DAY – 50 : Insta 75 Days Revision Plan-2025 : Polity

Read about Insights IAS INSTA 75 Days Revision Plan for UPSC Civil Services Prelims – 2025 [ HERE ] :

DOWNLOAD THE INSTA 75 DAYS REVISION TIMETABLE(GS) [HERE] :

DOWNLOAD THE INSTA 75 DAYS REVISION TIMETABLE(CSAT) [HERE] :

Download MITRA booklet (My Insta Tests Revision and Assessment) – It’s for to track your daily progress while following Insta 75 Days plan. [ CLICK HERE ] :

#### Quiz-summary

0 of 30 questions completed

Questions:

#### Information

Wish you Good Luck! 🙂

You have already completed the quiz before. Hence you can not start it again.

Quiz is loading...

You must sign in or sign up to start the quiz.

You have to finish following quiz, to start this quiz:

0 of 30 questions answered correctly

Your time:

Time has elapsed

You have reached 0 of 0 points, (0)

Average score |

Your score |

#### Categories

• Not categorized 0%

Pos. | Name | Entered on | Points | Result

Table is loading

No data available

| | | |

• Question 1 of 30 1. Question 1 points Consider the following statements regarding the ‘Basic Structure’ doctrine of the Indian Constitution: The doctrine explicitly prohibits the Parliament from amending any of the Fundamental Rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution. Judicial Review, although considered essential for upholding the Constitution, was definitively declared part of the ‘Basic Structure’ only after the Kesavananda Bharati (1973) judgment, specifically in the Minerva Mills (1980) case. The power of Parliament to amend the Constitution under Article 368 is itself considered a part of the ‘Basic Structure’, implying it cannot be abrogated. The Supreme Court has provided an exhaustive and definitive list of features constituting the ‘Basic Structure’ to ensure clarity and prevent legislative ambiguity. How many of the above statements are correct? (a) Only one (b) Only two (c) Only three (d) All four Correct Solution: B Statement 1 is incorrect. The Basic Structure doctrine, established in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), held that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 is wide but not unlimited; it cannot alter the ‘basic structure’ or framework of the Constitution. It does not explicitly prohibit amending any Fundamental Right, but rather prevents amendments that would damage or destroy the basic features, which include certain aspects of Fundamental Rights. Parliament can amend Fundamental Rights as long as the basic structure is not violated. Statement 2 is correct. While the Kesavananda Bharati case laid the foundation for the Basic Structure doctrine and implicitly relied on judicial review, it was in the Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980) case that the Supreme Court explicitly struck down clauses of the 42nd Amendment Act that sought to curtail judicial review, firmly establishing judicial review as part of the basic structure. Statement 3 is correct. The Supreme Court in Kesavananda Bharati and subsequent cases has held that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 is itself a basic feature. This power cannot be taken away or abrogated by Parliament itself through an amendment, as doing so would fundamentally alter the constitutional scheme. However, this power is limited by the doctrine itself. Statement 4 is incorrect. The Supreme Court has deliberately not provided an exhaustive list of basic features. It has evolved the doctrine on a case-by-case basis, identifying features like supremacy of the Constitution, rule of law, separation of powers, federalism, secularism, judicial review, parliamentary system, free and fair elections, etc., as part of the basic structure over time. This allows flexibility but has also led to criticism regarding vagueness. Therefore, only statements 2 and 3 are correct. Incorrect Solution: B Statement 1 is incorrect. The Basic Structure doctrine, established in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), held that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 is wide but not unlimited; it cannot alter the ‘basic structure’ or framework of the Constitution. It does not explicitly prohibit amending any Fundamental Right, but rather prevents amendments that would damage or destroy the basic features, which include certain aspects of Fundamental Rights. Parliament can amend Fundamental Rights as long as the basic structure is not violated. Statement 2 is correct. While the Kesavananda Bharati case laid the foundation for the Basic Structure doctrine and implicitly relied on judicial review, it was in the Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980) case that the Supreme Court explicitly struck down clauses of the 42nd Amendment Act that sought to curtail judicial review, firmly establishing judicial review as part of the basic structure. Statement 3 is correct. The Supreme Court in Kesavananda Bharati and subsequent cases has held that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 is itself a basic feature. This power cannot be taken away or abrogated by Parliament itself through an amendment, as doing so would fundamentally alter the constitutional scheme. However, this power is limited by the doctrine itself. Statement 4 is incorrect. The Supreme Court has deliberately not provided an exhaustive list of basic features. It has evolved the doctrine on a case-by-case basis, identifying features like supremacy of the Constitution, rule of law, separation of powers, federalism, secularism, judicial review, parliamentary system, free and fair elections, etc., as part of the basic structure over time. This allows flexibility but has also led to criticism regarding vagueness. Therefore, only statements 2 and 3 are correct.

#### 1. Question

Consider the following statements regarding the ‘Basic Structure’ doctrine of the Indian Constitution:

• The doctrine explicitly prohibits the Parliament from amending any of the Fundamental Rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution.

• Judicial Review, although considered essential for upholding the Constitution, was definitively declared part of the ‘Basic Structure’ only after the Kesavananda Bharati (1973) judgment, specifically in the Minerva Mills (1980) case.

• The power of Parliament to amend the Constitution under Article 368 is itself considered a part of the ‘Basic Structure’, implying it cannot be abrogated.

• The Supreme Court has provided an exhaustive and definitive list of features constituting the ‘Basic Structure’ to ensure clarity and prevent legislative ambiguity.

How many of the above statements are correct?

• (a) Only one

• (b) Only two

• (c) Only three

• (d) All four

Solution: B

• Statement 1 is incorrect. The Basic Structure doctrine, established in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), held that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 is wide but not unlimited; it cannot alter the ‘basic structure’ or framework of the Constitution. It does not explicitly prohibit amending any Fundamental Right, but rather prevents amendments that would damage or destroy the basic features, which include certain aspects of Fundamental Rights. Parliament can amend Fundamental Rights as long as the basic structure is not violated.

• Statement 2 is correct. While the Kesavananda Bharati case laid the foundation for the Basic Structure doctrine and implicitly relied on judicial review, it was in the Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980) case that the Supreme Court explicitly struck down clauses of the 42nd Amendment Act that sought to curtail judicial review, firmly establishing judicial review as part of the basic structure.

• Statement 3 is correct. The Supreme Court in Kesavananda Bharati and subsequent cases has held that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 is itself a basic feature. This power cannot be taken away or abrogated by Parliament itself through an amendment, as doing so would fundamentally alter the constitutional scheme. However, this power is limited by the doctrine itself.

• Statement 4 is incorrect. The Supreme Court has deliberately not provided an exhaustive list of basic features. It has evolved the doctrine on a case-by-case basis, identifying features like supremacy of the Constitution, rule of law, separation of powers, federalism, secularism, judicial review, parliamentary system, free and fair elections, etc., as part of the basic structure over time. This allows flexibility but has also led to criticism regarding vagueness.

Therefore, only statements 2 and 3 are correct.

Solution: B

Therefore, only statements 2 and 3 are correct.

• Question 2 of 30 2. Question 1 points Consider the following statements: The Preamble to the Indian Constitution, being non-justiciable, holds no legal significance and cannot be used by the courts to interpret ambiguous provisions of the Constitution. A person born in India on or after January 26, 1950, but before July 1, 1987, is considered a citizen of India by birth, irrespective of the nationality of their parents. The power to make provisions with respect to the acquisition and termination of citizenship rests exclusively with the Parliament, and state legislatures have no role in this matter. Which of the statements given above is/are correct? (a) 1 and 3 only (b) 2 and 3 only (c) 2 only (d) 1, 2 and 3 Correct Solution: B Statement 1 is incorrect. While the Preamble is non-justiciable (not enforceable in a court of law), the Supreme Court in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) held that the Preamble is part of the Constitution and can be used to interpret ambiguous provisions where the text is unclear. It reflects the basic philosophy and fundamental values upon which the Constitution is based. It is considered the ‘key to the minds of the makers of the Constitution’. Statement 2 is correct. According to Section 3 of the Citizenship Act, 1955 (as it stood before the 1986 amendment), persons born in India on or after January 26, 1950, but before July 1, 1987, were citizens of India by birth regardless of their parents’ nationality. The requirement regarding the citizenship of parents was introduced later by the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 1986. Statement 3 is correct. Article 11 of the Constitution explicitly empowers the Parliament to make any provision with respect to the acquisition and termination of citizenship and all other matters relating to citizenship. Citizenship falls under the Union List (Entry 17) in the Seventh Schedule, making it an exclusive domain of the Parliament. State legislatures have no power to legislate on citizenship matters. Therefore, statements 2 and 3 are correct. Incorrect Solution: B Statement 1 is incorrect. While the Preamble is non-justiciable (not enforceable in a court of law), the Supreme Court in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) held that the Preamble is part of the Constitution and can be used to interpret ambiguous provisions where the text is unclear. It reflects the basic philosophy and fundamental values upon which the Constitution is based. It is considered the ‘key to the minds of the makers of the Constitution’. Statement 2 is correct. According to Section 3 of the Citizenship Act, 1955 (as it stood before the 1986 amendment), persons born in India on or after January 26, 1950, but before July 1, 1987, were citizens of India by birth regardless of their parents’ nationality. The requirement regarding the citizenship of parents was introduced later by the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 1986. Statement 3 is correct. Article 11 of the Constitution explicitly empowers the Parliament to make any provision with respect to the acquisition and termination of citizenship and all other matters relating to citizenship. Citizenship falls under the Union List (Entry 17) in the Seventh Schedule, making it an exclusive domain of the Parliament. State legislatures have no power to legislate on citizenship matters. Therefore, statements 2 and 3 are correct.

#### 2. Question

Consider the following statements:

• The Preamble to the Indian Constitution, being non-justiciable, holds no legal significance and cannot be used by the courts to interpret ambiguous provisions of the Constitution.

• A person born in India on or after January 26, 1950, but before July 1, 1987, is considered a citizen of India by birth, irrespective of the nationality of their parents.

• The power to make provisions with respect to the acquisition and termination of citizenship rests exclusively with the Parliament, and state legislatures have no role in this matter.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

• (a) 1 and 3 only

• (b) 2 and 3 only

• (c) 2 only

• (d) 1, 2 and 3

Solution: B

• Statement 1 is incorrect. While the Preamble is non-justiciable (not enforceable in a court of law), the Supreme Court in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) held that the Preamble is part of the Constitution and can be used to interpret ambiguous provisions where the text is unclear. It reflects the basic philosophy and fundamental values upon which the Constitution is based. It is considered the ‘key to the minds of the makers of the Constitution’.

• Statement 2 is correct. According to Section 3 of the Citizenship Act, 1955 (as it stood before the 1986 amendment), persons born in India on or after January 26, 1950, but before July 1, 1987, were citizens of India by birth regardless of their parents’ nationality. The requirement regarding the citizenship of parents was introduced later by the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 1986.

• Statement 3 is correct. Article 11 of the Constitution explicitly empowers the Parliament to make any provision with respect to the acquisition and termination of citizenship and all other matters relating to citizenship. Citizenship falls under the Union List (Entry 17) in the Seventh Schedule, making it an exclusive domain of the Parliament. State legislatures have no power to legislate on citizenship matters.

Therefore, statements 2 and 3 are correct.

Solution: B

Therefore, statements 2 and 3 are correct.

• Question 3 of 30 3. Question 1 points Consider the following scenarios involving Bills in the Indian Parliament: A Bill, originated and passed by the Rajya Sabha, is pending in the Lok Sabha when the Lok Sabha is dissolved. A Bill, originated and passed by the Lok Sabha, is pending in the Rajya Sabha when the Lok Sabha is dissolved. A Bill, passed by both Houses, is returned by the President for reconsideration, and the Lok Sabha is dissolved before the Houses reconsider it. The President has notified the intention to summon a joint sitting for a Bill due to disagreement, but the Lok Sabha dissolves before the joint sitting is held. In which of the above scenarios does the Bill lapse upon the dissolution of the Lok Sabha? (a) 1 and 2 only (b) 2 only (c) 1, 2 and 4 only (d) 2 and 4 only Correct Solution: A Article 107 of the Constitution deals with the lapsing of Bills upon the dissolution of the Lok Sabha. Scenario 1: Bills originating in Rajya Sabha which having been passed by the House and transmitted to Lok Sabha and pending there lapse on the dissolution of Lok Sabha. Scenario 2: A Bill passed by the Lok Sabha but pending in the Rajya Sabha lapses on the dissolution of the Lok Sabha. Therefore, statement 2 describes a scenario where the Bill lapses. Scenario 3: A Bill passed by both Houses but returned by the President for reconsideration does not lapse on the dissolution of the Lok Sabha. The new Lok Sabha can reconsider the Bill. Therefore, statement 3 describes a scenario where the Bill does not lapse. Scenario 4: If the President has notified the intention to summon a joint sitting under Article 108 before the dissolution of the Lok Sabha, the Bill does not lapse, and the joint sitting can still be held despite the dissolution. Therefore, statement 4 describes a scenario where the Bill does not lapse. Thus, only the scenario described in statement 2 results in the Bill lapsing. Incorrect Solution: A Article 107 of the Constitution deals with the lapsing of Bills upon the dissolution of the Lok Sabha. Scenario 1: Bills originating in Rajya Sabha which having been passed by the House and transmitted to Lok Sabha and pending there lapse on the dissolution of Lok Sabha. Scenario 2: A Bill passed by the Lok Sabha but pending in the Rajya Sabha lapses on the dissolution of the Lok Sabha. Therefore, statement 2 describes a scenario where the Bill lapses. Scenario 3: A Bill passed by both Houses but returned by the President for reconsideration does not lapse on the dissolution of the Lok Sabha. The new Lok Sabha can reconsider the Bill. Therefore, statement 3 describes a scenario where the Bill does not lapse. Scenario 4: If the President has notified the intention to summon a joint sitting under Article 108 before the dissolution of the Lok Sabha, the Bill does not lapse, and the joint sitting can still be held despite the dissolution. Therefore, statement 4 describes a scenario where the Bill does not lapse. Thus, only the scenario described in statement 2 results in the Bill lapsing.

#### 3. Question

Consider the following scenarios involving Bills in the Indian Parliament:

• A Bill, originated and passed by the Rajya Sabha, is pending in the Lok Sabha when the Lok Sabha is dissolved.

• A Bill, originated and passed by the Lok Sabha, is pending in the Rajya Sabha when the Lok Sabha is dissolved.

• A Bill, passed by both Houses, is returned by the President for reconsideration, and the Lok Sabha is dissolved before the Houses reconsider it.

• The President has notified the intention to summon a joint sitting for a Bill due to disagreement, but the Lok Sabha dissolves before the joint sitting is held.

