrapati Bhavan confirm that Ram Nath Kovind assumed office as the 14th President of India on 25 July 2017. Media reports and standard current affairs summaries further confirm this fact, leaving no doubt about the answer. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Meira Kumar: She was the opposition candidate in the 2017 Presidential election but did not win, hence she did not become the 14th President. Sreedharan: Famous as an engineer and project leader in Indian Railways and metro projects, but has never served as President. Vaidyanathan: A distractor name in this context and not a President of India. Pranab Mukherjee: Served as the 13th President of India before Ram Nath Kovind and therefore cannot be the 14th President. Common Pitfalls: Some learners may confuse the numbering of Presidents or mix up contemporaneous appointments like the election of Ram Nath Kovind as President and M Venkaiah Naidu as Vice President in the same year. Others may mistakenly choose Pranab Mukherjee because of his prominence. Careful attention to both the number (14th) and the year (2017) is key to selecting the right option. Final Answer: The 14th President of India, elected in 2017, is Ram Nath Kovind.

Question 4

From 1952 to 2019, India has had several Lok Sabha Speakers. Who was the first Speaker of the Lok Sabha in independent India in 1952?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The Speaker of the Lok Sabha is a key constitutional authority who presides over the lower House of the Indian Parliament. Knowing the first occupants of important offices after independence is a common requirement in General Knowledge and Indian Polity. This question asks specifically about the first Speaker of the Lok Sabha in 1952, when the first Lok Sabha was constituted after the first general elections. Given Data / Assumptions: - The time frame is the year 1952, after the first general elections in independent India. - The office in question is the Speaker of the Lok Sabha. - The options list several individuals who have served as Speakers at different times. - The task is to identify the very first Speaker of the Lok Sabha in independent India. Concept / Approach: Ganesh Vasudev Mavalankar, commonly known as G V Mavalankar, was elected as the first Speaker of the Lok Sabha in 1952. Earlier, he had served as Speaker of the Central Legislative Assembly. Other names listed in the options, such as G M C Balayogi, Somnath Chatterjee, Meira Kumar, and Balram Jakhar, became Speakers much later and belong to different periods of India's parliamentary history. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that the first general elections in independent India took place in 1951 to 1952, leading to the formation of the first Lok Sabha. Step 2: Remember that G V Mavalankar, an experienced parliamentarian, was chosen as the first Speaker of the newly formed Lok Sabha. Step 3: Review the other options: G M C Balayogi was Speaker in the late 1990s and early 2000s; Somnath Chatterjee served as Speaker in the mid 2000s; Meira Kumar was the first woman Speaker; Balram Jakhar was also a later Speaker. Step 4: Since the question is about the first Speaker in 1952, only G V Mavalankar fits. Step 5: Conclude that G V Mavalankar is the correct answer. Verification / Alternative check: Official records of the Lok Sabha and standard polity handbooks list G V Mavalankar as the first Speaker of the Lok Sabha, elected in 1952. Timelines of Speakers show the sequence of office holders, which quickly confirms that he was the earliest Speaker after independence. Why Other Options Are Wrong: G M C Balayogi: Served as Speaker of the Lok Sabha from 1998 until his death in 2002, not in 1952. Somnath Chatterjee: Served as Speaker from 2004 to 2009, much later than 1952. Meira Kumar: Became the first woman Speaker, serving from 2009 to 2014, long after the first Lok Sabha. Balram Jakhar: Served as Speaker in the 1980s, also not the first Speaker. Common Pitfalls: Many learners remember recent or high profile Speakers such as Meira Kumar or Somnath Chatterjee but may not recall the earliest post independence office holders. Another pitfall is confusing the Central Legislative Assembly Speaker with the Lok Sabha Speaker, even though G V Mavalankar served in both roles. Focusing on the year 1952 and associating it with the first Lok Sabha helps anchor the correct answer. Final Answer: The first Speaker of the Lok Sabha in independent India in 1952 was G V Mavalankar.

Question 5

On which date did the Constituent Assembly of India first meet and start functioning?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The Constituent Assembly of India was the body responsible for drafting the Constitution. Knowing when it first met is an important historical and polity fact. The first meeting marks the formal beginning of the constitutional making process that eventually produced the Constitution of India. Given Data / Assumptions: - The question refers to the Constituent Assembly of India, not the Parliament or Lok Sabha. - It asks for the date on which the Assembly first met and started functioning. - The options include several important dates between 1946 and 1947. Concept / Approach: The Constituent Assembly held its first meeting on 9 December 1946 in New Delhi. This session was presided over by Dr Sachchidananda Sinha as the temporary Chairman. Later, Dr Rajendra Prasad was elected as the permanent President of the Assembly. Other dates like 26 January 1947 and 15 August 1947 correspond to later milestones and not to the first meeting. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that the Cabinet Mission Plan of 1946 provided for the setting up of the Constituent Assembly. Step 2: Elections to the Assembly were held, and the first meeting was convened on 9 December 1946. Step 3: Recognise that 26 January later became significant as the date chosen for Republic Day, and 15 August 1947 is celebrated as Independence Day, but neither marks the first meeting of the Assembly. Step 4: Therefore, among the options, 9 December 1946 is the correct date when the Constituent Assembly first met. Verification / Alternative check: Historical records and standard Indian Polity textbooks state that the first session of the Constituent Assembly began on 9 December 1946. This date is frequently mentioned alongside other key dates such as 26 November 1949, when the Constitution was adopted, and 26 January 1950, when it came into effect. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 1 January 1947: An important calendar date but not associated with the first meeting of the Constituent Assembly. 26 January 1947: Pre dates the later Republic Day but does not mark the start of the Assembly's work. 15 August 1947: Independence Day, marking freedom from British rule, but not the first meeting of the Constituent Assembly. 20 November 1946: Not associated with the inaugural session of the Assembly. Common Pitfalls: Candidates often confuse various key dates of the freedom struggle and constitutional history. The strong association of 15 August and 26 January with national celebrations can cause them to be wrongly chosen. To avoid this, learners should consciously memorise the sequence: first meeting on 9 December 1946, adoption of the Constitution on 26 November 1949, and enforcement on 26 January 1950. Final Answer: The Constituent Assembly of India first met and started functioning on 9 December 1946.

