UPSC Static Quiz – Polity : 10 October 2025

UPSC Static Quiz – Polity : 10 October 2025 We will post 5 questions daily on static topics mentioned in the UPSC civil services preliminary examination syllabus. Each week will focus on a specific topic from the syllabus, such as History of India and Indian National Movement, Indian and World Geography, and more. We are excited to bring you our daily UPSC Static Quiz, designed to help you prepare for the UPSC Civil Services Preliminary Examination. Each day, we will post 5 questions on static topics mentioned in the UPSC syllabus. This week, we are focusing on Indian and World Geography.

Why Participate in the UPSC Static Quiz?

Participating in daily quizzes helps reinforce your knowledge and identify areas that need improvement. Regular practice will enhance your recall abilities and boost your confidence for the examination. By covering various topics throughout the week, you ensure a comprehensive revision of the syllabus.

#### Quiz-summary

0 of 5 questions completed

Questions:

#### Information

Best of 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 5 questions answered correctly

Your time:

Time has elapsed

You have reached 0 of 0 points, (0)

#### Categories

• Not categorized 0%

• Question 1 of 5 1. Question The definition of ‘State’ under Article 12 of the Indian Constitution is significant because: (a) It determines the territorial extent of India. (b) It lists all the organs of the Union and State governments. (c) Fundamental Rights are primarily enforceable against the entities included in this definition. (d) It outlines the procedure for the creation of new States. Correct Solution: C The definition of ‘State’ under Article 12 of the Indian Constitution is crucial because it determines against whom Fundamental Rights can be enforced under Part III of the Constitution. Article 12 includes the Government and Parliament of India, the Government and Legislature of each State, and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India. This broad definition ensures that not just traditional government bodies, but also agencies, instrumentalities, and statutory corporations performing public functions come under its purview. The Supreme Court has, through various judgments such as Rajasthan Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal (1967) and Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib (1981), expanded this definition to include bodies that are financially, functionally, and administratively dominated by the government. Hence, this definition forms the foundation for holding the State accountable for violations of Fundamental Rights, ensuring constitutional protection to citizens against misuse of power by any public authority. Incorrect Solution: C The definition of ‘State’ under Article 12 of the Indian Constitution is crucial because it determines against whom Fundamental Rights can be enforced under Part III of the Constitution. Article 12 includes the Government and Parliament of India, the Government and Legislature of each State, and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India. This broad definition ensures that not just traditional government bodies, but also agencies, instrumentalities, and statutory corporations performing public functions come under its purview. The Supreme Court has, through various judgments such as Rajasthan Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal (1967) and Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib (1981), expanded this definition to include bodies that are financially, functionally, and administratively dominated by the government. Hence, this definition forms the foundation for holding the State accountable for violations of Fundamental Rights, ensuring constitutional protection to citizens against misuse of power by any public authority.

#### 1. Question

The definition of ‘State’ under Article 12 of the Indian Constitution is significant because:

• (a) It determines the territorial extent of India.

• (b) It lists all the organs of the Union and State governments.

• (c) Fundamental Rights are primarily enforceable against the entities included in this definition.

• (d) It outlines the procedure for the creation of new States.

Solution: C

• The definition of ‘State’ under Article 12 of the Indian Constitution is crucial because it determines against whom Fundamental Rights can be enforced under Part III of the Constitution. Article 12 includes the Government and Parliament of India, the Government and Legislature of each State, and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India.

• This broad definition ensures that not just traditional government bodies, but also agencies, instrumentalities, and statutory corporations performing public functions come under its purview. The Supreme Court has, through various judgments such as Rajasthan Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal (1967) and Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib (1981), expanded this definition to include bodies that are financially, functionally, and administratively dominated by the government.

• Hence, this definition forms the foundation for holding the State accountable for violations of Fundamental Rights, ensuring constitutional protection to citizens against misuse of power by any public authority.