In which of the above scenarios does the Bill lapse upon the dissolution of the Lok Sabha?

• (a) 1 and 2 only

• (b) 2 only

• (c) 1, 2 and 4 only

• (d) 2 and 4 only

Solution: A

Article 107 of the Constitution deals with the lapsing of Bills upon the dissolution of the Lok Sabha.

• Scenario 1: Bills originating in Rajya Sabha which having been passed by the House and transmitted to Lok Sabha and pending there lapse on the dissolution of Lok Sabha.

• Scenario 2: A Bill passed by the Lok Sabha but pending in the Rajya Sabha lapses on the dissolution of the Lok Sabha. Therefore, statement 2 describes a scenario where the Bill lapses.

• Scenario 3: A Bill passed by both Houses but returned by the President for reconsideration does not lapse on the dissolution of the Lok Sabha. The new Lok Sabha can reconsider the Bill. Therefore, statement 3 describes a scenario where the Bill does not lapse.

• Scenario 4: If the President has notified the intention to summon a joint sitting under Article 108 before the dissolution of the Lok Sabha, the Bill does not lapse, and the joint sitting can still be held despite the dissolution. Therefore, statement 4 describes a scenario where the Bill does not lapse.

Thus, only the scenario described in statement 2 results in the Bill lapsing.

Solution: A

Article 107 of the Constitution deals with the lapsing of Bills upon the dissolution of the Lok Sabha.

• Scenario 1: Bills originating in Rajya Sabha which having been passed by the House and transmitted to Lok Sabha and pending there lapse on the dissolution of Lok Sabha.

• Scenario 2: A Bill passed by the Lok Sabha but pending in the Rajya Sabha lapses on the dissolution of the Lok Sabha. Therefore, statement 2 describes a scenario where the Bill lapses.

Thus, only the scenario described in statement 2 results in the Bill lapsing.

• Question 4 of 30 4. Question 1 points Consider the following statements regarding the Anti-Defection Law (Tenth Schedule) in India: The decision of the Presiding Officer (Speaker/Chairman) regarding disqualification under the Tenth Schedule is final and cannot be subjected to judicial review. Voluntarily giving up the membership of a political party, a ground for disqualification, necessarily requires formal resignation from the party by the member. The law explicitly empowers the President of India to prescribe a time limit within which the Presiding Officer must decide a defection case. If a member is expelled from their political party, they are automatically disqualified from the membership of the House under the Tenth Schedule. Which of the statements given above is/are incorrect? (a) 1 and 3 only (b) 2 and 4 only (c) 1, 2, 3 and 4 (d) 1, 3 and 4 only Correct Solution: C Statement 1 is incorrect. The Supreme Court in Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992) upheld the validity of the Tenth Schedule but held that the Presiding Officer’s decision, while acting as a tribunal, is subject to judicial review on grounds of mala fides, perversity, non-compliance with natural justice, etc.. Thus, the decision is not absolutely final. Statement 2 is incorrect. The Supreme Court in Ravi S. Naik v. Union of India (1994) clarified that the phrase ‘voluntarily gives up his membership’ has a wider connotation than formal resignation. It can also be inferred from the member’s conduct, such as publicly opposing the party or supporting a rival party. Statement 3 is incorrect. The Tenth Schedule itself does not prescribe any time limit for the Presiding Officer to decide on a disqualification petition. While the Supreme Court in Keisham Meghachandra Singh v. Speaker, Manipur Legislative Assembly (2020) observed that decisions should ideally be made within three months, it did not empower the President to set such a limit; it urged Parliament to consider amending the law or framing rules. The SC has recently reiterated that it can intervene if there is prolonged inaction. Statement 4 is incorrect. Expulsion from a political party does not automatically lead to disqualification under the Tenth Schedule. An expelled member continues to be a member of the House, albeit an ‘unattached’ member for procedural purposes within the House. They are not disqualified unless they subsequently join another political party (if independent/nominated) or defy the whip of the original party they were elected from (which is complex post-expulsion). Therefore, all four statements are incorrect. Incorrect Solution: C Statement 1 is incorrect. The Supreme Court in Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992) upheld the validity of the Tenth Schedule but held that the Presiding Officer’s decision, while acting as a tribunal, is subject to judicial review on grounds of mala fides, perversity, non-compliance with natural justice, etc.. Thus, the decision is not absolutely final. Statement 2 is incorrect. The Supreme Court in Ravi S. Naik v. Union of India (1994) clarified that the phrase ‘voluntarily gives up his membership’ has a wider connotation than formal resignation. It can also be inferred from the member’s conduct, such as publicly opposing the party or supporting a rival party. Statement 3 is incorrect. The Tenth Schedule itself does not prescribe any time limit for the Presiding Officer to decide on a disqualification petition. While the Supreme Court in Keisham Meghachandra Singh v. Speaker, Manipur Legislative Assembly (2020) observed that decisions should ideally be made within three months, it did not empower the President to set such a limit; it urged Parliament to consider amending the law or framing rules. The SC has recently reiterated that it can intervene if there is prolonged inaction. Statement 4 is incorrect. Expulsion from a political party does not automatically lead to disqualification under the Tenth Schedule. An expelled member continues to be a member of the House, albeit an ‘unattached’ member for procedural purposes within the House. They are not disqualified unless they subsequently join another political party (if independent/nominated) or defy the whip of the original party they were elected from (which is complex post-expulsion). Therefore, all four statements are incorrect.

#### 4. Question

Consider the following statements regarding the Anti-Defection Law (Tenth Schedule) in India:

• The decision of the Presiding Officer (Speaker/Chairman) regarding disqualification under the Tenth Schedule is final and cannot be subjected to judicial review.

• Voluntarily giving up the membership of a political party, a ground for disqualification, necessarily requires formal resignation from the party by the member.

• The law explicitly empowers the President of India to prescribe a time limit within which the Presiding Officer must decide a defection case.

• If a member is expelled from their political party, they are automatically disqualified from the membership of the House under the Tenth Schedule.

Which of the statements given above is/are incorrect?

• (a) 1 and 3 only

• (b) 2 and 4 only

• (c) 1, 2, 3 and 4

• (d) 1, 3 and 4 only

Solution: C

• Statement 1 is incorrect. The Supreme Court in Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992) upheld the validity of the Tenth Schedule but held that the Presiding Officer’s decision, while acting as a tribunal, is subject to judicial review on grounds of mala fides, perversity, non-compliance with natural justice, etc.. Thus, the decision is not absolutely final.

• Statement 2 is incorrect. The Supreme Court in Ravi S. Naik v. Union of India (1994) clarified that the phrase ‘voluntarily gives up his membership’ has a wider connotation than formal resignation. It can also be inferred from the member’s conduct, such as publicly opposing the party or supporting a rival party.

• Statement 3 is incorrect. The Tenth Schedule itself does not prescribe any time limit for the Presiding Officer to decide on a disqualification petition. While the Supreme Court in Keisham Meghachandra Singh v. Speaker, Manipur Legislative Assembly (2020) observed that decisions should ideally be made within three months, it did not empower the President to set such a limit; it urged Parliament to consider amending the law or framing rules. The SC has recently reiterated that it can intervene if there is prolonged inaction.

• Statement 4 is incorrect. Expulsion from a political party does not automatically lead to disqualification under the Tenth Schedule. An expelled member continues to be a member of the House, albeit an ‘unattached’ member for procedural purposes within the House. They are not disqualified unless they subsequently join another political party (if independent/nominated) or defy the whip of the original party they were elected from (which is complex post-expulsion).

Therefore, all four statements are incorrect.

Solution: C

Therefore, all four statements are incorrect.

• Question 5 of 30 5. Question 1 points Consider the following statements regarding the adjudication of inter-state river water disputes in India: Article 262 of the Constitution mandates the Parliament to establish a permanent, unified tribunal for adjudicating all inter-state water disputes. The Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956, empowers the Central Government to constitute a Water Disputes Tribunal only after it is satisfied that the dispute cannot be settled through negotiations. Once a water dispute is referred to a Tribunal constituted under the Act, the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and other courts is completely and irrevocably barred with respect to that dispute, including questioning the Tribunal’s functioning or award. Which of the statements given above is/are correct? (a) 2 only (b) 1 and 2 only (c) 2 and 3 only (d) 1, 2 and 3 Correct Solution: A Statement 1 is incorrect. Article 262(1) empowers Parliament to provide by law for the adjudication of such disputes. It does not mandate a single, permanent tribunal. Parliament enacted the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956, which provides for the constitution of ad hoc tribunals for specific disputes as they arise. Recent legislative proposals have aimed at creating a more permanent mechanism, but Article 262 itself doesn’t mandate it. Statement 2 is correct. Section 4 of the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956, states that when a request is received from a State Government regarding a water dispute, the Central Government shall constitute a Tribunal if it is of the opinion that the dispute cannot be settled by negotiations. This implies an attempt at negotiation or consultation is a prerequisite before constituting a tribunal. Statement 3 is incorrect. Article 262(2) allows Parliament to provide by law that neither the Supreme Court nor any other court shall exercise jurisdiction in respect of any such dispute referred to a Tribunal. The Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956 (Section 11) does bar the jurisdiction of courts. However, the Supreme Court has held that while it cannot question the award or allocation formula given by the Tribunal, it retains the power of judicial review over the Tribunal’s functioning, ensuring it acts within its jurisdiction and follows principles of natural justice. The bar is not absolute regarding all aspects of the dispute or the tribunal’s process. Therefore, only statement 2 is correct. Incorrect Solution: A Statement 1 is incorrect. Article 262(1) empowers Parliament to provide by law for the adjudication of such disputes. It does not mandate a single, permanent tribunal. Parliament enacted the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956, which provides for the constitution of ad hoc tribunals for specific disputes as they arise. Recent legislative proposals have aimed at creating a more permanent mechanism, but Article 262 itself doesn’t mandate it. Statement 2 is correct. Section 4 of the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956, states that when a request is received from a State Government regarding a water dispute, the Central Government shall constitute a Tribunal if it is of the opinion that the dispute cannot be settled by negotiations. This implies an attempt at negotiation or consultation is a prerequisite before constituting a tribunal. Statement 3 is incorrect. Article 262(2) allows Parliament to provide by law that neither the Supreme Court nor any other court shall exercise jurisdiction in respect of any such dispute referred to a Tribunal. The Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956 (Section 11) does bar the jurisdiction of courts. However, the Supreme Court has held that while it cannot question the award or allocation formula given by the Tribunal, it retains the power of judicial review over the Tribunal’s functioning, ensuring it acts within its jurisdiction and follows principles of natural justice. The bar is not absolute regarding all aspects of the dispute or the tribunal’s process. Therefore, only statement 2 is correct.

#### 5. Question

Consider the following statements regarding the adjudication of inter-state river water disputes in India:

• Article 262 of the Constitution mandates the Parliament to establish a permanent, unified tribunal for adjudicating all inter-state water disputes.

• The Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956, empowers the Central Government to constitute a Water Disputes Tribunal only after it is satisfied that the dispute cannot be settled through negotiations.

• Once a water dispute is referred to a Tribunal constituted under the Act, the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and other courts is completely and irrevocably barred with respect to that dispute, including questioning the Tribunal’s functioning or award.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

• (a) 2 only

• (b) 1 and 2 only

• (c) 2 and 3 only

• (d) 1, 2 and 3

Solution: A

• Statement 1 is incorrect. Article 262(1) empowers Parliament to provide by law for the adjudication of such disputes. It does not mandate a single, permanent tribunal. Parliament enacted the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956, which provides for the constitution of ad hoc tribunals for specific disputes as they arise. Recent legislative proposals have aimed at creating a more permanent mechanism, but Article 262 itself doesn’t mandate it.

• Statement 2 is correct. Section 4 of the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956, states that when a request is received from a State Government regarding a water dispute, the Central Government shall constitute a Tribunal if it is of the opinion that the dispute cannot be settled by negotiations. This implies an attempt at negotiation or consultation is a prerequisite before constituting a tribunal.

• Statement 3 is incorrect. Article 262(2) allows Parliament to provide by law that neither the Supreme Court nor any other court shall exercise jurisdiction in respect of any such dispute referred to a Tribunal. The Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956 (Section 11) does bar the jurisdiction of courts. However, the Supreme Court has held that while it cannot question the award or allocation formula given by the Tribunal, it retains the power of judicial review over the Tribunal’s functioning, ensuring it acts within its jurisdiction and follows principles of natural justice. The bar is not absolute regarding all aspects of the dispute or the tribunal’s process.

Therefore, only statement 2 is correct.

Solution: A

Therefore, only statement 2 is correct.

• Question 6 of 30 6. Question 1 points Which of the following statements most accurately reflects the current interpretation of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution by the Supreme Court, particularly concerning the relationship between ‘procedure established by law’ and ‘due process of law’? (a) Article 21 strictly adheres to 'procedure established by law', meaning the validity of a law depriving life or liberty cannot be questioned on grounds of reasonableness or fairness, only on whether the procedure was followed. (b) While Article 21 uses the phrase 'procedure established by law', the Supreme Court has interpreted it to implicitly include aspects of 'due process', requiring the procedure itself to be fair, just, and reasonable. (c) The Supreme Court in the Puttaswamy judgment explicitly replaced 'procedure established by law' with 'due process of law' in Article 21, aligning it with the American model. (d) 'Due process of law' under Article 21 applies only to substantive laws affecting life and liberty, while 'procedure established by law' applies only to procedural laws. Correct Solution: B (a) is incorrect. This reflects the narrow interpretation adopted in the A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) case, which was subsequently overruled. (b) is correct. Starting significantly with the Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) case, the Supreme Court expanded the interpretation of Article 21. It held that the ‘procedure established by law’ must not only be formally enacted by the legislature but must also be ‘right, just and fair’ and not arbitrary, fanciful, or oppressive. This effectively incorporated substantive elements of ‘due process’ (as understood in the American context, focusing on fairness and reasonableness of the law itself) into the procedural requirement of Article 21, without explicitly changing the constitutional text. The Puttaswamy judgment (2017) further reinforced this broad interpretation, emphasizing that any restriction on life and personal liberty (including privacy) must meet the tests of legality, legitimate state aim, and proportionality, which are hallmarks of a due process analysis. (c) is incorrect. The Puttaswamy judgment did not replace the text of Article 21. It interpreted the existing phrase ‘procedure established by law’ expansively, incorporating principles akin to substantive due process, particularly the test of proportionality. The constitutional text remains unchanged. (d) is incorrect. The distinction is not based on substantive vs. procedural laws in this manner. The interpretation means that both the law (substantive aspect) and the procedure it prescribes (procedural aspect) must be fair, just, and reasonable to comply with Article 21. Therefore, statement (b) most accurately reflects the current judicial interpretation. Incorrect Solution: B (a) is incorrect. This reflects the narrow interpretation adopted in the A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) case, which was subsequently overruled. (b) is correct. Starting significantly with the Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) case, the Supreme Court expanded the interpretation of Article 21. It held that the ‘procedure established by law’ must not only be formally enacted by the legislature but must also be ‘right, just and fair’ and not arbitrary, fanciful, or oppressive. This effectively incorporated substantive elements of ‘due process’ (as understood in the American context, focusing on fairness and reasonableness of the law itself) into the procedural requirement of Article 21, without explicitly changing the constitutional text. The Puttaswamy judgment (2017) further reinforced this broad interpretation, emphasizing that any restriction on life and personal liberty (including privacy) must meet the tests of legality, legitimate state aim, and proportionality, which are hallmarks of a due process analysis. (c) is incorrect. The Puttaswamy judgment did not replace the text of Article 21. It interpreted the existing phrase ‘procedure established by law’ expansively, incorporating principles akin to substantive due process, particularly the test of proportionality. The constitutional text remains unchanged. (d) is incorrect. The distinction is not based on substantive vs. procedural laws in this manner. The interpretation means that both the law (substantive aspect) and the procedure it prescribes (procedural aspect) must be fair, just, and reasonable to comply with Article 21. Therefore, statement (b) most accurately reflects the current judicial interpretation.