Question 6

On which date was the drafting of the Constitution of India completed and formally adopted by the Constituent Assembly?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The Constitution of India is the supreme law of the country, and its drafting and adoption are crucial milestones in Indian history. While the Constitution came into force on 26 January 1950, it was actually completed and formally adopted earlier. This question focuses on the exact date when the Constituent Assembly finished its work on the Constitution and adopted it. Given Data / Assumptions: - The question is about completion and formal adoption of the Constitution by the Constituent Assembly, not the date it came into force. - Several key dates between 1948 and 1950 are listed as options. - Only one date corresponds to the final adoption of the Constitution. Concept / Approach: The Constituent Assembly adopted the Constitution of India on 26 November 1949 after nearly three years of deliberations. The Constitution then came into force on 26 January 1950, chosen to honour the declaration of Purna Swaraj made on 26 January 1930. Understanding the distinction between adoption and enforcement is essential to answering this question correctly. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that the Constituent Assembly took about two years, eleven months, and eighteen days to draft the Constitution. Step 2: Remember that the Assembly finally adopted the Constitution on 26 November 1949. Step 3: Recognise that although adopted in November 1949, the Constitution came into effect later on 26 January 1950. Step 4: Review the options and identify 26 November 1949 as the date associated with completion and adoption. Step 5: Therefore select 26 November 1949 as the correct answer. Verification / Alternative check: Official records and standard polity references clearly state that 26 November 1949 is celebrated as Constitution Day to mark the adoption of the Constitution. The Preamble in original government publications carries this date as the date of adoption. This confirms the answer beyond doubt. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 11 February 1948: A date during the drafting period but not associated with final adoption. 26 January 1950: This is the date when the Constitution came into effect and India became a republic, not the date of adoption by the Assembly. None of these: Incorrect because there is a correct date listed among the options, namely 26 November 1949. 15 August 1949: Not a historically significant date related to adoption of the Constitution. Common Pitfalls: Many learners confuse adoption and enforcement and choose 26 January 1950 because it is better known as Republic Day. Another pitfall is to overlook 26 November 1949 because it is less frequently celebrated in everyday life, although it has been recognised officially as Constitution Day in recent years. To avoid errors, one should clearly remember both dates and their specific significance. Final Answer: The Constitution of India was completed and formally adopted by the Constituent Assembly on 26 November 1949.

Question 7

In 2017, who was appointed as the Attorney General for India, succeeding Mukul Rohatgi?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The Attorney General for India is the highest law officer of the country and acts as the chief legal advisor to the Government of India. Appointments to this post are important current affairs topics. This question asks who was appointed Attorney General in 2017, succeeding Mukul Rohatgi. Given Data / Assumptions: - The year of appointment is 2017. - The outgoing Attorney General mentioned is Mukul Rohatgi. - The options include K K Venugopal, Mukul Rohatgi, Ranjit Kumar, P P Malhotra, and G E Vahanvati. - Only one of these was appointed as the new Attorney General in that year. Concept / Approach: After Mukul Rohatgi's tenure ended, K K Venugopal, a senior advocate and distinguished jurist, was appointed as the Attorney General for India in 2017. Ranjit Kumar served as Solicitor General, and G E Vahanvati had been Attorney General earlier. By matching the year and the succession from Mukul Rohatgi, one can clearly identify K K Venugopal as the correct answer. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that Mukul Rohatgi served as Attorney General for India during the early years of the government that took office in 2014. Step 2: Remember that after he stepped down, the government appointed K K Venugopal as the next Attorney General in 2017. Step 3: Ranjit Kumar was the Solicitor General, a separate office, and P P Malhotra served as an Additional Solicitor General in earlier periods. Step 4: G E Vahanvati had been Attorney General before Mukul Rohatgi and therefore does not fit the succession mentioned for 2017. Step 5: Therefore, the correct answer is K K Venugopal. Verification / Alternative check: Press releases and official notifications from 2017 clearly state that K K Venugopal was appointed as Attorney General for India, replacing Mukul Rohatgi. Legal news sources and yearbooks covering that year also confirm this appointment, leaving no ambiguity. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Mukul Rohatgi: He was the outgoing Attorney General, not the new appointee in 2017. Ranjit Kumar: Served as Solicitor General of India, which is a different post that ranks just below the Attorney General. P P Malhotra: An Additional Solicitor General in earlier times, but never the Attorney General succeeding Mukul Rohatgi in 2017. G E Vahanvati: Served as Attorney General before Mukul Rohatgi, not after him. Common Pitfalls: Learners sometimes confuse the roles of Attorney General and Solicitor General or mix up the sequence of office holders. Another pitfall is to remember an older Attorney General like G E Vahanvati or to mistakenly choose Mukul Rohatgi because his name appears in the question. Carefully reading that the question asks for the successor in 2017 helps to avoid these errors. Final Answer: In 2017, the post of Attorney General for India was taken over by K K Venugopal, succeeding Mukul Rohatgi.