Solution: C

• Question 2 of 5 2. Question Consider the following statements about the relationship between Fundamental Rights (FRs) and Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs) in India: FRs are justiciable, while DPSPs are non-justiciable. In case of a conflict between an FR and a DPSP, the FR invariably prevails. Parliament can amend FRs to implement certain DPSPs, provided the amendment does not violate the basic structure of the Constitution. How many of the above statements are correct? (a) Only one (b) Only two (c) All three (d) None Correct Solution: B Statement 1 is correct. Fundamental Rights (Part III) are justiciable, meaning they are enforceable by the courts for their violation (Article 32 and Article 226). Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV) are non-justiciable, meaning they are not enforceable by any court for their violation (Article 37). Statement 2 is incorrect. While initially, in cases like State of Madras vs. Champakam Dorairajan (1951), FRs were held to prevail over DPSPs, the Supreme Court’s stance has evolved. The current position, established through cases like Kesavananda Bharati and Minerva Mills, emphasizes harmony and balance between FRs and DPSPs. DPSPs are fundamental in the governance of the country and legislation implementing certain DPSPs (like those under Article 39(b) and (c)) has been protected even if it violates Articles 14 or 19, subject to judicial review not destroying the basic structure. So, FRs do not “invariably” prevail. Statement 3 is correct. Parliament can amend Fundamental Rights to implement DPSPs. However, such amendments are subject to the doctrine of ‘basic structure’. The Supreme Court in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) held that Parliament’s amending power cannot be used to destroy the basic structure of the Constitution. The 42nd Amendment Act gave primacy to all DPSPs over FRs under Articles 14, 19 and 31, but this was partially struck down in the Minerva Mills case (1980), restoring the harmony and balance, and affirming that amendments should not violate the basic structure. Incorrect Solution: B Statement 1 is correct. Fundamental Rights (Part III) are justiciable, meaning they are enforceable by the courts for their violation (Article 32 and Article 226). Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV) are non-justiciable, meaning they are not enforceable by any court for their violation (Article 37). Statement 2 is incorrect. While initially, in cases like State of Madras vs. Champakam Dorairajan (1951), FRs were held to prevail over DPSPs, the Supreme Court’s stance has evolved. The current position, established through cases like Kesavananda Bharati and Minerva Mills, emphasizes harmony and balance between FRs and DPSPs. DPSPs are fundamental in the governance of the country and legislation implementing certain DPSPs (like those under Article 39(b) and (c)) has been protected even if it violates Articles 14 or 19, subject to judicial review not destroying the basic structure. So, FRs do not “invariably” prevail. Statement 3 is correct. Parliament can amend Fundamental Rights to implement DPSPs. However, such amendments are subject to the doctrine of ‘basic structure’. The Supreme Court in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) held that Parliament’s amending power cannot be used to destroy the basic structure of the Constitution. The 42nd Amendment Act gave primacy to all DPSPs over FRs under Articles 14, 19 and 31, but this was partially struck down in the Minerva Mills case (1980), restoring the harmony and balance, and affirming that amendments should not violate the basic structure.

#### 2. Question

Consider the following statements about the relationship between Fundamental Rights (FRs) and Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs) in India:

• FRs are justiciable, while DPSPs are non-justiciable.

• In case of a conflict between an FR and a DPSP, the FR invariably prevails.

• Parliament can amend FRs to implement certain DPSPs, provided the amendment does not violate the basic structure of the Constitution.

How many of the above statements are correct?

• (a) Only one

• (b) Only two

• (c) All three

Solution: B

• Statement 1 is correct. Fundamental Rights (Part III) are justiciable, meaning they are enforceable by the courts for their violation (Article 32 and Article 226). Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV) are non-justiciable, meaning they are not enforceable by any court for their violation (Article 37).

• Statement 2 is incorrect. While initially, in cases like State of Madras vs. Champakam Dorairajan (1951), FRs were held to prevail over DPSPs, the Supreme Court’s stance has evolved. The current position, established through cases like Kesavananda Bharati and Minerva Mills, emphasizes harmony and balance between FRs and DPSPs. DPSPs are fundamental in the governance of the country and legislation implementing certain DPSPs (like those under Article 39(b) and (c)) has been protected even if it violates Articles 14 or 19, subject to judicial review not destroying the basic structure. So, FRs do not “invariably” prevail.