#### 6. Question

Which of the following statements most accurately reflects the current interpretation of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution by the Supreme Court, particularly concerning the relationship between ‘procedure established by law’ and ‘due process of law’?

• (a) Article 21 strictly adheres to 'procedure established by law', meaning the validity of a law depriving life or liberty cannot be questioned on grounds of reasonableness or fairness, only on whether the procedure was followed.

• (b) While Article 21 uses the phrase 'procedure established by law', the Supreme Court has interpreted it to implicitly include aspects of 'due process', requiring the procedure itself to be fair, just, and reasonable.

• (c) The Supreme Court in the Puttaswamy judgment explicitly replaced 'procedure established by law' with 'due process of law' in Article 21, aligning it with the American model.

• (d) 'Due process of law' under Article 21 applies only to substantive laws affecting life and liberty, while 'procedure established by law' applies only to procedural laws.

Solution: B

• (a) is incorrect. This reflects the narrow interpretation adopted in the A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) case, which was subsequently overruled.

• (b) is correct. Starting significantly with the Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) case, the Supreme Court expanded the interpretation of Article 21. It held that the ‘procedure established by law’ must not only be formally enacted by the legislature but must also be ‘right, just and fair’ and not arbitrary, fanciful, or oppressive. This effectively incorporated substantive elements of ‘due process’ (as understood in the American context, focusing on fairness and reasonableness of the law itself) into the procedural requirement of Article 21, without explicitly changing the constitutional text. The Puttaswamy judgment (2017) further reinforced this broad interpretation, emphasizing that any restriction on life and personal liberty (including privacy) must meet the tests of legality, legitimate state aim, and proportionality, which are hallmarks of a due process analysis.

• (c) is incorrect. The Puttaswamy judgment did not replace the text of Article 21. It interpreted the existing phrase ‘procedure established by law’ expansively, incorporating principles akin to substantive due process, particularly the test of proportionality. The constitutional text remains unchanged.

• (d) is incorrect. The distinction is not based on substantive vs. procedural laws in this manner. The interpretation means that both the law (substantive aspect) and the procedure it prescribes (procedural aspect) must be fair, just, and reasonable to comply with Article 21.

Therefore, statement (b) most accurately reflects the current judicial interpretation.

Solution: B

• (a) is incorrect. This reflects the narrow interpretation adopted in the A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) case, which was subsequently overruled.

Therefore, statement (b) most accurately reflects the current judicial interpretation.

• Question 7 of 30 7. Question 1 points Consider the following statements regarding the writs of Mandamus and Quo Warranto in India: Mandamus can be issued against a private organisation only if it is statutorily entrusted with a public duty and fails to perform it. Mandamus cannot be issued against a Government Company, even if it falls within the definition of ‘State’ under Article 12, as it is considered a commercial entity. Any member of the public, even if not personally aggrieved, can seek the writ of Quo Warranto to challenge the legality of a person’s claim to a public office. Which of the statements given above are correct? (a) 1 and 2 only (b) 2 and 3 only (c) 1 and 3 only (d) 1, 2 and 3 Correct Solution: C Statement 1 is correct. Generally, Mandamus lies against public officials or bodies to compel the performance of a public duty. It does not lie against a purely private individual or body. However, if a private body is entrusted by statute with a public duty, Mandamus can be issued to compel the performance of that specific public duty. Statement 2 is incorrect. Mandamus can be issued against a Government Company or any corporation if it qualifies as ‘State’ under Article 12 (by virtue of government control, functions, etc.) and has failed to perform a statutory public duty. The fact that it is a commercial entity does not automatically preclude the issuance of Mandamus if a public duty aspect is involved. The statement claiming it cannot be issued is wrong. Statement 3 is correct. Unlike other writs like Certiorari or Mandamus where the petitioner usually needs to be personally aggrieved (locus standi), the writ of Quo Warranto can be sought by any interested person if they believe someone is holding a public office unlawfully. The focus is on the legality of the claim to the office, not the petitioner’s personal injury. Therefore, statements 1 and 3 are correct. Incorrect Solution: C Statement 1 is correct. Generally, Mandamus lies against public officials or bodies to compel the performance of a public duty. It does not lie against a purely private individual or body. However, if a private body is entrusted by statute with a public duty, Mandamus can be issued to compel the performance of that specific public duty. Statement 2 is incorrect. Mandamus can be issued against a Government Company or any corporation if it qualifies as ‘State’ under Article 12 (by virtue of government control, functions, etc.) and has failed to perform a statutory public duty. The fact that it is a commercial entity does not automatically preclude the issuance of Mandamus if a public duty aspect is involved. The statement claiming it cannot be issued is wrong. Statement 3 is correct. Unlike other writs like Certiorari or Mandamus where the petitioner usually needs to be personally aggrieved (locus standi), the writ of Quo Warranto can be sought by any interested person if they believe someone is holding a public office unlawfully. The focus is on the legality of the claim to the office, not the petitioner’s personal injury. Therefore, statements 1 and 3 are correct.

#### 7. Question

Consider the following statements regarding the writs of Mandamus and Quo Warranto in India:

• Mandamus can be issued against a private organisation only if it is statutorily entrusted with a public duty and fails to perform it.

• Mandamus cannot be issued against a Government Company, even if it falls within the definition of ‘State’ under Article 12, as it is considered a commercial entity.

• Any member of the public, even if not personally aggrieved, can seek the writ of Quo Warranto to challenge the legality of a person’s claim to a public office.

Which of the statements given above are correct?

• (a) 1 and 2 only

• (b) 2 and 3 only

• (c) 1 and 3 only

• (d) 1, 2 and 3

Solution: C

• Statement 1 is correct. Generally, Mandamus lies against public officials or bodies to compel the performance of a public duty. It does not lie against a purely private individual or body. However, if a private body is entrusted by statute with a public duty, Mandamus can be issued to compel the performance of that specific public duty.

• Statement 2 is incorrect. Mandamus can be issued against a Government Company or any corporation if it qualifies as ‘State’ under Article 12 (by virtue of government control, functions, etc.) and has failed to perform a statutory public duty. The fact that it is a commercial entity does not automatically preclude the issuance of Mandamus if a public duty aspect is involved. The statement claiming it cannot be issued is wrong.

• Statement 3 is correct. Unlike other writs like Certiorari or Mandamus where the petitioner usually needs to be personally aggrieved (locus standi), the writ of Quo Warranto can be sought by any interested person if they believe someone is holding a public office unlawfully. The focus is on the legality of the claim to the office, not the petitioner’s personal injury.

Therefore, statements 1 and 3 are correct.

Solution: C

Therefore, statements 1 and 3 are correct.

• Question 8 of 30 8. Question 1 points Assertion (A): The Supreme Court of India, through the doctrine of harmonious construction, seeks to give effect to both Fundamental Rights (FRs) and Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs) as far as possible. Reason (R): Article 31C, as amended by the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976, gives primacy to all DPSPs over the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 19. In the context of the above two statements, which one of the following is correct? (a) Both A and R are true and R is the correct explanation of A. (b) Both A and R are true but R is not the correct explanation of A. (c) A is true but R is false. (d) A is false but R is true. Correct Solution: C Assertion (A) is true. The Supreme Court, particularly from the Kerala Education Bill case (1957) onwards, has emphasized the need to interpret the Constitution harmoniously, avoiding conflict between FRs and DPSPs wherever possible. The doctrine of harmonious construction posits that both parts are essential features of the Constitution and should be read together, with neither being automatically superior in all contexts. The court aims to balance individual rights with social welfare goals. Reason (R) is false. The 42nd Amendment Act, 1976, did attempt to amend Article 31C to give primacy to all DPSPs over Articles 14, 19, and 31 (Right to Property, later repealed). However, the Supreme Court in the Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980) case struck down this extension of Article 31C as unconstitutional, holding that it violated the basic structure by disturbing the harmony and balance between FRs and DPSPs. The Court restored Article 31C to its pre-1976 position, where it gives primacy only to DPSPs under Article 39(b) and 39(c) over Articles 14 and 19. Therefore, it is incorrect to state that all DPSPs currently have primacy over Articles 14 and 19 due to the 42nd Amendment. Since A is true and R is false, the correct option is (c). Incorrect Solution: C Assertion (A) is true. The Supreme Court, particularly from the Kerala Education Bill case (1957) onwards, has emphasized the need to interpret the Constitution harmoniously, avoiding conflict between FRs and DPSPs wherever possible. The doctrine of harmonious construction posits that both parts are essential features of the Constitution and should be read together, with neither being automatically superior in all contexts. The court aims to balance individual rights with social welfare goals. Reason (R) is false. The 42nd Amendment Act, 1976, did attempt to amend Article 31C to give primacy to all DPSPs over Articles 14, 19, and 31 (Right to Property, later repealed). However, the Supreme Court in the Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980) case struck down this extension of Article 31C as unconstitutional, holding that it violated the basic structure by disturbing the harmony and balance between FRs and DPSPs. The Court restored Article 31C to its pre-1976 position, where it gives primacy only to DPSPs under Article 39(b) and 39(c) over Articles 14 and 19. Therefore, it is incorrect to state that all DPSPs currently have primacy over Articles 14 and 19 due to the 42nd Amendment. Since A is true and R is false, the correct option is (c).

#### 8. Question

Assertion (A): The Supreme Court of India, through the doctrine of harmonious construction, seeks to give effect to both Fundamental Rights (FRs) and Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs) as far as possible.

Reason (R): Article 31C, as amended by the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976, gives primacy to all DPSPs over the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 19.

In the context of the above two statements, which one of the following is correct?

• (a) Both A and R are true and R is the correct explanation of A.

• (b) Both A and R are true but R is not the correct explanation of A.

• (c) A is true but R is false.

• (d) A is false but R is true.

Solution: C

• Assertion (A) is true. The Supreme Court, particularly from the Kerala Education Bill case (1957) onwards, has emphasized the need to interpret the Constitution harmoniously, avoiding conflict between FRs and DPSPs wherever possible. The doctrine of harmonious construction posits that both parts are essential features of the Constitution and should be read together, with neither being automatically superior in all contexts. The court aims to balance individual rights with social welfare goals.

• Reason (R) is false. The 42nd Amendment Act, 1976, did attempt to amend Article 31C to give primacy to all DPSPs over Articles 14, 19, and 31 (Right to Property, later repealed). However, the Supreme Court in the Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980) case struck down this extension of Article 31C as unconstitutional, holding that it violated the basic structure by disturbing the harmony and balance between FRs and DPSPs. The Court restored Article 31C to its pre-1976 position, where it gives primacy only to DPSPs under Article 39(b) and 39(c) over Articles 14 and 19. Therefore, it is incorrect to state that all DPSPs currently have primacy over Articles 14 and 19 due to the 42nd Amendment.

Since A is true and R is false, the correct option is (c).

Solution: C

Since A is true and R is false, the correct option is (c).

• Question 9 of 30 9. Question 1 points Consider the following statements regarding Fundamental Duties (Part IV-A) of the Indian Constitution: Like Directive Principles, Fundamental Duties are non-justiciable, meaning courts cannot directly enforce them through writs. The Verma Committee (1999) was constituted specifically to suggest ways to make Fundamental Duties legally enforceable through sanctions. Parliament can enact laws that effectively implement or promote certain Fundamental Duties, and the constitutionality of such laws can be upheld by courts. Which of the statements given above is/are correct? (a) 1 only (b) 1 and 3 only (c) 2 and 3 only (d) 1, 2 and 3 Correct Solution: B Statement 1 is correct. Fundamental Duties, like DPSPs, are non-justiciable in nature. This means that a citizen cannot be directly taken to court for violating a Fundamental Duty, and courts cannot issue writs like Mandamus to compel their performance. Statement 2 is incorrect. The Justice J.S. Verma Committee (1999) was set up to identify the existence of existing legal provisions for the implementation of some of the Fundamental Duties and to suggest ways for operationalizing and teaching them. It did not recommend making the duties themselves directly enforceable through sanctions but pointed out laws (like Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, various criminal laws punishing enmity, Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955, Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 etc.) that already provided for the implementation of certain duties. Statement 3 is correct. While the duties themselves are non-justiciable, Parliament is free to enact laws to promote or implement the objectives behind these duties. For example, laws protecting national symbols, preventing environmental degradation, or promoting communal harmony can be seen as implementing the spirit of related Fundamental Duties. Courts have held that such laws are constitutionally valid and can use Fundamental Duties as a tool for interpreting statutes and assessing the reasonableness of restrictions on Fundamental Rights. Therefore, statements 1 and 3 are correct. Incorrect Solution: B Statement 1 is correct. Fundamental Duties, like DPSPs, are non-justiciable in nature. This means that a citizen cannot be directly taken to court for violating a Fundamental Duty, and courts cannot issue writs like Mandamus to compel their performance. Statement 2 is incorrect. The Justice J.S. Verma Committee (1999) was set up to identify the existence of existing legal provisions for the implementation of some of the Fundamental Duties and to suggest ways for operationalizing and teaching them. It did not recommend making the duties themselves directly enforceable through sanctions but pointed out laws (like Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, various criminal laws punishing enmity, Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955, Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 etc.) that already provided for the implementation of certain duties. Statement 3 is correct. While the duties themselves are non-justiciable, Parliament is free to enact laws to promote or implement the objectives behind these duties. For example, laws protecting national symbols, preventing environmental degradation, or promoting communal harmony can be seen as implementing the spirit of related Fundamental Duties. Courts have held that such laws are constitutionally valid and can use Fundamental Duties as a tool for interpreting statutes and assessing the reasonableness of restrictions on Fundamental Rights. Therefore, statements 1 and 3 are correct.