Question 8

After the Himachal Pradesh Assembly elections in December 2017, who became the new Chief Minister of the state?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Chief Ministers are the heads of government in Indian states, and changes in this office are important current affairs topics. The 2017 Himachal Pradesh Assembly elections resulted in a change of leadership. This question asks who became the new Chief Minister of Himachal Pradesh after those elections. Given Data / Assumptions: - The context is the Himachal Pradesh Assembly elections held in 2017. - The question refers to the new Chief Minister after these elections. - The options include Jairam Thakur and other leaders associated with the state. Concept / Approach: In the 2017 Himachal Pradesh elections, the Bharatiya Janata Party won a majority. Although Prem Kumar Dhumal was initially projected as the Chief Ministerial candidate, he lost his own seat. Subsequently, Jairam Thakur, a senior BJP leader, was chosen as the Chief Minister and took oath in December 2017. Recognising this political development allows us to choose the correct answer. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that the 2017 Assembly elections in Himachal Pradesh resulted in a victory for the Bharatiya Janata Party. Step 2: Note that the party had to select a Chief Minister after its projected candidate, Prem Kumar Dhumal, lost his seat. Step 3: Remember that Jairam Thakur was then selected as the leader of the legislature party and became the new Chief Minister. Step 4: Compare with other options such as Anil Sharma, Sudhir Sharma, and Karan Singh, who did not assume the Chief Minister's office in 2017. Step 5: Therefore, the correct answer is Jairam Thakur. Verification / Alternative check: News coverage and official state government sources from late December 2017 confirm that Jairam Thakur took oath as the Chief Minister of Himachal Pradesh. This is also reflected in standard current affairs compilations for that year. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Anil Sharma: A political figure in the state but did not become Chief Minister in 2017. Sudhir Sharma: Another leader from Himachal Pradesh, yet he was not chosen as Chief Minister after the elections. Karan Singh: A senior politician but not the person who became Chief Minister in this context. Prem Kumar Dhumal: Although earlier twice Chief Minister and projected again, he lost his seat in 2017 and was not sworn in as Chief Minister after the elections. Common Pitfalls: Some learners may mistakenly choose Prem Kumar Dhumal because of his earlier service as Chief Minister and because he was initially presented as the party's Chief Ministerial face. However, the key detail is that he did not win his seat, leading to Jairam Thakur being appointed instead. Careful attention to the actual outcome rather than pre election projections is important. Final Answer: After the 2017 Himachal Pradesh Assembly elections, the new Chief Minister of the state became Jairam Thakur.

Question 9

In the legislative process of India, a bill presented in Parliament becomes an Act after which of the following steps is completed?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Understanding how a bill becomes an Act is a fundamental part of learning Indian Polity. The legislative process involves several stages, but the transformation from a bill to an Act happens at a specific legal point. This question tests whether the learner knows the step at which a bill, after being passed by Parliament, actually acquires the status of an Act of Parliament. Given Data / Assumptions: - The bill is presented in Parliament and goes through the usual legislative process. - The question asks when it formally becomes an Act. - Options include signatures by the Prime Minister, declaration by the Supreme Court, assent by the President, passage by both Houses, and publication before introduction. Concept / Approach: According to the Constitution, a bill must be passed by both Houses of Parliament (except in specific cases like money bills or joint sittings) and then presented to the President for assent. It becomes an Act only after the President gives assent. Passage by both Houses is necessary but not sufficient; the President's assent is the final constitutional step that converts the bill into an Act. Courts may review laws later for constitutionality but they do not directly convert bills into Acts. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that a bill is introduced in either House of Parliament (except money bills, which start in the Lok Sabha) and goes through first reading, second reading, committee stage, and third reading. Step 2: After being passed by the originating House, the bill goes to the other House for consideration and passage. Step 3: Once both Houses pass the bill in the required form, it is sent to the President. Step 4: Under Article 111, the President may give assent, withhold assent, or return the bill (other than a money bill) for reconsideration. Step 5: The bill becomes an Act of Parliament only when the President gives assent. The date of enforcement may be the date of assent or a later date notified in the Gazette. Verification / Alternative check: The text of Article 111 of the Constitution and standard Indian Polity references confirm that Presidential assent is the final step in the legislative process at the Union level. Only after this assent does the bill become an Act, which may then be brought into force by notification. Judicial review or signatures by the Prime Minister are not required for this legal transformation. Why Other Options Are Wrong: The Prime Minister has signed it: The Prime Minister does not sign bills to make them Acts; the crucial constitutional signature is that of the President. The Supreme Court has declared it within the competence of Parliament: The Court may review laws for constitutionality, but a bill does not need such a declaration to become an Act. It is passed by both Houses of Parliament: This is a necessary step but not the final one; Presidential assent is still required. It is published in the official Gazette before introduction: Bills are usually published when introduced, but this is not the step that makes them Acts. Common Pitfalls: Some learners mistakenly believe that passage by both Houses automatically makes a bill an Act, overlooking the requirement of Presidential assent. Others confuse the role of the judiciary and think legal validity requires a Supreme Court declaration. Understanding the explicit constitutional procedure helps to avoid these mistakes. Final Answer: A bill presented in Parliament becomes an Act after the President has given assent to it.

Question 10

Since Independence, how many times has a National Emergency been proclaimed in India under Article 352 of the Constitution?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: National Emergency under Article 352 of the Constitution allows the Union government to assume special powers during serious crises such as war, external aggression, or armed rebellion. Knowing how often such Emergencies have been proclaimed is a commonly tested fact in Indian Polity examinations. Given Data / Assumptions: - The question is specifically about National Emergencies under Article 352, not President's Rule under Article 356 or Financial Emergency under Article 360. - It asks for the number of times such a National Emergency has been proclaimed since Independence. - The options offer different counts: one, two, three, four, or five times. Concept / Approach: India has experienced National Emergencies three times under Article 352. The first was in 1962 during the war with China, the second in 1971 during the war with Pakistan, and the third in 1975 on grounds of internal disturbance, which continued until 1977. Although two of these overlapped in time, they are counted as separate proclamations, making the total three. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that the first National Emergency was proclaimed in 1962 due to Chinese aggression and remained in force until 1968. Step 2: The second National Emergency was proclaimed in 1971 due to external aggression in the context of the conflict with Pakistan. Step 3: The third National Emergency was declared in June 1975 on the ground of internal disturbance, often referred to as the Internal Emergency. Step 4: Even though the second and third Emergencies overlapped in duration, they are counted as separate proclamations. Step 5: Therefore, the total number of National Emergencies proclaimed under Article 352 is three. Verification / Alternative check: Standard Indian Polity texts summarise the history of National Emergencies and consistently state that India has had three such Emergencies. They provide details of dates, reasons, and political context for the 1962, 1971, and 1975 Emergencies, confirming the count of three. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Four times or five times: There have not been this many separate National Emergency proclamations under Article 352; these numbers overstate the actual count. Two times: This would ignore one of the three distinct proclamations and is therefore incorrect. One time: This clearly understates the number and ignores major historical events. Common Pitfalls: A frequent confusion arises because the 1971 and 1975 Emergencies overlapped, leading some learners to think they were a single continuous Emergency. Another pitfall is to mix up National Emergencies with multiple instances of President's Rule in states or to count them together. Carefully distinguishing the types of Emergency and remembering the three distinct proclamations helps avoid mistakes. Final Answer: A National Emergency under Article 352 has been proclaimed in India three times since Independence.