#### 9. Question

Consider the following statements regarding Fundamental Duties (Part IV-A) of the Indian Constitution:

• Like Directive Principles, Fundamental Duties are non-justiciable, meaning courts cannot directly enforce them through writs.

• The Verma Committee (1999) was constituted specifically to suggest ways to make Fundamental Duties legally enforceable through sanctions.

• Parliament can enact laws that effectively implement or promote certain Fundamental Duties, and the constitutionality of such laws can be upheld by courts.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

• (a) 1 only

• (b) 1 and 3 only

• (c) 2 and 3 only

• (d) 1, 2 and 3

Solution: B

• Statement 1 is correct. Fundamental Duties, like DPSPs, are non-justiciable in nature. This means that a citizen cannot be directly taken to court for violating a Fundamental Duty, and courts cannot issue writs like Mandamus to compel their performance.

• Statement 2 is incorrect. The Justice J.S. Verma Committee (1999) was set up to identify the existence of existing legal provisions for the implementation of some of the Fundamental Duties and to suggest ways for operationalizing and teaching them. It did not recommend making the duties themselves directly enforceable through sanctions but pointed out laws (like Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, various criminal laws punishing enmity, Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955, Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 etc.) that already provided for the implementation of certain duties.

• Statement 3 is correct. While the duties themselves are non-justiciable, Parliament is free to enact laws to promote or implement the objectives behind these duties. For example, laws protecting national symbols, preventing environmental degradation, or promoting communal harmony can be seen as implementing the spirit of related Fundamental Duties. Courts have held that such laws are constitutionally valid and can use Fundamental Duties as a tool for interpreting statutes and assessing the reasonableness of restrictions on Fundamental Rights.

Therefore, statements 1 and 3 are correct.

Solution: B

Therefore, statements 1 and 3 are correct.

• Question 10 of 30 10. Question 1 points Which one of the following is NOT explicitly stated as a Fundamental Duty of every citizen of India under Article 51A of the Constitution? (a) To renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women. (b) To cast vote in elections to uphold the democratic process. (c) To safeguard public property and to abjure violence. (d) To develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform. Correct Solution: B Article 51A lists eleven Fundamental Duties. (a) is explicitly stated in Article 51A(e): “…to renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women.” (b) is NOT explicitly stated as a Fundamental Duty in Article 51A. While voting is a crucial civic duty in a democracy, and the Supreme Court in Shri Ranganath Mishra vs Union Of India (2003) directed implementation of Verma Committee recommendations which included teaching the duty to vote, casting a vote itself is not listed as one of the eleven Fundamental Duties under Article 51A. (c) is explicitly stated in Article 51A(i): “to safeguard public property and to abjure violence.” (d) is explicitly stated in Article 51A(h): “to develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform.” Therefore, the duty to cast vote in elections is not explicitly mentioned in Article 51A. Incorrect Solution: B Article 51A lists eleven Fundamental Duties. (a) is explicitly stated in Article 51A(e): “…to renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women.” (b) is NOT explicitly stated as a Fundamental Duty in Article 51A. While voting is a crucial civic duty in a democracy, and the Supreme Court in Shri Ranganath Mishra vs Union Of India (2003) directed implementation of Verma Committee recommendations which included teaching the duty to vote, casting a vote itself is not listed as one of the eleven Fundamental Duties under Article 51A. (c) is explicitly stated in Article 51A(i): “to safeguard public property and to abjure violence.” (d) is explicitly stated in Article 51A(h): “to develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform.” Therefore, the duty to cast vote in elections is not explicitly mentioned in Article 51A.

#### 10. Question

Which one of the following is NOT explicitly stated as a Fundamental Duty of every citizen of India under Article 51A of the Constitution?

• (a) To renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women.

• (b) To cast vote in elections to uphold the democratic process.

• (c) To safeguard public property and to abjure violence.

• (d) To develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform.

• Solution: B Article 51A lists eleven Fundamental Duties. (a) is explicitly stated in Article 51A(e): “…to renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women.” (b) is NOT explicitly stated as a Fundamental Duty in Article 51A. While voting is a crucial civic duty in a democracy, and the Supreme Court in Shri Ranganath Mishra vs Union Of India (2003) directed implementation of Verma Committee recommendations which included teaching the duty to vote, casting a vote itself is not listed as one of the eleven Fundamental Duties under Article 51A. (c) is explicitly stated in Article 51A(i): “to safeguard public property and to abjure violence.” (d) is explicitly stated in Article 51A(h): “to develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform.” Therefore, the duty to cast vote in elections is not explicitly mentioned in Article 51A.

Article 51A lists eleven Fundamental Duties.

• (a) is explicitly stated in Article 51A(e): “…to renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women.”

• (b) is NOT explicitly stated as a Fundamental Duty in Article 51A. While voting is a crucial civic duty in a democracy, and the Supreme Court in Shri Ranganath Mishra vs Union Of India (2003) directed implementation of Verma Committee recommendations which included teaching the duty to vote, casting a vote itself is not listed as one of the eleven Fundamental Duties under Article 51A.

• (c) is explicitly stated in Article 51A(i): “to safeguard public property and to abjure violence.”

• (d) is explicitly stated in Article 51A(h): “to develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform.”

Therefore, the duty to cast vote in elections is not explicitly mentioned in Article 51A.

Article 51A lists eleven Fundamental Duties.

• (a) is explicitly stated in Article 51A(e): “…to renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women.”

• (c) is explicitly stated in Article 51A(i): “to safeguard public property and to abjure violence.”

• (d) is explicitly stated in Article 51A(h): “to develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform.”

Therefore, the duty to cast vote in elections is not explicitly mentioned in Article 51A.

• Question 11 of 30 11. Question 1 points Consider the following statements: Autonomous districts can be organised and reorganised by the State Governor only. Autonomous District Councils (ADC) consist of members elected on the basis of adult franchise ADCs, within their territorial jurisdiction, can make laws on village administration. These are empowered to constitute courts for hearing appeals from tribals. How many of the statements given above is/are correct? (a) Only one (b) Only two (c) Only three (d) All four Correct Solution: D Autonomous district councils are constituted under Sixth schedule of the Constitution of India The sixth schedule provides for formation of autonomous districts in tribal areas. Each autonomous district has a district Council consisting of a certain number of members. Under provisions of the Constitution, the governor of a state is empowered to organise and reorganise the autonomous districts He can also increase or decrease their areas, change their names and boundaries and so on. Each Autonomous district Council consists of 30 members ; out of them, four are nominated by the State governor and their remaining 26 are elected on the basis of adult franchise Hence statements 1 and 2 are correct. The district councils administer the areas under their jurisdiction They can make laws on certain specified matters like land, forest, canal water, shifting cultivation, village administration, inheritance of property, marriage and divorce, social customs and so on; but all such laws require assent of the Governor. Hence statement 3 is correct. The autonomous district councils within their territorial jurisdictions, can constitute courts or village councils for trial of suits and cases between the tribes the jurisdiction of state High Court over these cases is specified by the governor. Hence statement 4 is correct. Incorrect Solution: D Autonomous district councils are constituted under Sixth schedule of the Constitution of India The sixth schedule provides for formation of autonomous districts in tribal areas. Each autonomous district has a district Council consisting of a certain number of members. Under provisions of the Constitution, the governor of a state is empowered to organise and reorganise the autonomous districts He can also increase or decrease their areas, change their names and boundaries and so on. Each Autonomous district Council consists of 30 members ; out of them, four are nominated by the State governor and their remaining 26 are elected on the basis of adult franchise Hence statements 1 and 2 are correct. The district councils administer the areas under their jurisdiction They can make laws on certain specified matters like land, forest, canal water, shifting cultivation, village administration, inheritance of property, marriage and divorce, social customs and so on; but all such laws require assent of the Governor. Hence statement 3 is correct. The autonomous district councils within their territorial jurisdictions, can constitute courts or village councils for trial of suits and cases between the tribes the jurisdiction of state High Court over these cases is specified by the governor. Hence statement 4 is correct.

#### 11. Question

Consider the following statements:

• Autonomous districts can be organised and reorganised by the State Governor only.

• Autonomous District Councils (ADC) consist of members elected on the basis of adult franchise

• ADCs, within their territorial jurisdiction, can make laws on village administration.

• These are empowered to constitute courts for hearing appeals from tribals.

How many of the statements given above is/are correct?

• (a) Only one

• (b) Only two

• (c) Only three

• (d) All four

• Solution: D Autonomous district councils are constituted under Sixth schedule of the Constitution of India The sixth schedule provides for formation of autonomous districts in tribal areas. Each autonomous district has a district Council consisting of a certain number of members. Under provisions of the Constitution, the governor of a state is empowered to organise and reorganise the autonomous districts He can also increase or decrease their areas, change their names and boundaries and so on. Each Autonomous district Council consists of 30 members ; out of them, four are nominated by the State governor and their remaining 26 are elected on the basis of adult franchise Hence statements 1 and 2 are correct. The district councils administer the areas under their jurisdiction They can make laws on certain specified matters like land, forest, canal water, shifting cultivation, village administration, inheritance of property, marriage and divorce, social customs and so on; but all such laws require assent of the Governor. Hence statement 3 is correct. The autonomous district councils within their territorial jurisdictions, can constitute courts or village councils for trial of suits and cases between the tribes the jurisdiction of state High Court over these cases is specified by the governor. Hence statement 4 is correct.

• Autonomous district councils are constituted under Sixth schedule of the Constitution of India

• The sixth schedule provides for formation of autonomous districts in tribal areas.

• Each autonomous district has a district Council consisting of a certain number of members.

• Under provisions of the Constitution, the governor of a state is empowered to organise and reorganise the autonomous districts

• He can also increase or decrease their areas, change their names and boundaries and so on.

• Each Autonomous district Council consists of 30 members ; out of them, four are nominated by the State governor and their remaining 26 are elected on the basis of adult franchise

Hence statements 1 and 2 are correct.

• The district councils administer the areas under their jurisdiction

• They can make laws on certain specified matters like land, forest, canal water, shifting cultivation, village administration, inheritance of property, marriage and divorce, social customs and so on; but all such laws require assent of the Governor.

Hence statement 3 is correct.

• The autonomous district councils within their territorial jurisdictions, can constitute courts or village councils for trial of suits and cases between the tribes

• the jurisdiction of state High Court over these cases is specified by the governor.

Hence statement 4 is correct.

• Autonomous district councils are constituted under Sixth schedule of the Constitution of India

• The sixth schedule provides for formation of autonomous districts in tribal areas.

• Each autonomous district has a district Council consisting of a certain number of members.

• Under provisions of the Constitution, the governor of a state is empowered to organise and reorganise the autonomous districts

• He can also increase or decrease their areas, change their names and boundaries and so on.

• Each Autonomous district Council consists of 30 members ; out of them, four are nominated by the State governor and their remaining 26 are elected on the basis of adult franchise

Hence statements 1 and 2 are correct.

• The district councils administer the areas under their jurisdiction

Hence statement 3 is correct.

• The autonomous district councils within their territorial jurisdictions, can constitute courts or village councils for trial of suits and cases between the tribes

• the jurisdiction of state High Court over these cases is specified by the governor.

Hence statement 4 is correct.

• Question 12 of 30 12. Question 1 points Consider the following statements: Statement – I: No interrogation can be done by the police in case of judicial custody without permission of the magistrate. Statement – II: In case of judicial custody, an accused is detained in prison under authority of a court. Which of the following is correct in respect of the above statements? (a) Both Statement -I and Statement -II are correct and Statement -II explains Statement -I (b) Both Statement -I and Statement -II are correct but Statement -II does not explain Statement -I (c) Statement- I is correct but Statement -II is incorrect (d) Statement- I is incorrect but Statement -II is correct Correct Solution: A The provisions for holding a person in custody for the purpose of further investigation are governed by section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Judicial custody means an accused is in the custody of the concerned magistrate. In this case the accused is lodged in the jail all prison and not in police custody. During judicial custody, the police is not allowed to interrogate the suspect without a court order. The court may allow the interrogations to be conducted if it opines the interrogation being necessary under facts produced before the court. Hence statements 1 and 2 are correct and statement 2 explains statement 1 Incorrect Solution: A The provisions for holding a person in custody for the purpose of further investigation are governed by section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Judicial custody means an accused is in the custody of the concerned magistrate. In this case the accused is lodged in the jail all prison and not in police custody. During judicial custody, the police is not allowed to interrogate the suspect without a court order. The court may allow the interrogations to be conducted if it opines the interrogation being necessary under facts produced before the court. Hence statements 1 and 2 are correct and statement 2 explains statement 1

#### 12. Question

Consider the following statements:

Statement – I: No interrogation can be done by the police in case of judicial custody without permission of the magistrate.

Statement – II: In case of judicial custody, an accused is detained in prison under authority of a court.

Which of the following is correct in respect of the above statements?

• (a) Both Statement -I and Statement -II are correct and Statement -II explains Statement -I

• (b) Both Statement -I and Statement -II are correct but Statement -II does not explain Statement -I

• (c) Statement- I is correct but Statement -II is incorrect

• (d) Statement- I is incorrect but Statement -II is correct

• Solution: A The provisions for holding a person in custody for the purpose of further investigation are governed by section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Judicial custody means an accused is in the custody of the concerned magistrate. In this case the accused is lodged in the jail all prison and not in police custody. During judicial custody, the police is not allowed to interrogate the suspect without a court order. The court may allow the interrogations to be conducted if it opines the interrogation being necessary under facts produced before the court. Hence statements 1 and 2 are correct and statement 2 explains statement 1

The provisions for holding a person in custody for the purpose of further investigation are governed by section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

• Judicial custody means an accused is in the custody of the concerned magistrate.

• In this case the accused is lodged in the jail all prison and not in police custody.

• During judicial custody, the police is not allowed to interrogate the suspect without a court order.

• The court may allow the interrogations to be conducted if it opines the interrogation being necessary under facts produced before the court.

Hence statements 1 and 2 are correct and statement 2 explains statement 1

The provisions for holding a person in custody for the purpose of further investigation are governed by section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

• Judicial custody means an accused is in the custody of the concerned magistrate.

• In this case the accused is lodged in the jail all prison and not in police custody.

• During judicial custody, the police is not allowed to interrogate the suspect without a court order.

• The court may allow the interrogations to be conducted if it opines the interrogation being necessary under facts produced before the court.