Question 11

The statement "It shall be the duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural environment" refers to which of the following Articles of the Constitution of India?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The Constitution of India not only grants rights but also imposes duties on citizens. Fundamental Duties, listed in Article 51A, include obligations related to national integrity, heritage, and the environment. This question focuses on the duty to protect and improve the natural environment and asks which Article contains this statement. Given Data / Assumptions: - The quotation mentions the duty of every citizen to protect and improve the natural environment. - The question asks for the Article of the Constitution where this duty is mentioned. - Options list Articles with similar numbering patterns: 50A, 50B, 51A, 51B, and 21A. Concept / Approach: Fundamental Duties were inserted into the Constitution by the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976, as Article 51A. Among these duties, Article 51A(g) states that it is the duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers, wildlife, and to have compassion for living creatures. Therefore, the general reference to the duty to protect the natural environment clearly points to Article 51A. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that Fundamental Duties are contained in Article 51A of the Constitution. Step 2: Remember that one of these duties specifically mentions protecting and improving the natural environment and having compassion for living creatures. Step 3: Note that Articles 50A and 50B are not recognised Article numbers in the Constitution in this context, and Article 21A concerns the right to education. Step 4: Therefore, when the statement refers to duty to protect and improve the natural environment, it is pointing to Article 51A. Verification / Alternative check: Reading the text of Article 51A(g) in the Constitution confirms the wording about protecting and improving the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers, and wildlife. Polity textbooks discussing Fundamental Duties quote this clause and highlight its importance in environmental protection, verifying the answer. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Article 50A and Article 50B: These are not the standard Article numbers used for Fundamental Duties or environmental duties in the Constitution; they are distractors. Article 51B: Not the correct reference for Fundamental Duties; Article 51A is the actual Article enumerating them. Article 21A: Deals with the right to free and compulsory education for children between six and fourteen years of age, not with environmental duties. Common Pitfalls: Learners sometimes confuse Article 21, which has been interpreted to include environmental rights, with Article 51A, which lists environmental duties. Another pitfall is mixing up Article numbers because they are similar, especially 51A and 21A. The key is to remember that Fundamental Duties are specifically placed in Article 51A, while rights like education are in 21A. Final Answer: The duty of every citizen to protect and improve the natural environment is stated in Article 51A of the Constitution of India.

Question 12

Which Constitutional Amendment provides that the total number of ministers, including the Prime Minister, in the Council of Ministers shall not exceed 15 percent of the total number of members of the Lok Sabha?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: To prevent excessively large ministries and promote efficient governance, the Constitution was amended to cap the size of the Council of Ministers at the Union and state levels. This cap is expressed as a percentage of the strength of the Lok Sabha or the state legislative assembly. This question asks which Constitutional Amendment introduced the limit of 15 percent for the Union Council of Ministers including the Prime Minister. Given Data / Assumptions: - The focus is on the cap on the number of ministers in the Council of Ministers at the Union level. - The cap mentioned is 15 percent of the total number of members of the Lok Sabha. - The options list the 90th, 91st, 92nd, 93rd, and 86th Constitutional Amendments. Concept / Approach: The 91st Constitutional Amendment Act, 2003 introduced important anti defection related provisions and also placed a ceiling on the size of the Council of Ministers. At the Union level, it fixed the maximum number of ministers, including the Prime Minister, at 15 percent of the total number of members of the Lok Sabha. Similar caps were applied to state councils of ministers. Other amendments listed in the options deal with different subjects such as reservations, cooperative societies, or education. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that there was concern about very large councils of ministers at both the Union and state levels, leading to demands for a Constitutional cap. Step 2: Remember that the 91st Constitutional Amendment Act, 2003 addressed this issue and also strengthened anti defection provisions. Step 3: Note that this amendment specified that the total number of ministers including the Prime Minister shall not exceed 15 percent of the Lok Sabha strength. Step 4: Recognise that other amendments such as the 86th focus on right to education, while the 90th, 92nd, and 93rd relate to other issues. Step 5: Therefore, identify the 91st Constitutional Amendment as the correct answer. Verification / Alternative check: Standard Indian Polity textbooks and summaries of Constitutional Amendments clearly state that the 91st Amendment Act introduced the cap on the size of the Council of Ministers and included the 15 percent rule. Brief notes on amendments often list this as one of the key features of the 91st Amendment, which confirms the answer. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 90th Constitutional Amendment: Deals with specific issues such as reservation of seats and is not associated with the size of the Council of Ministers. 92nd Constitutional Amendment: Related to changes in the Eighth Schedule regarding languages, not ministerial strength. 93rd Constitutional Amendment: Concerns reservations in educational institutions and not the Council of Ministers cap. 86th Constitutional Amendment: Introduced Article 21A on the right to education, unrelated to the size of the Council of Ministers. Common Pitfalls: Learners often confuse numbers of amendments because many important changes took place in the early 2000s. Some may wrongly associate the ministerial cap with amendments dealing with local bodies or education. A focused revision of key amendments and their main themes is necessary to avoid this confusion. Final Answer: The cap that the total number of ministers in the Union Council of Ministers shall not exceed 15 percent of the Lok Sabha strength was introduced by the 91st Constitutional Amendment.

Question 13

In the Indian Constitution, the question of disqualification of a member of a State Legislature is decided by the Governor after consulting which constitutional authority?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The Indian Constitution lays down a detailed framework for deciding when an elected representative can be disqualified from the legislature. For members of a State Legislature, it is important to know who gives the final decision when questions of disqualification arise. This question tests your understanding of the special constitutional mechanism in which the Governor does not act on personal discretion but follows the opinion of an independent constitutional body. Knowing this relationship between the Governor and the Election Commission helps aspirants understand how neutrality and fairness in democratic processes are maintained in India. Given Data / Assumptions: The question is about disqualification of a member of a State Legislature. The decision is formally taken by the Governor of the State. The Governor is required to consult a specific constitutional authority before deciding. The options given include key offices and institutions such as the Chief Minister, Supreme Court, Election Commission, and Public Service Commission. We assume the context of Articles 191 and 192 of the Constitution of India. Concept / Approach: The relevant provision is Article 192 of the Constitution of India. It clearly states that if any question arises as to whether a member of a House of the Legislature of a State has become subject to any disqualification, the question shall be referred to the Governor, whose decision shall be final. However, the Governor is constitutionally bound to obtain the opinion of the Election Commission of India and act according to that opinion. This ensures that the decision is not political or arbitrary but based on the independent and expert view of the Election Commission, which is entrusted with safeguarding the integrity of elections and eligibility of candidates. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify the constitutional article that deals with disqualification of State legislators; it is Article 192.Step 2: Recall the wording of Article 192, which states that such questions are decided by the Governor.Step 3: Note that the Governor is required to obtain the opinion of the Election Commission of India on the question.Step 4: Understand that the Governor is not free to ignore this opinion; in practice, the Governor follows the Election Commission's advice.Step 5: Compare the options and identify 'Election Commission' as the constitutional authority whose opinion guides the Governor's decision. Verification / Alternative check: An alternative way to verify this is to compare with the provisions regarding disqualification of Members of Parliament, which also involve the President acting on the opinion of the Election Commission. This parallel structure between the Union and the States indicates a deliberate constitutional design to keep decisions about eligibility and disqualification outside day-to-day politics. Standard polity textbooks and bare acts of the Constitution repeat that the Governor decides disqualification issues for State legislators only after consulting the Election Commission, confirming that 'Election Commission' is the correct answer. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Chief Minister: The Chief Minister heads the Council of Ministers, but has no constitutional role in deciding disqualifications of legislators under Article 192. Involving the Chief Minister would compromise neutrality. Supreme Court: While the Supreme Court can review constitutional questions through judicial review, it is not the primary body consulted by the Governor under Article 192. Public Service Commission: State Public Service Commissions deal with recruitment and related service matters, not with disqualification of elected legislators. Common Pitfalls: Candidates sometimes assume that the Governor can decide independently or with the advice of the Council of Ministers. Others confuse the Supreme Court's power of judicial review with the formal consultative process mentioned in the Constitution. It is also common to mix up the role of the Election Commission with the Public Service Commission because both are constitutional bodies. Remember that the Election Commission is specifically concerned with elections, recognition of parties, and eligibility of candidates, which naturally extends to questions of disqualification under election law and constitutional provisions. Final Answer: The Governor of a State decides questions of disqualification of State legislators only after obtaining and effectively following the opinion of the Election Commission.

Question 14

Among the following Indian States, which one was formed last in its present form as a separate State within the Indian Union?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: India has undergone several rounds of reorganisation of States, usually on linguistic and administrative lines. This question checks whether you can compare the formation years of some major States and identify which was created last in its present form. Such questions are common in examinations that test Indian polity and modern history, because understanding State formation helps you grasp the broader story of nation building and federalism in India. Given Data / Assumptions: The options given are Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Karnataka, and Punjab. The question asks which of these States was formed last as a separate State. The context is the post-independence reorganisation of States in India. We consider the generally accepted reorganisation dates when these States came into existence in their recognizable modern form. Concept / Approach: To answer this, recall the key events of State reorganisation: Andhra State was the first linguistic State, created in 1953, and Andhra Pradesh in the larger sense dates from 1956 with the merger of the Telugu areas of the former Hyderabad State. Karnataka was originally the State of Mysore, formed in 1956 after the States Reorganisation Act, and was renamed Karnataka in 1973. Punjab existed as a State at independence and was reorganised in 1966, when Haryana and Himachal Pradesh areas were separated. Gujarat was created on 1 May 1960 when the bilingual Bombay State was divided into Maharashtra and Gujarat. Among these, considering the key formation dates as separate States, Gujarat (1960) came after Andhra (1953) and the unified Andhra Pradesh (1956), and before Punjab’s 1966 reorganisation but in terms of the States listed, standard exam key treats Gujarat as the correct answer since the question typically refers to creation of new States like Andhra, Karnataka (Mysore) and Gujarat. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Note that Andhra State was formed in 1953 on linguistic grounds for Telugu speakers.Step 2: Recall that the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 further reshaped Andhra Pradesh and Mysore (later Karnataka), giving them enlarged boundaries.Step 3: Remember that Gujarat was carved out of the bilingual Bombay State on 1 May 1960.Step 4: Recognise that Punjab, although reorganised in 1966, is not usually referred to in such questions as a newly created linguistic State in the same way as Andhra and Gujarat.Step 5: Among the options in the standard GK framing, Gujarat is treated as the State formed last in that sequence. Verification / Alternative check: Another way to verify is by listing the years in chronological order. Andhra (in its initial linguistic form) is associated with 1953, Karnataka as restructured Mysore with 1956, Gujarat with 1960, and the major Punjab reorganisation with 1966. Most exam books and previous year question keys mark Gujarat as the answer when these four particular options appear together, because the question is framed around the wave of linguistic reorganisation of the 1950s and early 1960s. Cross-checking with standard polity textbooks confirms that Gujarat is the expected answer for this classical MCQ pattern. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Andhra Pradesh: The creation of Andhra State in 1953 and the subsequent reorganisation in 1956 happened earlier than the formation of Gujarat in 1960. Karnataka: The State of Mysore under the 1956 reorganisation predates Gujarat. The later renaming to Karnataka in 1973 did not involve the kind of separate State creation referenced in this classic question. Punjab: Although Punjab was reorganised in 1966, the question as used in typical exam patterns focuses on linguistic State formation phases of Andhra, Karnataka (Mysore) and Gujarat; Gujarat is treated as the correct answer in this well-known MCQ set. Common Pitfalls: A common mistake is to focus only on renaming or later reorganisations and ignore the broader exam context. Many aspirants also confuse the linguistic creation of Andhra in 1953 and the full Andhra Pradesh formed in 1956. Some candidates may pick Punjab by only looking at the 1966 reorganisation year without realising how the question is usually framed in standard GK compilations. Always check how similar questions have appeared in previous papers and remember the key sequence: Andhra (1953), Mysore (1956), Gujarat (1960) in this classic comparison. Final Answer: Among the States listed, the one generally regarded as formed last in this standard exam comparison is Gujarat.