Hence statements 1 and 2 are correct and statement 2 explains statement 1

• Question 13 of 30 13. Question 1 points Consider the following statements: The Swaran Singh Committee recommended inclusion of the ‘duty to pay taxes’ as a fundamental duty of the citizens of India. The 86th Constitutional Amendment Act of 2002 declared the education of children between 6 to 14 years of age as a fundamental duty. The Mohan Kumar Singhania case 1991 provided that article 51A can be used to interpret ambiguous laws for determining their constitutionality. Which of the statements given above is/are correct? (a) Only one (b) Only two (c) All three (d) None Correct Solution: C The Fundamental Duties are enshrined in part IVA (Article 51A) of the constitution. The fundamental duties were included in the constitution under recommendations of Sardar Swaran Singh Committee which was constituted in 1976 by the Congress party The committee suggested incorporation of 8 fundamental duties in the constitution The duty to pay taxes should be a fundamental duty was one of the recommendations of the committee. Hence statement 1 is correct The 86th Constitutional Amendment Act 2002 provided for opportunities for education to child or ward between the age of 6 and 14 years. Hence statement 2 is correct The Fundamental Duties help in examining and determining the constitutional validity of a law In Mohan Kumar Singhania 1991 case, the supreme court held that article 51A can be used to interpret ambiguous laws in order to determine their constitutionality. Hence statement 3 is correct Incorrect Solution: C The Fundamental Duties are enshrined in part IVA (Article 51A) of the constitution. The fundamental duties were included in the constitution under recommendations of Sardar Swaran Singh Committee which was constituted in 1976 by the Congress party The committee suggested incorporation of 8 fundamental duties in the constitution The duty to pay taxes should be a fundamental duty was one of the recommendations of the committee. Hence statement 1 is correct The 86th Constitutional Amendment Act 2002 provided for opportunities for education to child or ward between the age of 6 and 14 years. Hence statement 2 is correct The Fundamental Duties help in examining and determining the constitutional validity of a law In Mohan Kumar Singhania 1991 case, the supreme court held that article 51A can be used to interpret ambiguous laws in order to determine their constitutionality. Hence statement 3 is correct

#### 13. Question

Consider the following statements:

• The Swaran Singh Committee recommended inclusion of the ‘duty to pay taxes’ as a fundamental duty of the citizens of India.

• The 86th Constitutional Amendment Act of 2002 declared the education of children between 6 to 14 years of age as a fundamental duty.

• The Mohan Kumar Singhania case 1991 provided that article 51A can be used to interpret ambiguous laws for determining their constitutionality.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

• (a) Only one

• (b) Only two

• (c) All three

Solution: C

• The Fundamental Duties are enshrined in part IVA (Article 51A) of the constitution. The fundamental duties were included in the constitution under recommendations of Sardar Swaran Singh Committee which was constituted in 1976 by the Congress party

• The committee suggested incorporation of 8 fundamental duties in the constitution

• The duty to pay taxes should be a fundamental duty was one of the recommendations of the committee.

Hence statement 1 is correct

• The 86th Constitutional Amendment Act 2002 provided for opportunities for education to child or ward between the age of 6 and 14 years.

Hence statement 2 is correct

• The Fundamental Duties help in examining and determining the constitutional validity of a law

• In Mohan Kumar Singhania 1991 case, the supreme court held that article 51A can be used to interpret ambiguous laws in order to determine their constitutionality.

Hence statement 3 is correct

Solution: C

• The committee suggested incorporation of 8 fundamental duties in the constitution

• The duty to pay taxes should be a fundamental duty was one of the recommendations of the committee.

Hence statement 1 is correct

• The 86th Constitutional Amendment Act 2002 provided for opportunities for education to child or ward between the age of 6 and 14 years.

Hence statement 2 is correct

• The Fundamental Duties help in examining and determining the constitutional validity of a law

• In Mohan Kumar Singhania 1991 case, the supreme court held that article 51A can be used to interpret ambiguous laws in order to determine their constitutionality.

Hence statement 3 is correct

• Question 14 of 30 14. Question 1 points Consider the following statements regarding Amendment provisions in the Constitution under Article 368: A private member cannot introduce a Constitutional Amendment Bill which is considered a government bill. The Directive Principles of State Policy can only be amended by a special majority of the Parliament. The schedules dealing with privileges of President, Governor and members of the Parliament cannot be amended. Which of the statements given above is/are correct? (a) 2 and 3 only (b) 1 only (c) 2 only (d) 1 and 3 only Correct Solution: C Article 368 in part XX of the Constitution deals with powers of the Parliament to amend the Constitution and its procedure Amendment of the Constitution can be initiated only by an introduction of a bill for the purpose in either House of the Parliament and not in the state legislatures. Such a bill can be introduced either by a minister or by a private member. Hence statement 1 is incorrect. There are some provisions that can be amended by a special majority of the Parliament, that is a majority of total membership of each house and the majority of two thirds of the members of each house present and voting The provisions that can be amended by this way includes Fundamental Rights, Directive principles and other provisions that are not covered by simple majority amendment or special majority amendment along with consent of States. Hence statement 2 is correct. The Second schedule of the Constitution deals with allowances and privileges of the president, Governor speakers judges and so on. It can be amended by a simple majority of the houses of the Parliament outside the scope of Article 368. A simple majority is used to amend provisions including salaries and privileges of members of parliament, rules of procedure in Parliament and several other provisions. Hence statement 3 is incorrect. Incorrect Solution: C Article 368 in part XX of the Constitution deals with powers of the Parliament to amend the Constitution and its procedure Amendment of the Constitution can be initiated only by an introduction of a bill for the purpose in either House of the Parliament and not in the state legislatures. Such a bill can be introduced either by a minister or by a private member. Hence statement 1 is incorrect. There are some provisions that can be amended by a special majority of the Parliament, that is a majority of total membership of each house and the majority of two thirds of the members of each house present and voting The provisions that can be amended by this way includes Fundamental Rights, Directive principles and other provisions that are not covered by simple majority amendment or special majority amendment along with consent of States. Hence statement 2 is correct. The Second schedule of the Constitution deals with allowances and privileges of the president, Governor speakers judges and so on. It can be amended by a simple majority of the houses of the Parliament outside the scope of Article 368. A simple majority is used to amend provisions including salaries and privileges of members of parliament, rules of procedure in Parliament and several other provisions. Hence statement 3 is incorrect.

#### 14. Question

Consider the following statements regarding Amendment provisions in the Constitution under Article 368:

• A private member cannot introduce a Constitutional Amendment Bill which is considered a government bill.

• The Directive Principles of State Policy can only be amended by a special majority of the Parliament.

• The schedules dealing with privileges of President, Governor and members of the Parliament cannot be amended.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

• (a) 2 and 3 only

• (b) 1 only

• (c) 2 only

• (d) 1 and 3 only

Solution: C

• Article 368 in part XX of the Constitution deals with powers of the Parliament to amend the Constitution and its procedure

• Amendment of the Constitution can be initiated only by an introduction of a bill for the purpose in either House of the Parliament and not in the state legislatures.

• Such a bill can be introduced either by a minister or by a private member.

Hence statement 1 is incorrect.

• There are some provisions that can be amended by a special majority of the Parliament, that is a majority of total membership of each house and the majority of two thirds of the members of each house present and voting

• The provisions that can be amended by this way includes Fundamental Rights, Directive principles and other provisions that are not covered by simple majority amendment or special majority amendment along with consent of States.

Hence statement 2 is correct.

• The Second schedule of the Constitution deals with allowances and privileges of the president, Governor speakers judges and so on.

• It can be amended by a simple majority of the houses of the Parliament outside the scope of Article 368.

• A simple majority is used to amend provisions including salaries and privileges of members of parliament, rules of procedure in Parliament and several other provisions.

Hence statement 3 is incorrect.

Solution: C

• Article 368 in part XX of the Constitution deals with powers of the Parliament to amend the Constitution and its procedure

• Amendment of the Constitution can be initiated only by an introduction of a bill for the purpose in either House of the Parliament and not in the state legislatures.

• Such a bill can be introduced either by a minister or by a private member.

Hence statement 1 is incorrect.

Hence statement 2 is correct.

• The Second schedule of the Constitution deals with allowances and privileges of the president, Governor speakers judges and so on.

• It can be amended by a simple majority of the houses of the Parliament outside the scope of Article 368.

• A simple majority is used to amend provisions including salaries and privileges of members of parliament, rules of procedure in Parliament and several other provisions.

Hence statement 3 is incorrect.

• Question 15 of 30 15. Question 1 points Consider the following statements: Under the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act 1976, Fundamental Rights under Article 19 can be suspended only on declaration of National Emergency on the grounds of external aggression. The rights of minorities extend to choosing of governing body and appointing teaching staff in minority educational institutions. Which of the statements given above is/are correct? (a) 1 only (b) 2 only (c) Both 1 and 2 (d) Neither 1 nor 2 Correct Solution: B According to article 358, when a proclamation of National emergency is made, the six fundamental rights under article 19 are automatically suspended ; no separate order for their suspension is required. The 44th Amendment Act of 1978 restricted the scope of Article 358; the six fundamental rights can be suspended only when National Emergency is declared on the ground of War or external aggression and not on the ground of armed rebellion. Hence statement 1 is incorrect. In the Secretary of Malankara Syrian Catholic college case 2006, the supreme court summarised the general principles relating to establishment and administration of minority educational institutions. It also upholds that the right of Minorities to established and administrator educational institutions comprises the following rights: To choose its governing body To appoint teaching staff including headmaster, principal, teachers, as well as non-teaching staff To admit eligible students of their choice and set up reasonable fee structure To use its properties and assets for benefit of the institution Hence statement 2 is correct. Incorrect Solution: B According to article 358, when a proclamation of National emergency is made, the six fundamental rights under article 19 are automatically suspended ; no separate order for their suspension is required. The 44th Amendment Act of 1978 restricted the scope of Article 358; the six fundamental rights can be suspended only when National Emergency is declared on the ground of War or external aggression and not on the ground of armed rebellion. Hence statement 1 is incorrect. In the Secretary of Malankara Syrian Catholic college case 2006, the supreme court summarised the general principles relating to establishment and administration of minority educational institutions. It also upholds that the right of Minorities to established and administrator educational institutions comprises the following rights: To choose its governing body To appoint teaching staff including headmaster, principal, teachers, as well as non-teaching staff To admit eligible students of their choice and set up reasonable fee structure To use its properties and assets for benefit of the institution Hence statement 2 is correct.

#### 15. Question

Consider the following statements:

• Under the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act 1976, Fundamental Rights under Article 19 can be suspended only on declaration of National Emergency on the grounds of external aggression.

• The rights of minorities extend to choosing of governing body and appointing teaching staff in minority educational institutions.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

• (a) 1 only

• (b) 2 only

• (c) Both 1 and 2

• (d) Neither 1 nor 2

• Solution: B According to article 358, when a proclamation of National emergency is made, the six fundamental rights under article 19 are automatically suspended ; no separate order for their suspension is required. The 44th Amendment Act of 1978 restricted the scope of Article 358; the six fundamental rights can be suspended only when National Emergency is declared on the ground of War or external aggression and not on the ground of armed rebellion. Hence statement 1 is incorrect. In the Secretary of Malankara Syrian Catholic college case 2006, the supreme court summarised the general principles relating to establishment and administration of minority educational institutions. It also upholds that the right of Minorities to established and administrator educational institutions comprises the following rights: To choose its governing body To appoint teaching staff including headmaster, principal, teachers, as well as non-teaching staff To admit eligible students of their choice and set up reasonable fee structure To use its properties and assets for benefit of the institution Hence statement 2 is correct.

• According to article 358, when a proclamation of National emergency is made, the six fundamental rights under article 19 are automatically suspended ; no separate order for their suspension is required.

• The 44th Amendment Act of 1978 restricted the scope of Article 358; the six fundamental rights can be suspended only when National Emergency is declared on the ground of War or external aggression and not on the ground of armed rebellion.

Hence statement 1 is incorrect.

In the Secretary of Malankara Syrian Catholic college case 2006, the supreme court summarised the general principles relating to establishment and administration of minority educational institutions.

It also upholds that the right of Minorities to established and administrator educational institutions comprises the following rights:

• To choose its governing body

• To appoint teaching staff including headmaster, principal, teachers, as well as non-teaching staff

• To admit eligible students of their choice and set up reasonable fee structure

• To use its properties and assets for benefit of the institution

Hence statement 2 is correct.

Hence statement 1 is incorrect.

In the Secretary of Malankara Syrian Catholic college case 2006, the supreme court summarised the general principles relating to establishment and administration of minority educational institutions.

It also upholds that the right of Minorities to established and administrator educational institutions comprises the following rights:

• To choose its governing body

• To appoint teaching staff including headmaster, principal, teachers, as well as non-teaching staff

• To admit eligible students of their choice and set up reasonable fee structure

• To use its properties and assets for benefit of the institution

Hence statement 2 is correct.

• Question 16 of 30 16. Question 1 points Consider the following statements: The original Preamble, based on the Objectives Resolution, did not include the term ‘socialist’. Indian socialism can be characterized as Democratic socialism, with coexistence of both public and private sectors. The 42nd Amendment act 1976 declared India as a ‘Sovereign’ state and empowered it to acquire a foreign territory. How many of the statements given above is/are correct? (a) Only one (b) Only two (c) All three (d) None Correct Solution: B The Preamble of the Constitution is based on the Objectives Resolution moved by Jawaharlal Nehru and adopted by the Constituent Assembly It has been amended by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act 1976 which added the three new words- Socialist, Secular and Integrity. The Indian brand of socialism is democratic socialism and not a communistic socialism which is also known as state socialism State socialism involves nationalisation of all means of production and distribution and abolition of private property. On the other hand, democratic socialism hold a faith in mixed economy where both private and public sectors co- exist side by side. Hence statements 1 and 2 are correct Being a Sovereign state, India can either acquire a foreign territory or cede a part of its territory in favour of a foreign state. Hence statement 3 is incorrect Incorrect Solution: B The Preamble of the Constitution is based on the Objectives Resolution moved by Jawaharlal Nehru and adopted by the Constituent Assembly It has been amended by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act 1976 which added the three new words- Socialist, Secular and Integrity. The Indian brand of socialism is democratic socialism and not a communistic socialism which is also known as state socialism State socialism involves nationalisation of all means of production and distribution and abolition of private property. On the other hand, democratic socialism hold a faith in mixed economy where both private and public sectors co- exist side by side. Hence statements 1 and 2 are correct Being a Sovereign state, India can either acquire a foreign territory or cede a part of its territory in favour of a foreign state. Hence statement 3 is incorrect

#### 16. Question

Consider the following statements:

• The original Preamble, based on the Objectives Resolution, did not include the term ‘socialist’.

• Indian socialism can be characterized as Democratic socialism, with coexistence of both public and private sectors.

• The 42nd Amendment act 1976 declared India as a ‘Sovereign’ state and empowered it to acquire a foreign territory.

How many of the statements given above is/are correct?

• (a) Only one

• (b) Only two

• (c) All three

• Solution: B The Preamble of the Constitution is based on the Objectives Resolution moved by Jawaharlal Nehru and adopted by the Constituent Assembly It has been amended by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act 1976 which added the three new words- Socialist, Secular and Integrity. The Indian brand of socialism is democratic socialism and not a communistic socialism which is also known as state socialism State socialism involves nationalisation of all means of production and distribution and abolition of private property. On the other hand, democratic socialism hold a faith in mixed economy where both private and public sectors co- exist side by side. Hence statements 1 and 2 are correct Being a Sovereign state, India can either acquire a foreign territory or cede a part of its territory in favour of a foreign state. Hence statement 3 is incorrect

• The Preamble of the Constitution is based on the Objectives Resolution moved by Jawaharlal Nehru and adopted by the Constituent Assembly

• It has been amended by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act 1976 which added the three new words- Socialist, Secular and Integrity.

• The Indian brand of socialism is democratic socialism and not a communistic socialism which is also known as state socialism

• State socialism involves nationalisation of all means of production and distribution and abolition of private property.

• On the other hand, democratic socialism hold a faith in mixed economy where both private and public sectors co- exist side by side.

Hence statements 1 and 2 are correct

• Being a Sovereign state, India can either acquire a foreign territory or cede a part of its territory in favour of a foreign state.

Hence statement 3 is incorrect

• The Preamble of the Constitution is based on the Objectives Resolution moved by Jawaharlal Nehru and adopted by the Constituent Assembly

• It has been amended by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act 1976 which added the three new words- Socialist, Secular and Integrity.

• The Indian brand of socialism is democratic socialism and not a communistic socialism which is also known as state socialism

• State socialism involves nationalisation of all means of production and distribution and abolition of private property.

• On the other hand, democratic socialism hold a faith in mixed economy where both private and public sectors co- exist side by side.

Hence statements 1 and 2 are correct

• Being a Sovereign state, India can either acquire a foreign territory or cede a part of its territory in favour of a foreign state.

Hence statement 3 is incorrect

• Question 17 of 30 17. Question 1 points With reference to the constitution of India, consider the following statements: A bill related to alteration of boundaries or names of state can be introduced in the Parliament with prior recommendation of the president. Any amendment proposed in a bill introduced in the Parliament for the purpose of alteration of boundary of a state should be forwarded to the state legislature to ascertain its views. Which of the statements given above is/are correct? (a) 1 only (b) 2 only (c) Both 1 and (d) Neither 1 nor 2 Correct Solution: A According to Article 3 of the Constitution of India, increase or decrease in area of any state, alteration of boundaries or names of the states or formation of new state by separation of territory from any state or uniting two or more States can be done under two conditions- A bill affecting such changes can be introduced only in the Parliament with prior recommendation of the president The president, before recommending the bill to the Parliament, has to refer the bill to the concerned state legislature for expressing its views within a specified period. Hence statement 1 is correct. It is not necessary to make reference to the state legislatures every time an amendment to a bill is moved and accepted in the Parliament, that deals with formation of new state, increase or decrease the area of any state and altering the boundaries or name of any state. Hence statement 2 is incorrect. Incorrect Solution: A According to Article 3 of the Constitution of India, increase or decrease in area of any state, alteration of boundaries or names of the states or formation of new state by separation of territory from any state or uniting two or more States can be done under two conditions- A bill affecting such changes can be introduced only in the Parliament with prior recommendation of the president The president, before recommending the bill to the Parliament, has to refer the bill to the concerned state legislature for expressing its views within a specified period. Hence statement 1 is correct. It is not necessary to make reference to the state legislatures every time an amendment to a bill is moved and accepted in the Parliament, that deals with formation of new state, increase or decrease the area of any state and altering the boundaries or name of any state. Hence statement 2 is incorrect.

#### 17. Question

With reference to the constitution of India, consider the following statements:

• A bill related to alteration of boundaries or names of state can be introduced in the Parliament with prior recommendation of the president.

• Any amendment proposed in a bill introduced in the Parliament for the purpose of alteration of boundary of a state should be forwarded to the state legislature to ascertain its views.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

• (a) 1 only

• (b) 2 only

• (c) Both 1 and

• (d) Neither 1 nor 2

• Solution: A According to Article 3 of the Constitution of India, increase or decrease in area of any state, alteration of boundaries or names of the states or formation of new state by separation of territory from any state or uniting two or more States can be done under two conditions- A bill affecting such changes can be introduced only in the Parliament with prior recommendation of the president The president, before recommending the bill to the Parliament, has to refer the bill to the concerned state legislature for expressing its views within a specified period. Hence statement 1 is correct. It is not necessary to make reference to the state legislatures every time an amendment to a bill is moved and accepted in the Parliament, that deals with formation of new state, increase or decrease the area of any state and altering the boundaries or name of any state. Hence statement 2 is incorrect.

According to Article 3 of the Constitution of India, increase or decrease in area of any state, alteration of boundaries or names of the states or formation of new state by separation of territory from any state or uniting two or more States can be done under two conditions-

• A bill affecting such changes can be introduced only in the Parliament with prior recommendation of the president

• The president, before recommending the bill to the Parliament, has to refer the bill to the concerned state legislature for expressing its views within a specified period.

Hence statement 1 is correct.

• It is not necessary to make reference to the state legislatures every time an amendment to a bill is moved and accepted in the Parliament, that deals with formation of new state, increase or decrease the area of any state and altering the boundaries or name of any state.

Hence statement 2 is incorrect.

• A bill affecting such changes can be introduced only in the Parliament with prior recommendation of the president

• The president, before recommending the bill to the Parliament, has to refer the bill to the concerned state legislature for expressing its views within a specified period.

Hence statement 1 is correct.

Hence statement 2 is incorrect.

• Question 18 of 30 18. Question 1 points Consider the following statements regarding the Constituent Assembly: The idea of Constituent Assembly was for the first time suggested by Jawaharlal Nehru. Dr Rajendra Prasad was elected as permanent chairman of the Assembly. The Constituent Assembly consisted of members elected indirectly. Which of the statements given above is/are correct? (a) 3 only (b) 2 and 3 only (c) 1, 2 and 3 (d) 1 and 2 only Correct Solution: B The idea of a Constituent Assembly for India was forwarded in 1934 by M. N. Roy. The Indian National Congress officially demanded a Constituent Assembly to frame the Constitution of India for the first time in 1935. The demand was accepted by the British in the August offer of 1940. The Cripps proposals of 1942 promised formation of a constituent assembly to finalize the constitution of India; but the scheme was rejected. Finally, the constituent assembly was constituted under the scheme formulated by Cabinet Mission plan in November 1946. Hence statement 1 is incorrect On December 11, 1946, Dr Rajendra Prasad was elected as the permanent chairman or president of the assembly. In 1947, H.C. Mukherjee was elected as vice president of the Assembly. Hence statement 2 is correct The Constituent Assembly was a partially elected and partially nominated body in which the members were indirectly elected by members of provincial assemblies. But it comprised of representatives from all sections of the Indian society including women. Hence statement 3 is correct. Incorrect Solution: B The idea of a Constituent Assembly for India was forwarded in 1934 by M. N. Roy. The Indian National Congress officially demanded a Constituent Assembly to frame the Constitution of India for the first time in 1935. The demand was accepted by the British in the August offer of 1940. The Cripps proposals of 1942 promised formation of a constituent assembly to finalize the constitution of India; but the scheme was rejected. Finally, the constituent assembly was constituted under the scheme formulated by Cabinet Mission plan in November 1946. Hence statement 1 is incorrect On December 11, 1946, Dr Rajendra Prasad was elected as the permanent chairman or president of the assembly. In 1947, H.C. Mukherjee was elected as vice president of the Assembly. Hence statement 2 is correct The Constituent Assembly was a partially elected and partially nominated body in which the members were indirectly elected by members of provincial assemblies. But it comprised of representatives from all sections of the Indian society including women. Hence statement 3 is correct.

#### 18. Question

Consider the following statements regarding the Constituent Assembly:

• The idea of Constituent Assembly was for the first time suggested by Jawaharlal Nehru.

• Dr Rajendra Prasad was elected as permanent chairman of the Assembly.

• The Constituent Assembly consisted of members elected indirectly.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

• (a) 3 only

• (b) 2 and 3 only

• (c) 1, 2 and 3

• (d) 1 and 2 only

• Solution: B The idea of a Constituent Assembly for India was forwarded in 1934 by M. N. Roy. The Indian National Congress officially demanded a Constituent Assembly to frame the Constitution of India for the first time in 1935. The demand was accepted by the British in the August offer of 1940. The Cripps proposals of 1942 promised formation of a constituent assembly to finalize the constitution of India; but the scheme was rejected. Finally, the constituent assembly was constituted under the scheme formulated by Cabinet Mission plan in November 1946. Hence statement 1 is incorrect On December 11, 1946, Dr Rajendra Prasad was elected as the permanent chairman or president of the assembly. In 1947, H.C. Mukherjee was elected as vice president of the Assembly. Hence statement 2 is correct The Constituent Assembly was a partially elected and partially nominated body in which the members were indirectly elected by members of provincial assemblies. But it comprised of representatives from all sections of the Indian society including women. Hence statement 3 is correct.

• The idea of a Constituent Assembly for India was forwarded in 1934 by M. N. Roy.

• The Indian National Congress officially demanded a Constituent Assembly to frame the Constitution of India for the first time in 1935.

• The demand was accepted by the British in the August offer of 1940.

• The Cripps proposals of 1942 promised formation of a constituent assembly to finalize the constitution of India; but the scheme was rejected.

• Finally, the constituent assembly was constituted under the scheme formulated by Cabinet Mission plan in November 1946.

Hence statement 1 is incorrect

• On December 11, 1946, Dr Rajendra Prasad was elected as the permanent chairman or president of the assembly.

• In 1947, H.C. Mukherjee was elected as vice president of the Assembly.

Hence statement 2 is correct

• The Constituent Assembly was a partially elected and partially nominated body in which the members were indirectly elected by members of provincial assemblies.

• But it comprised of representatives from all sections of the Indian society including women.

Hence statement 3 is correct.

Solution: B

• The idea of a Constituent Assembly for India was forwarded in 1934 by M. N. Roy.

• The Indian National Congress officially demanded a Constituent Assembly to frame the Constitution of India for the first time in 1935.

• The demand was accepted by the British in the August offer of 1940.

• The Cripps proposals of 1942 promised formation of a constituent assembly to finalize the constitution of India; but the scheme was rejected.

• Finally, the constituent assembly was constituted under the scheme formulated by Cabinet Mission plan in November 1946.

Hence statement 1 is incorrect

• On December 11, 1946, Dr Rajendra Prasad was elected as the permanent chairman or president of the assembly.

• In 1947, H.C. Mukherjee was elected as vice president of the Assembly.

Hence statement 2 is correct

• The Constituent Assembly was a partially elected and partially nominated body in which the members were indirectly elected by members of provincial assemblies.

• But it comprised of representatives from all sections of the Indian society including women.

Hence statement 3 is correct.

• Question 19 of 30 19. Question 1 points Consider the following statements: In the Waman Rao case 1981, Supreme Court provided that the basic structure doctrine of the Constitution applies to all constitutional amendments enacted after the Keshavnanda Bharati case. In the Golaknath case 1967, the Supreme Court provided that the parliament cannot abridge any of the fundamental rights. Which of the statements given above is/are correct? (a) 1 only (b) 2 only (c) Both 1 and 2 (d) Neither 1 nor 2 Correct Solution: C In the Waman Rao case 1981, the supreme court adhered to the doctrine of basic structure and further clarified that it would apply to constitutional amendments enacted after April 24, 1973 that is the date of judgement of Keshavananda Bharati case. Hence statement 1 is correct In the Golaknath case 1967 the constitutional validity of the 17th Amendment Act 1964 which inserted certain state acts in the Ninth Schedule, was challenged; The Supreme Court ruled that fundamental rights are given an immutable position and hence the parliament cannot abridge or take away any of these rights. Hence statement 2 is correct. Incorrect Solution: C In the Waman Rao case 1981, the supreme court adhered to the doctrine of basic structure and further clarified that it would apply to constitutional amendments enacted after April 24, 1973 that is the date of judgement of Keshavananda Bharati case. Hence statement 1 is correct In the Golaknath case 1967 the constitutional validity of the 17th Amendment Act 1964 which inserted certain state acts in the Ninth Schedule, was challenged; The Supreme Court ruled that fundamental rights are given an immutable position and hence the parliament cannot abridge or take away any of these rights. Hence statement 2 is correct.

#### 19. Question

Consider the following statements:

• In the Waman Rao case 1981, Supreme Court provided that the basic structure doctrine of the Constitution applies to all constitutional amendments enacted after the Keshavnanda Bharati case.

• In the Golaknath case 1967, the Supreme Court provided that the parliament cannot abridge any of the fundamental rights.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

• (a) 1 only

• (b) 2 only

• (c) Both 1 and 2

• (d) Neither 1 nor 2

• Solution: C In the Waman Rao case 1981, the supreme court adhered to the doctrine of basic structure and further clarified that it would apply to constitutional amendments enacted after April 24, 1973 that is the date of judgement of Keshavananda Bharati case. Hence statement 1 is correct In the Golaknath case 1967 the constitutional validity of the 17th Amendment Act 1964 which inserted certain state acts in the Ninth Schedule, was challenged; The Supreme Court ruled that fundamental rights are given an immutable position and hence the parliament cannot abridge or take away any of these rights. Hence statement 2 is correct.

• In the Waman Rao case 1981, the supreme court adhered to the doctrine of basic structure and further clarified that it would apply to constitutional amendments enacted after April 24, 1973 that is the date of judgement of Keshavananda Bharati case.

Hence statement 1 is correct

• In the Golaknath case 1967 the constitutional validity of the 17th Amendment Act 1964 which inserted certain state acts in the Ninth Schedule, was challenged;

• The Supreme Court ruled that fundamental rights are given an immutable position and hence the parliament cannot abridge or take away any of these rights.

Hence statement 2 is correct.

Solution: C

Hence statement 1 is correct

• In the Golaknath case 1967 the constitutional validity of the 17th Amendment Act 1964 which inserted certain state acts in the Ninth Schedule, was challenged;

• The Supreme Court ruled that fundamental rights are given an immutable position and hence the parliament cannot abridge or take away any of these rights.

Hence statement 2 is correct.