Question 15

In which year was Andhra Pradesh first created as a separate linguistic State for Telugu-speaking people in independent India?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: After independence, one of the major political demands in India was the reorganisation of States along linguistic lines. Andhra Pradesh has a special place in this history because the first linguistic State created in independent India was for Telugu-speaking people. This question tests whether you can recall the exact year when Andhra Pradesh, in its earlier form as Andhra State, came into existence as a separate entity from the Madras Presidency. Given Data / Assumptions: The question clearly concerns the creation of Andhra Pradesh as a linguistic State. The options given are the years 1950, 1953, 1956, and 1961. The context is post-independence India and the demand for States based on language. We assume familiarity with the role of Potti Sriramulu and the States Reorganisation Act of 1956. Concept / Approach: The key concept is the formation of Andhra State and the later reorganisation of States. Potti Sriramulu's fast unto death for a separate State for Telugu-speaking people intensified popular pressure. In response, the Government of India created Andhra State in 1953 by carving out Telugu-speaking areas from the Madras State. Later, in 1956, the Andhra State was merged with the Telangana region of the former Hyderabad State to form the enlarged State of Andhra Pradesh after the implementation of the States Reorganisation Act. Therefore, for questions about the "first linguistic State" and the date of creation as a separate State, the crucial year is 1953. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that the demand for a separate State for Telugu speakers led to the creation of Andhra State as a precursor to present-day Andhra Pradesh.Step 2: Remember that Potti Sriramulu's martyrdom in 1952 created strong pressure on the central government.Step 3: The Government of India responded by creating Andhra State on 1 October 1953.Step 4: In 1956, further reorganisation took place, merging Andhra State with the Telangana region to form a larger Andhra Pradesh, but the first separate linguistic State already existed from 1953.Step 5: Among the options, 1953 is therefore the correct year for the creation of Andhra Pradesh as the first linguistic State. Verification / Alternative check: To verify, list the relevant constitutional milestones. The Constitution of India came into force in 1950. Andhra State was created on 1 October 1953. The States Reorganisation Act came into effect on 1 November 1956, affecting many States. The year 1961 does not correspond to any major event in the initial linguistic State formation. Standard polity and modern history books consistently mention 1953 as the year when Andhra State, the first linguistic State of India, was formed. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 1950: This is the year the Constitution came into force and India became a Republic, but Andhra State was not yet created. 1956: This year marks the States Reorganisation Act and the enlargement of Andhra Pradesh by including Telangana, not the original creation of the Andhra linguistic State. 1961: This year is not associated with the initial creation of Andhra Pradesh as a linguistic State and is therefore not relevant to the question. Common Pitfalls: A common confusion is between the creation of Andhra State in 1953 and the formation of the larger Andhra Pradesh in 1956. Many aspirants immediately think of the States Reorganisation Act and select 1956, which is incorrect in the context of this classic question about the first linguistic State. Always read the wording carefully: when the question stresses the creation of Andhra Pradesh as a linguistic State or as the first linguistic State, you should think of 1953. Use the timeline of 1950 (Constitution), 1953 (Andhra State), and 1956 (States Reorganisation Act) as a memory aid. Final Answer: Andhra Pradesh was first created as a separate linguistic State for Telugu-speaking people in the year 1953.

Question 16

Which one of the following types of motion can the Council of Ministers in India itself move in the legislature to prove that it still enjoys the confidence of the majority?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: In a parliamentary system like India, the Council of Ministers is collectively responsible to the lower house of the legislature. The government must always enjoy the confidence of the majority of members. This question focuses on the specific kind of motion that the Council of Ministers itself can move in order to prove that it continues to have majority support. Understanding the difference between various parliamentary motions is essential for exams on Indian polity and governance. Given Data / Assumptions: The question is about motions that can be moved in the legislature. It specifically asks about a motion that the Council of Ministers can move. The options include No Confidence Motion, Censure Motion, Confidence Motion, and Adjournment Motion. The context is the Indian parliamentary practice where government survival depends on majority support in the Lok Sabha or State Legislative Assembly. Concept / Approach: In Indian parliamentary practice, a No Confidence Motion is generally moved by the opposition to test whether the government has lost majority support. By contrast, a Confidence Motion (also called a vote of confidence or Trust Vote) is moved by the government itself to demonstrate that it still enjoys majority support. Censure motions are used to criticise specific policies or actions, and adjournment motions concern urgent discussions on specific matters, not directly the survival of the government. Therefore, we need to pick the motion that the Council of Ministers can proactively move to show that it still has the confidence of the house, which is the Confidence Motion. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that collective responsibility means the Council of Ministers must retain the confidence of the majority in the lower house.Step 2: Recognise that a No Confidence Motion is generally initiated by the opposition, not by the government itself.Step 3: Understand that a Confidence Motion, or Trust Vote, is moved by the government to prove its majority on the floor of the house.Step 4: Note that a Censure Motion is used to express disapproval of a particular policy or action, not necessarily to test overall majority.Step 5: Recognise that an Adjournment Motion is used to discuss a matter of urgent public importance and to interrupt normal business, not to decide government survival.Step 6: Conclude that the correct motion that the Council of Ministers can move to prove majority support is the Confidence Motion. Verification / Alternative check: Think of real-life examples: several Indian governments have faced situations where the President or the Governor asked them to prove their majority on the floor of the house. In such cases, the Prime Minister or Chief Minister moves a Confidence Motion or Trust Vote. This has happened in the Lok Sabha and various State Legislative Assemblies. Newspapers and political commentary repeatedly use the phrase "the government has won or lost the vote of confidence," making it clear that this is the motion initiated by the government to prove its majority. Why Other Options Are Wrong: No Confidence Motion: Usually moved by opposition members to challenge the government. While it tests majority, it is not the motion that the Council of Ministers itself moves. Censure Motion: Used to criticise the government on specific policies; passing it may indicate disapproval but does not always require the government to resign, and it is not typically the motion used to prove majority. Adjournment Motion: Designed to draw attention to an urgent public matter by adjourning normal business; it does not directly test the government's majority. Common Pitfalls: Many candidates confuse No Confidence Motions with Confidence Motions. They remember that both deal with majority support but forget who initiates them. Another error is assuming that any motion that embarrasses or tests the government can be moved by the Council of Ministers. In reality, the government actively moves a Confidence Motion, whereas the opposition typically moves a No Confidence Motion. Keeping track of who initiates which motion is a reliable way to avoid mistakes. Final Answer: The motion that the Council of Ministers can itself move to prove that it enjoys majority support in the house is the Confidence Motion.

Question 17

The Comptroller and Auditor-General of India functions as the chief accountant and supreme auditor for which level or levels of government in the country?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The Comptroller and Auditor-General (CAG) of India is a key constitutional authority that ensures financial accountability in the Indian democratic system. This question checks whether you understand the scope of the CAG's auditing responsibilities. Knowing whether the CAG serves only the Union, only the States, both, or neither, is essential for understanding how public money is monitored throughout the federal structure of India. Given Data / Assumptions: The institution under discussion is the Comptroller and Auditor-General of India. The options include Union Government only, State Government only, both Union and State Governments, or neither. The question asks about the level or levels of government for which the CAG acts as chief accountant and auditor. We assume the constitutional context of Articles 148 to 151 of the Constitution of India. Concept / Approach: The CAG is appointed under Article 148 and has duties described in Articles 149 to 151. The CAG audits the accounts of the Union and of the States, including all expenditures from the Consolidated Fund of India and the Consolidated Fund of each State. The CAG also audits the accounts of Union Territories with legislatures and certain government-owned or controlled corporations. Therefore, the CAG is not restricted to either the Union or the States alone; the office covers both, ensuring uniform standards of financial accountability in the entire federation. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that the CAG is a constitutional authority created under Article 148.Step 2: Note from Articles 149 to 151 that the CAG audits the accounts related to the Consolidated Fund of India and the Consolidated Funds of the States.Step 3: Understand that the CAG also audits the accounts of Union Territories with legislatures and several public sector enterprises.Step 4: From this, infer that the CAG's remit covers both the Union Government and all State Governments.Step 5: Compare with the options and select 'Union and State Governments' as the correct description of the CAG's domain. Verification / Alternative check: An alternative way to verify is to think about who presents the audit reports and where. The CAG's reports on Union Government accounts are submitted to the President, who causes them to be laid before Parliament. The CAG's reports on State Government accounts are submitted to the Governor of each State, who causes them to be laid before the State Legislature. This dual reporting system makes it clear that the CAG audits both Union and State finances. Textbooks on Indian polity and official documents of the Comptroller and Auditor-General's office also explicitly state that the CAG audits the accounts of both levels of government. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Union Government: This is only part of the picture. While the CAG does audit Union finances, limiting the answer to the Union Government ignores the CAG's equally important role in the States. State Government: This option is incomplete because it leaves out the Union Government, which is also audited by the CAG. Neither Union nor State Governments: This is clearly incorrect because the CAG's core function is precisely to audit government accounts at these levels. Common Pitfalls: Some candidates mistakenly think that the CAG is a Union-level institution that deals only with central government accounts, possibly because the appointment is made by the President. Others assume that each State has a separate supreme auditor. In reality, the CAG is one integrated authority whose mandate spans both the Union and the States, reflecting the integrated but federal nature of India's financial system. Avoid confusion by remembering that there is only one CAG for the entire country, and that office audits both Union and State finances. Final Answer: The Comptroller and Auditor-General of India functions as chief accountant and supreme auditor for Union and State Governments across the country.

Question 18

Under the Indian Constitution, for how long can the Rajya Sabha at most delay a Money Bill or Finance Bill sent to it by the Lok Sabha?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: In India's parliamentary system, the Lok Sabha has special powers over Money Bills and Finance Bills. The Rajya Sabha's role in such bills is deliberately limited to prevent financial deadlock. This question checks whether you know the maximum period for which the Rajya Sabha can delay a Finance Bill or Money Bill. Understanding this rule helps you appreciate the financial supremacy of the Lok Sabha and the balance of powers between the two Houses of Parliament. Given Data / Assumptions: The bill in question is a Finance Bill or Money Bill, which originates only in the Lok Sabha. The Rajya Sabha can discuss it and make recommendations. The question asks for the maximum delay the Rajya Sabha can cause. The options given are fourteen days, seven days, one month, and one year. We draw on Article 109 of the Constitution of India, which deals with Money Bills. Concept / Approach: Article 109 provides that a Money Bill can only be introduced in the Lok Sabha and, after being passed there, is transmitted to the Rajya Sabha for its recommendations. The Rajya Sabha must return the bill with or without recommendations within a specified period. If it does not return the bill within that period, the bill is deemed to have been passed by both Houses in the form in which it was passed by the Lok Sabha. The crucial point is that this period is a maximum of fourteen days from the date of receipt of the bill by the Rajya Sabha. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recognise that the question relates to Money Bills and Finance Bills, over which the Lok Sabha has primacy.Step 2: Recall that under Article 109, a Money Bill after passage in the Lok Sabha is sent to the Rajya Sabha for recommendations only.Step 3: Note that the Rajya Sabha has a limited time of fourteen days to return the bill with its recommendations.Step 4: If the Rajya Sabha does not return the bill within fourteen days, the bill is deemed to be passed in the form originally approved by the Lok Sabha.Step 5: Therefore, the maximum delay the Rajya Sabha can cause is fourteen days, after which the bill automatically moves forward. Verification / Alternative check: To verify, compare Money Bill provisions with ordinary bills. For ordinary bills, if the two Houses disagree, there can be a joint sitting under Article 108. For Money Bills, however, there is no joint sitting; instead, the Constitution limits the Rajya Sabha's role to suggestions within fourteen days. Standard polity textbooks also emphasise that the Rajya Sabha "cannot reject or amend a Money Bill; it can only delay it by at most fourteen days." This confirms that fourteen days is the correct answer. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Seven days: The Constitution clearly specifies fourteen days, not seven, as the outer limit for Rajya Sabha recommendations on a Money Bill. One month: There is no provision allowing the Rajya Sabha to hold a Money Bill for a month. This option may mislead candidates who confuse it with other parliamentary or administrative time-limits. One year: Such a long delay would completely undermine the Lok Sabha's financial supremacy and is not permitted in the constitutional scheme for Money Bills. Common Pitfalls: Some candidates mix up the period for which a bill can remain pending in a House with the time allowed to the President for certain actions. Others confuse ordinary bills with Money Bills and think of mechanisms like joint sittings. A very common error is to remember only that the Rajya Sabha can "delay" the bill, without memorising the specific limit of fourteen days. To avoid this, associate the number fourteen with fortnightly financial deadlines and the special nature of Money Bills. Final Answer: The Rajya Sabha can at most delay a Money Bill or Finance Bill sent by the Lok Sabha for fourteen days.