• Question 20 of 30 20. Question 1 points Consider the following statements: The state is not bound to pay for imposition of compulsory service for social purpose, including military Service. The Fundamental Right against exploitation in the form of human trafficking is available to both citizens and non citizens of India. Which of the statements given above is/are correct? (a) 1 only (b) 2 only (c) Both 1 and 2 (d) Neither 1 nor 2 Correct Solution: C Article 23 also provides and exception to the provision of prohibition of forced and bonded labour. It permits the state to impose compulsory service for public purposes like military service or social service Also, the state is not bound to pay for imposition of such services However, in imposing such service, the State is not allowed to make any discrimination on grounds only of religion, race, caste or class. Hence statement 1 is correct Article 23 of the Constitution deals with the right against exploitation. It prohibits traffic in human beings, begar ( forced labour) and other similar forms of forced labour Any contravention of this provision is considered to be an offence punishable in accordance with law this right is available to both citizens and non-citizens. It protects individuals not only against the state but also against private persons. Hence statement 2 is correct. Incorrect Solution: C Article 23 also provides and exception to the provision of prohibition of forced and bonded labour. It permits the state to impose compulsory service for public purposes like military service or social service Also, the state is not bound to pay for imposition of such services However, in imposing such service, the State is not allowed to make any discrimination on grounds only of religion, race, caste or class. Hence statement 1 is correct Article 23 of the Constitution deals with the right against exploitation. It prohibits traffic in human beings, begar ( forced labour) and other similar forms of forced labour Any contravention of this provision is considered to be an offence punishable in accordance with law this right is available to both citizens and non-citizens. It protects individuals not only against the state but also against private persons. Hence statement 2 is correct.

#### 20. Question

Consider the following statements:

• The state is not bound to pay for imposition of compulsory service for social purpose, including military Service.

• The Fundamental Right against exploitation in the form of human trafficking is available to both citizens and non citizens of India.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

• (a) 1 only

• (b) 2 only

• (c) Both 1 and 2

• (d) Neither 1 nor 2

• Solution: C Article 23 also provides and exception to the provision of prohibition of forced and bonded labour. It permits the state to impose compulsory service for public purposes like military service or social service Also, the state is not bound to pay for imposition of such services However, in imposing such service, the State is not allowed to make any discrimination on grounds only of religion, race, caste or class. Hence statement 1 is correct Article 23 of the Constitution deals with the right against exploitation. It prohibits traffic in human beings, begar ( forced labour) and other similar forms of forced labour Any contravention of this provision is considered to be an offence punishable in accordance with law this right is available to both citizens and non-citizens. It protects individuals not only against the state but also against private persons. Hence statement 2 is correct.

• Article 23 also provides and exception to the provision of prohibition of forced and bonded labour.

• It permits the state to impose compulsory service for public purposes like military service or social service

• Also, the state is not bound to pay for imposition of such services

• However, in imposing such service, the State is not allowed to make any discrimination on grounds only of religion, race, caste or class.

Hence statement 1 is correct

• Article 23 of the Constitution deals with the right against exploitation.

• It prohibits traffic in human beings, begar ( forced labour) and other similar forms of forced labour

• Any contravention of this provision is considered to be an offence punishable in accordance with law

• this right is available to both citizens and non-citizens.

• It protects individuals not only against the state but also against private persons.

Hence statement 2 is correct.

Solution: C

• Article 23 also provides and exception to the provision of prohibition of forced and bonded labour.

• It permits the state to impose compulsory service for public purposes like military service or social service

• Also, the state is not bound to pay for imposition of such services

• However, in imposing such service, the State is not allowed to make any discrimination on grounds only of religion, race, caste or class.

Hence statement 1 is correct

• Article 23 of the Constitution deals with the right against exploitation.

• It prohibits traffic in human beings, begar ( forced labour) and other similar forms of forced labour

• Any contravention of this provision is considered to be an offence punishable in accordance with law

• this right is available to both citizens and non-citizens.

• It protects individuals not only against the state but also against private persons.

Hence statement 2 is correct.

• Question 21 of 30 21. Question 1 points Consider the following minerals: Barytes Feldspar Mica Quartz Which of the above minerals have been recently reclassified as ‘major minerals’ by the Government of India? (a) 1 and 2 only (b) 1, 2 and 3 only (c) 1, 2, 3 and 4 (d) 2, 3 and 4 only Correct Solution: D Explanation: The Ministry of Mines notified the reclassification of Barytes, Feldspar, Mica, and Quartz from minor minerals to major minerals under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act). Reasons for Reclassification: Strategic Mineral Linkage: These minerals are often found alongside critical and strategic elements like Beryl, Lithium, Niobium, and Tantalum, vital for aerospace, defense, and renewable energy sectors. Regulatory Oversight: Brings mining operations under the Indian Bureau of Mines (IBM) for scientific mining practices and better resource management. Encourage Private Investment: Offers longer lease durations (up to 50 years) and boosts private sector participation in mineral exploration. Changes Post Reclassification: Royalty and Regulation: Royalty rates and regulatory conditions will now be determined by the Union Government. Revenue Flow: Despite reclassification, mining revenues continue to accrue to state governments, not the Consolidated Fund of India. Auctioning of Leases: Leases, even on khatedari (revenue) lands, will be auctioned. No Transferability: Transfer of leases, previously allowed, will no longer be permitted under the new rules. Incorrect Solution: D Explanation: The Ministry of Mines notified the reclassification of Barytes, Feldspar, Mica, and Quartz from minor minerals to major minerals under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act). Reasons for Reclassification: Strategic Mineral Linkage: These minerals are often found alongside critical and strategic elements like Beryl, Lithium, Niobium, and Tantalum, vital for aerospace, defense, and renewable energy sectors. Regulatory Oversight: Brings mining operations under the Indian Bureau of Mines (IBM) for scientific mining practices and better resource management. Encourage Private Investment: Offers longer lease durations (up to 50 years) and boosts private sector participation in mineral exploration. Changes Post Reclassification: Royalty and Regulation: Royalty rates and regulatory conditions will now be determined by the Union Government. Revenue Flow: Despite reclassification, mining revenues continue to accrue to state governments, not the Consolidated Fund of India. Auctioning of Leases: Leases, even on khatedari (revenue) lands, will be auctioned. No Transferability: Transfer of leases, previously allowed, will no longer be permitted under the new rules.

#### 21. Question

Consider the following minerals:

Which of the above minerals have been recently reclassified as ‘major minerals’ by the Government of India?

• (a) 1 and 2 only

• (b) 1, 2 and 3 only

• (c) 1, 2, 3 and 4

• (d) 2, 3 and 4 only

Solution: D

Explanation:

The Ministry of Mines notified the reclassification of Barytes, Feldspar, Mica, and Quartz from minor minerals to major minerals under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act).

Reasons for Reclassification:

• Strategic Mineral Linkage: These minerals are often found alongside critical and strategic elements like Beryl, Lithium, Niobium, and Tantalum, vital for aerospace, defense, and renewable energy sectors.

• Regulatory Oversight: Brings mining operations under the Indian Bureau of Mines (IBM) for scientific mining practices and better resource management.

• Encourage Private Investment: Offers longer lease durations (up to 50 years) and boosts private sector participation in mineral exploration.

Changes Post Reclassification:

• Royalty and Regulation: Royalty rates and regulatory conditions will now be determined by the Union Government.

• Revenue Flow: Despite reclassification, mining revenues continue to accrue to state governments, not the Consolidated Fund of India.

• Auctioning of Leases: Leases, even on khatedari (revenue) lands, will be auctioned.

• No Transferability: Transfer of leases, previously allowed, will no longer be permitted under the new rules.

Solution: D

Explanation:

Reasons for Reclassification:

• Regulatory Oversight: Brings mining operations under the Indian Bureau of Mines (IBM) for scientific mining practices and better resource management.

• Encourage Private Investment: Offers longer lease durations (up to 50 years) and boosts private sector participation in mineral exploration.

Changes Post Reclassification:

• Royalty and Regulation: Royalty rates and regulatory conditions will now be determined by the Union Government.

• Revenue Flow: Despite reclassification, mining revenues continue to accrue to state governments, not the Consolidated Fund of India.

• Auctioning of Leases: Leases, even on khatedari (revenue) lands, will be auctioned.

• No Transferability: Transfer of leases, previously allowed, will no longer be permitted under the new rules.

• Question 22 of 30 22. Question 1 points Which Indian physicist is credited with formulating a novel statistical method for photon behaviour—later extended to atoms by Einstein—and is commemorated through the naming of particles with integer spin that do not obey the Pauli Exclusion Principle? (a) Meghnad Saha (b) Satyendra Nath Bose (c) C.V. Raman (d) Homi J. Bhabha Correct Solution: B Explanation: Satyendra Nath Bose developed a new statistical method to explain Planck’s law of blackbody radiation by treating light as a gas of photons. His 1924 paper, translated and supported by Albert Einstein, led to the development of Bose–Einstein statistics and prediction of Bose–Einstein condensates. The term “bosons” for particles like photons and gluons, which have integer spin and can occupy the same quantum state, was coined by Paul Dirac in Bose’s honour. Incorrect Solution: B Explanation: Satyendra Nath Bose developed a new statistical method to explain Planck’s law of blackbody radiation by treating light as a gas of photons. His 1924 paper, translated and supported by Albert Einstein, led to the development of Bose–Einstein statistics and prediction of Bose–Einstein condensates. The term “bosons” for particles like photons and gluons, which have integer spin and can occupy the same quantum state, was coined by Paul Dirac in Bose’s honour.

#### 22. Question

Which Indian physicist is credited with formulating a novel statistical method for photon behaviour—later extended to atoms by Einstein—and is commemorated through the naming of particles with integer spin that do not obey the Pauli Exclusion Principle?

• (a) Meghnad Saha

• (b) Satyendra Nath Bose

• (c) C.V. Raman

• (d) Homi J. Bhabha

Solution: B

Explanation: Satyendra Nath Bose developed a new statistical method to explain Planck’s law of blackbody radiation by treating light as a gas of photons. His 1924 paper, translated and supported by Albert Einstein, led to the development of Bose–Einstein statistics and prediction of Bose–Einstein condensates. The term “bosons” for particles like photons and gluons, which have integer spin and can occupy the same quantum state, was coined by Paul Dirac in Bose’s honour.

Solution: B

• Question 23 of 30 23. Question 1 points Consider the following statements regarding the PM Dhan-Dhaanya Krishi Yojana: The scheme aims to enhance productivity in high-yield districts with existing robust irrigation and credit infrastructure. It converges existing schemes to improve crop intensity, irrigation, and credit flow in selected districts. Which of the above statements is/are correct? (a) 1 only (b) 2 only (c) Both 1 and 2 (d) Neither 1 nor 2 Correct Solution: B Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect: The PM Dhan-Dhaanya Krishi Yojana targets 100 districts with low agricultural productivity, moderate crop intensity, and below-average credit indicators—not high-yield or already developed districts. The aim is to bring underperforming Agri-districts into the productivity mainstream. Statement 2 is correct: The programme’s approach is through convergence of existing agricultural schemes, coupled with specialized interventions to improve credit access, irrigation, storage, and promote sustainable farming and crop diversification. Incorrect Solution: B Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect: The PM Dhan-Dhaanya Krishi Yojana targets 100 districts with low agricultural productivity, moderate crop intensity, and below-average credit indicators—not high-yield or already developed districts. The aim is to bring underperforming Agri-districts into the productivity mainstream. Statement 2 is correct: The programme’s approach is through convergence of existing agricultural schemes, coupled with specialized interventions to improve credit access, irrigation, storage, and promote sustainable farming and crop diversification.

#### 23. Question

Consider the following statements regarding the PM Dhan-Dhaanya Krishi Yojana:

• The scheme aims to enhance productivity in high-yield districts with existing robust irrigation and credit infrastructure.

• It converges existing schemes to improve crop intensity, irrigation, and credit flow in selected districts.

Which of the above statements is/are correct?

• (a) 1 only

• (b) 2 only

• (c) Both 1 and 2

• (d) Neither 1 nor 2

Solution: B

Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect: The PM Dhan-Dhaanya Krishi Yojana targets 100 districts with low agricultural productivity, moderate crop intensity, and below-average credit indicators—not high-yield or already developed districts. The aim is to bring underperforming Agri-districts into the productivity mainstream.

Statement 2 is correct: The programme’s approach is through convergence of existing agricultural schemes, coupled with specialized interventions to improve credit access, irrigation, storage, and promote sustainable farming and crop diversification.

Solution: B

• Question 24 of 30 24. Question 1 points Consider the following statements about antivenoms in India: India produces monovalent antivenoms tailored to each of the “Big Four” snake species. Antivenoms work by producing antibodies that neutralize snake toxins after being introduced into the human body. All snake species in India have venom compositions that are structurally identical, allowing universal treatment through a single antivenom. Which of the above given statements is/are incorrect? (a) 1 and 2 only (b) 2 and 3 only (c) 1 and 3 only (d) 1, 2 and 3 Correct Solution: C Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect: India predominantly produces polyvalent antivenoms, which are formulated to work against multiple venomous species, particularly the “Big Four”: Indian Cobra, Common Krait, Russell’s Viper, and Saw-scaled Viper. Monovalent antivenoms—which target a single species—are rarely produced or used in India, largely due to logistical challenges and snake identification difficulties at the point of care. Statement 2 is correct: Antivenoms contain pre-formed antibodies extracted from immunized animals (usually horses). These antibodies are introduced into the human body and bind specifically to venom toxins, neutralizing their effect and preventing further damage such as paralysis, hemorrhage, or necrosis. Statement 3 is incorrect: Snake venom composition varies widely by species, geography, and even season. Therefore, a single antivenom cannot universally neutralize all venoms. This is why species-specific or region-specific antivenom research is a growing need in India’s snakebite mitigation strategy. Incorrect Solution: C Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect: India predominantly produces polyvalent antivenoms, which are formulated to work against multiple venomous species, particularly the “Big Four”: Indian Cobra, Common Krait, Russell’s Viper, and Saw-scaled Viper. Monovalent antivenoms—which target a single species—are rarely produced or used in India, largely due to logistical challenges and snake identification difficulties at the point of care. Statement 2 is correct: Antivenoms contain pre-formed antibodies extracted from immunized animals (usually horses). These antibodies are introduced into the human body and bind specifically to venom toxins, neutralizing their effect and preventing further damage such as paralysis, hemorrhage, or necrosis. Statement 3 is incorrect: Snake venom composition varies widely by species, geography, and even season. Therefore, a single antivenom cannot universally neutralize all venoms. This is why species-specific or region-specific antivenom research is a growing need in India’s snakebite mitigation strategy.

#### 24. Question

Consider the following statements about antivenoms in India:

• India produces monovalent antivenoms tailored to each of the “Big Four” snake species.