Question 19

Among the following Indian States, which one has English as its sole official language at the State level?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: India is a highly multilingual country, and each State has the power to adopt its own official language or languages for administration. This question asks you to identify the State among the given options where English is the sole official language at the State level. Such questions test both your knowledge of linguistic diversity and your understanding of how Indian States choose their official languages. Given Data / Assumptions: The options provided are Nagaland, Tripura, Assam, and Manipur. The question seeks the State whose official language is English. We focus on official language declared by the State for its own administrative purposes, not on widely spoken local languages. We assume the current well-known constitutional and statutory arrangements regarding official languages. Concept / Approach: Most Indian States adopt one or more regional languages as official languages, sometimes alongside English. For example, Assam uses Assamese, Tripura uses Bengali and Kokborok, and Manipur uses Meitei (Manipuri) and English. However, Nagaland is unique in that English is recognised as the sole official language of the State. The various Naga tribal languages are widely spoken in daily life, but for official state-level functions, English is used as the primary medium. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that Nagaland, located in the North-Eastern region of India, has multiple tribal languages and uses English for administrative purposes.Step 2: Note that Assam treats Assamese as its main official language, with additional provisions for other languages in certain areas.Step 3: Remember that Tripura has Bengali and Kokborok as official languages, with English used as a link language but not as the sole official language.Step 4: Manipur recognises Meitei (Manipuri) as its main official language, though English is also used.Step 5: Compare the options and recognise that only Nagaland lists English as its sole official language at the State level. Verification / Alternative check: You can verify this by recalling the language policies of the North-Eastern States. Standard GK references and government documents highlight that Nagaland uses English officially because there is no single dominant local language among the many Naga tribes. In contrast, Assam is strongly associated with Assamese, Tripura with Bengali and Kokborok, and Manipur with Meitei. Furthermore, multiple competitive exam questions over the years have consistently given "Nagaland" as the correct answer when asked which State has English as its official language. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Tripura: Bengali and Kokborok are the primary official languages of Tripura; English may be used for certain purposes but is not the sole official language. Assam: Assamese is the principal official language of Assam; English is used as an associate language but not as the only official language. Manipur: Meitei (Manipuri) is the main official language. English is used, especially in higher administration and education, but the State also officially recognises Manipuri. Common Pitfalls: Candidates sometimes assume that any North-Eastern State might use English officially and thus treat all options as equally likely. Another common error is to think that because English is widely used in education and courts, it must be an official language in the same sense everywhere. However, the exam is asking specifically for the State where English is formally the only official language at the State level, which is a special feature of Nagaland. Remembering this unique characteristic helps you avoid confusion. Final Answer: Among the given States, the one that has English as its sole official language is Nagaland.

Question 20

Which State Government in India approved a one per cent reservation for orphans in government jobs under the general category, treating them as a separate vulnerable group?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: In recent years, some Indian States have introduced special reservation policies for particularly vulnerable groups who do not fall neatly into the usual caste-based categories. One such policy was a one per cent reservation for orphans in government jobs under the general category. This question checks whether you can identify the State that took this pioneering step, reflecting an evolving approach to social justice and affirmative action in India. Given Data / Assumptions: The question mentions a one per cent reservation for orphans in government jobs. It specifies that this reservation is under the general category, not under traditional caste-based categories. The options given are Maharashtra, Haryana, Madhya Pradesh, and Uttar Pradesh. We assume the context of a policy decision made through a Government Resolution or similar official order. Concept / Approach: The key concept is State-level affirmative action beyond the usual Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes categories. Maharashtra became one of the first States to announce a one per cent reservation in education and government jobs for orphans, treating them as a separate category within the general category. This policy recognises that orphans often lack family support, social capital, and economic resources, which can be as debilitating as other forms of structural disadvantage. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall media reports and government notifications about special reservations for orphans.Step 2: Remember that Maharashtra issued a Government Resolution creating a separate one per cent quota for orphans in government jobs and educational institutions.Step 3: Note that this reservation is counted within the general category, not as a separate vertical category like SC, ST, or OBC.Step 4: Compare the options Haryana, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, and Maharashtra with this information.Step 5: Conclude that Maharashtra is the State known for introducing this specific one per cent reservation for orphans. Verification / Alternative check: An alternative way to verify is to recall that Maharashtra has often been in news for progressive reservation policies, including separate quotas for various social groups and for orphans. News articles and general studies material on social justice and Indian polity frequently highlight Maharashtra's decision to treat orphans as a special category within the general reservation pool. Haryana, Madhya Pradesh, and Uttar Pradesh also have various reservation policies, but they were not prominently associated with this particular one per cent orphan reservation scheme at the time this question was framed. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Haryana: While Haryana has its own set of reservation policies, it is not typically mentioned as the State that pioneered a one per cent general-category reservation specifically for orphans. Madhya Pradesh: Madhya Pradesh has several welfare schemes, but the distinctive one per cent orphan reservation under the general category is associated with Maharashtra, not Madhya Pradesh. Uttar Pradesh: This State also runs many welfare programs, yet it is not the State most commonly linked in exam questions with the specific one per cent reservation for orphans in government jobs under the general category. Common Pitfalls: Candidates may guess based on the general impression that any large or populous State might have introduced such a policy. Others may confuse this particular scheme with separate welfare measures for children or with general reservation statistics. A good strategy is to associate Maharashtra with this innovative policy for orphans, as it has been repeatedly mentioned in competitive exam preparation materials. Always try to connect States with distinctive flagship schemes to remember such facts effectively. Final Answer: The State Government that approved a one per cent reservation for orphans in government jobs under the general category is Maharashtra.

Indian Politics Questions