• Antivenoms work by producing antibodies that neutralize snake toxins after being introduced into the human body.

• All snake species in India have venom compositions that are structurally identical, allowing universal treatment through a single antivenom.

Which of the above given statements is/are incorrect?

• (a) 1 and 2 only

• (b) 2 and 3 only

• (c) 1 and 3 only

• (d) 1, 2 and 3

Solution: C

Explanation:

• Statement 1 is incorrect: India predominantly produces polyvalent antivenoms, which are formulated to work against multiple venomous species, particularly the “Big Four”: Indian Cobra, Common Krait, Russell’s Viper, and Saw-scaled Viper. Monovalent antivenoms—which target a single species—are rarely produced or used in India, largely due to logistical challenges and snake identification difficulties at the point of care.

• Statement 2 is correct: Antivenoms contain pre-formed antibodies extracted from immunized animals (usually horses). These antibodies are introduced into the human body and bind specifically to venom toxins, neutralizing their effect and preventing further damage such as paralysis, hemorrhage, or necrosis.

Statement 3 is incorrect: Snake venom composition varies widely by species, geography, and even season. Therefore, a single antivenom cannot universally neutralize all venoms. This is why species-specific or region-specific antivenom research is a growing need in India’s snakebite mitigation strategy.

Solution: C

Explanation:

• Question 25 of 30 25. Question 1 points Consider the following statements about the Betwa River and its basin: The Betwa River is a right-bank tributary of the Ken River. The Halali River is the longest tributary of the Betwa and lies entirely within Uttar Pradesh. The Betwa originates in Madhya Pradesh and flows through both Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh. How many of the above given statements is/ are incorrect? (a) Only one (b) Only two (c) All three (d) None Correct Solution: B Explanation: The Betwa River in Madhya Pradesh is drying up due to illegal sand mining, deforestation, and over-extraction through borings. It is a right-bank tributary of the Yamuna River, which in turn flows into the Ganga. Hence, statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect: The Halali River, the longest tributary of the Betwa, measuring 180.32 km, lies entirely within Madhya Pradesh, not Uttar Pradesh. Statement 3 is correct: the Betwa does originate in Madhya Pradesh and flows through both Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh, it does not join the Ganga directly. Illegal sand mining has severely disrupted the natural flow of the Betwa, altered the riverbed structure, and harmed aquatic habitats—making it one of the most pressing ecological concerns affecting the river’s survival. Incorrect Solution: B Explanation: The Betwa River in Madhya Pradesh is drying up due to illegal sand mining, deforestation, and over-extraction through borings. It is a right-bank tributary of the Yamuna River, which in turn flows into the Ganga. Hence, statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect: The Halali River, the longest tributary of the Betwa, measuring 180.32 km, lies entirely within Madhya Pradesh, not Uttar Pradesh. Statement 3 is correct: the Betwa does originate in Madhya Pradesh and flows through both Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh, it does not join the Ganga directly. Illegal sand mining has severely disrupted the natural flow of the Betwa, altered the riverbed structure, and harmed aquatic habitats—making it one of the most pressing ecological concerns affecting the river’s survival.

#### 25. Question

Consider the following statements about the Betwa River and its basin:

• The Betwa River is a right-bank tributary of the Ken River.

• The Halali River is the longest tributary of the Betwa and lies entirely within Uttar Pradesh.

• The Betwa originates in Madhya Pradesh and flows through both Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh.

How many of the above given statements is/ are incorrect?

• (a) Only one

• (b) Only two

• (c) All three

Solution: B

Explanation:

• The Betwa River in Madhya Pradesh is drying up due to illegal sand mining, deforestation, and over-extraction through borings. It is a right-bank tributary of the Yamuna River, which in turn flows into the Ganga. Hence, statement 1 is incorrect.

• Statement 2 is incorrect: The Halali River, the longest tributary of the Betwa, measuring 180.32 km, lies entirely within Madhya Pradesh, not Uttar Pradesh.

• Statement 3 is correct: the Betwa does originate in Madhya Pradesh and flows through both Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh, it does not join the Ganga directly.

• Illegal sand mining has severely disrupted the natural flow of the Betwa, altered the riverbed structure, and harmed aquatic habitats—making it one of the most pressing ecological concerns affecting the river’s survival.

Solution: B

Explanation:

• Statement 2 is incorrect: The Halali River, the longest tributary of the Betwa, measuring 180.32 km, lies entirely within Madhya Pradesh, not Uttar Pradesh.

• Statement 3 is correct: the Betwa does originate in Madhya Pradesh and flows through both Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh, it does not join the Ganga directly.

• Question 26 of 30 26. Question 1 points Millennials, born between the early 1980s and early 2000s, are the largest generational cohort globally and dominate today’s workforce. Raised alongside rapid technological advancements, they are highly tech-savvy, reliant on digital communication, and skilled multi-taskers, though often less adept at face-to-face interaction. They prefer teamwork and problem-solving through shared knowledge. Raised in smaller, closely monitored families, Millennials are confident, ambitious, and often labeled as entitled. Despite being the most educated generation, many faced job scarcity during the global recession, making them adaptable, flexible, and entrepreneurial. They prioritize work-life balance, meaningful employment, and family over career advancement. As consumers, Millennials are discerning, price-conscious, and value-driven, often spending more on experiences than assets. They rely on peer opinions and critical analysis rather than traditional advertising. Environmentally conscious and socially aware, they criticize earlier generations’ environmental neglect. Having entered adulthood amid economic challenges, Millennials have adapted creatively, striving to find meaning, stability, and success in a complex and evolving world. Which of the following is the most logical corollary to the above passage: Millennials are likely to continue driving technological advancements and innovations due to their adaptability to technology. The Millennial generation may seek career opportunities that offer a better work-life balance and align with their family-oriented values. Businesses and marketers should focus on environmentally conscious and experience-driven offerings to appeal to Millennial consumers. The educational system may need to adapt to the unique characteristics of Millennials, such as their critical thinking skills and desire for meaningful work. Select the correct answer using the code given below: a. 1 and 2 only b. 2 and 3 only c. 1,3 and 4 only d. All of the above Correct Correct Option: D Justification: The most logical corollary to the passage is: All of the above This is because the passage provides insights into various aspects of the Millennial generation, such as their adaptability to technology, their preference for work-life balance and family values, their discerning consumer behavior, and their critical thinking skills. These characteristics suggest that Millennials are likely to have a significant influence on technology, career choices, consumer trends, and even the educational system. Therefore, all the statements (1, 2, 3, and 4) are logical corollaries based on the information presented in the passage. Incorrect Correct Option: D Justification: The most logical corollary to the passage is: All of the above This is because the passage provides insights into various aspects of the Millennial generation, such as their adaptability to technology, their preference for work-life balance and family values, their discerning consumer behavior, and their critical thinking skills. These characteristics suggest that Millennials are likely to have a significant influence on technology, career choices, consumer trends, and even the educational system. Therefore, all the statements (1, 2, 3, and 4) are logical corollaries based on the information presented in the passage.

#### 26. Question

Millennials, born between the early 1980s and early 2000s, are the largest generational cohort globally and dominate today’s workforce. Raised alongside rapid technological advancements, they are highly tech-savvy, reliant on digital communication, and skilled multi-taskers, though often less adept at face-to-face interaction. They prefer teamwork and problem-solving through shared knowledge. Raised in smaller, closely monitored families, Millennials are confident, ambitious, and often labeled as entitled. Despite being the most educated generation, many faced job scarcity during the global recession, making them adaptable, flexible, and entrepreneurial. They prioritize work-life balance, meaningful employment, and family over career advancement. As consumers, Millennials are discerning, price-conscious, and value-driven, often spending more on experiences than assets. They rely on peer opinions and critical analysis rather than traditional advertising. Environmentally conscious and socially aware, they criticize earlier generations’ environmental neglect. Having entered adulthood amid economic challenges, Millennials have adapted creatively, striving to find meaning, stability, and success in a complex and evolving world.

Which of the following is the most logical corollary to the above passage:

• Millennials are likely to continue driving technological advancements and innovations due to their adaptability to technology. The Millennial generation may seek career opportunities that offer a better work-life balance and align with their family-oriented values. Businesses and marketers should focus on environmentally conscious and experience-driven offerings to appeal to Millennial consumers. The educational system may need to adapt to the unique characteristics of Millennials, such as their critical thinking skills and desire for meaningful work.

• Millennials are likely to continue driving technological advancements and innovations due to their adaptability to technology.

• The Millennial generation may seek career opportunities that offer a better work-life balance and align with their family-oriented values.

• Businesses and marketers should focus on environmentally conscious and experience-driven offerings to appeal to Millennial consumers.

• The educational system may need to adapt to the unique characteristics of Millennials, such as their critical thinking skills and desire for meaningful work.

Select the correct answer using the code given below:

• a. 1 and 2 only

• b. 2 and 3 only

• c. 1,3 and 4 only

• d. All of the above

Correct Option: D

Justification:

The most logical corollary to the passage is:

• All of the above

This is because the passage provides insights into various aspects of the Millennial generation, such as their adaptability to technology, their preference for work-life balance and family values, their discerning consumer behavior, and their critical thinking skills. These characteristics suggest that Millennials are likely to have a significant influence on technology, career choices, consumer trends, and even the educational system. Therefore, all the statements (1, 2, 3, and 4) are logical corollaries based on the information presented in the passage.

Correct Option: D

Justification:

The most logical corollary to the passage is:

• All of the above

• Question 27 of 30 27. Question 1 points In each of the questions below are given three statements followed by four conclusions numbered I, II, III and IV. You have to take the given statements to be true even if they seem to be at variance from commonly known facts. Read the conclusions and then decide which of the given conclusions logically follows from the given statements disregarding commonly known facts. Statements: No watch is cycle. No cycle is Motorbike. Some auto are motorbike Conclusion: No Motorbike is watch No motor bike is cycle Some cycles are watches All Motorbikes are watches a. None follows b. Only I follows c. Only I and III follow d. None of these Correct Correct Option: D Justification: Clearly from the diagram, No Motorbike is cycle. So II follows. Hence option D. Incorrect Correct Option: D Justification: Clearly from the diagram, No Motorbike is cycle. So II follows. Hence option D.

#### 27. Question

In each of the questions below are given three statements followed by four conclusions numbered I, II, III and IV. You have to take the given statements to be true even if they seem to be at variance from commonly known facts. Read the conclusions and then decide which of the given conclusions logically follows from the given statements disregarding commonly known facts.

Statements:

No watch is cycle.

No cycle is Motorbike.

Some auto are motorbike

Conclusion:

• No Motorbike is watch

• No motor bike is cycle

• Some cycles are watches

• All Motorbikes are watches

• a. None follows

• b. Only I follows

• c. Only I and III follow

• d. None of these

Correct Option: D

Justification:

Clearly from the diagram, No Motorbike is cycle. So II follows. Hence option D.

Correct Option: D

Justification:

Clearly from the diagram, No Motorbike is cycle. So II follows. Hence option D.

• Question 28 of 30 28. Question 1 points Statements: Only a few males are doctors. Only a few males are kind. Conclusions: 1) Some kinds are doctors is a possibility. 2) Only kinds are males. a. If conclusion 1 follows b. If conclusion 2 follows c. Neither conclusion 1 nor conclusion 2 follows d. Both the conclusions follow Correct Correct Option: A Justification: Incorrect Correct Option: A Justification:

#### 28. Question

Statements: Only a few males are doctors.

Only a few males are kind.

Conclusions:

1.Some kinds are doctors is a possibility.

1.Only kinds are males.

• a. If conclusion 1 follows

• b. If conclusion 2 follows

• c. Neither conclusion 1 nor conclusion 2 follows

• d. Both the conclusions follow

Correct Option: A

Justification:

Correct Option: A

Justification:

• Question 29 of 30 29. Question 1 points In each of the following questions, three statements 1, 2 and 3 are followed by four conclusions I, II, III, IV. You have to take the given statements to be true even if they appear to be at variance with commonly known facts, and then decide which of the conclusions logically follow(s) from the given statements. For each question, mark the answer choice that you think is correct. Statements:1. Some pens are pencils. 2.All pencils are erasers. 3.Some erasers are cups. Conclusions: I. Some pens are cups. II. Some pencils are cups. III. Some cups are pencils. IV. Some erasers are pens. a. Only conclusion (II) follows b. Only conclusion (IV) follows c. Only conclusion (I) follows d. No conclusion follows Correct Correct Option: B Justification: Incorrect Correct Option: B Justification:

#### 29. Question

In each of the following questions, three statements 1, 2 and 3 are followed by four conclusions I, II, III, IV. You have to take the given statements to be true even if they appear to be at variance with commonly known facts, and then decide which of the conclusions logically follow(s) from the given statements. For each question, mark the answer choice that you think is correct.

Statements:1. Some pens are pencils.

2.All pencils are erasers.

3.Some erasers are cups.

Conclusions: I. Some pens are cups.

II. Some pencils are cups.

III. Some cups are pencils.

IV. Some erasers are pens.

• a. Only conclusion (II) follows

• b. Only conclusion (IV) follows

• c. Only conclusion (I) follows

• d. No conclusion follows

Correct Option: B

Justification:

Correct Option: B

Justification:

• Question 30 of 30 30. Question 1 points STATEMENT: Mr. X is one of the probable candidates short-listed for the post of the Director of AA Institution. Conclusion: I. Mr. X will be selected as Director of AA Institute. Mr. X will not be selected as the Director of AA Institute. Give answer: a. If Only Conclusion I follows b. If Only Conclusion II follows c. If either I or II follows d. If neither I nor II follows Correct Correct Option: C Justification: According to the statements, the fact that Mr. X has been short-listed for the post, does not confirm his selection. So, either I or II follows. Incorrect Correct Option: C Justification: According to the statements, the fact that Mr. X has been short-listed for the post, does not confirm his selection. So, either I or II follows.

#### 30. Question

STATEMENT: Mr. X is one of the probable candidates short-listed for the post of the Director of AA Institution.

Conclusion: I. Mr. X will be selected as Director of AA Institute.

Mr. X will not be selected as the Director of AA Institute.

Give answer:

• a. If Only Conclusion I follows

• b. If Only Conclusion II follows

• c. If either I or II follows

• d. If neither I nor II follows

Correct Option: C

Justification:

According to the statements, the fact that Mr. X has been short-listed for the post, does not confirm his selection. So, either I or II follows.

Correct Option: C

Justification:

According to the statements, the fact that Mr. X has been short-listed for the post, does not confirm his selection. So, either I or II follows.

Join our Official Telegram Channel HERE

Please subscribe to Our podcast channel HERE

Follow our Twitter Account HERE

Follow our Instagram ID HERE