• Statement 3 is correct. Parliament can amend Fundamental Rights to implement DPSPs. However, such amendments are subject to the doctrine of ‘basic structure’. The Supreme Court in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) held that Parliament’s amending power cannot be used to destroy the basic structure of the Constitution. The 42nd Amendment Act gave primacy to all DPSPs over FRs under Articles 14, 19 and 31, but this was partially struck down in the Minerva Mills case (1980), restoring the harmony and balance, and affirming that amendments should not violate the basic structure.

Solution: B

• Question 3 of 5 3. Question Consider the following statements. Statement-I: Article 32 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to move the Supreme Court for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights, is itself a Fundamental Right. Statement-II: The power of Judicial Review is explicitly mentioned in Article 32 of the Constitution. Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above statements? (a) Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct and Statement-II is the correct explanation for Statement-I (b) Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct and Statement-II is not the correct explanation for Statement-I (c) Statement-I is correct but Statement-II is incorrect (d) Statement-I is incorrect but Statement-II is correct Correct Solution: C Statement-I is correct. Article 32 is included in Part III of the Constitution (Fundamental Rights) and is titled “Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part.” Dr. B.R. Ambedkar described Article 32 as the most important article of the Constitution, the ‘heart and soul’ of the Constitution, without which the Constitution would be a nullity, as it provides a guaranteed remedy for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights. The right to move the Supreme Court under Article 32 is thus a fundamental right itself. Statement-II is incorrect. While the power of Judicial Review is a fundamental aspect of the Indian constitutional system and is exercised by the Supreme Court (e.g., under Article 32 and Article 13) and High Courts (e.g., under Article 226 and Article 13) to examine the constitutionality of legislative enactments and executive orders, the term “Judicial Review” itself is not explicitly mentioned in Article 32 or elsewhere in the Constitution. The power is inferred from various provisions that empower the judiciary to uphold the Constitution and enforce Fundamental Rights. Article 32 grants the power to issue writs for enforcing FRs, which inherently involves reviewing state actions. Thus, Statement-I is correct, but Statement-II is incorrect. Incorrect Solution: C Statement-I is correct. Article 32 is included in Part III of the Constitution (Fundamental Rights) and is titled “Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part.” Dr. B.R. Ambedkar described Article 32 as the most important article of the Constitution, the ‘heart and soul’ of the Constitution, without which the Constitution would be a nullity, as it provides a guaranteed remedy for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights. The right to move the Supreme Court under Article 32 is thus a fundamental right itself. Statement-II is incorrect. While the power of Judicial Review is a fundamental aspect of the Indian constitutional system and is exercised by the Supreme Court (e.g., under Article 32 and Article 13) and High Courts (e.g., under Article 226 and Article 13) to examine the constitutionality of legislative enactments and executive orders, the term “Judicial Review” itself is not explicitly mentioned in Article 32 or elsewhere in the Constitution. The power is inferred from various provisions that empower the judiciary to uphold the Constitution and enforce Fundamental Rights. Article 32 grants the power to issue writs for enforcing FRs, which inherently involves reviewing state actions. Thus, Statement-I is correct, but Statement-II is incorrect.

#### 3. Question

Consider the following statements.

Statement-I: Article 32 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to move the Supreme Court for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights, is itself a Fundamental Right.

Statement-II: The power of Judicial Review is explicitly mentioned in Article 32 of the Constitution.

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

• (a) Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct and Statement-II is the correct explanation for Statement-I

• (b) Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct and Statement-II is not the correct explanation for Statement-I

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

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

Solution: C

• Statement-I is correct. Article 32 is included in Part III of the Constitution (Fundamental Rights) and is titled “Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part.” Dr. B.R. Ambedkar described Article 32 as the most important article of the Constitution, the ‘heart and soul’ of the Constitution, without which the Constitution would be a nullity, as it provides a guaranteed remedy for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights. The right to move the Supreme Court under Article 32 is thus a fundamental right itself.

• Statement-II is incorrect. While the power of Judicial Review is a fundamental aspect of the Indian constitutional system and is exercised by the Supreme Court (e.g., under Article 32 and Article 13) and High Courts (e.g., under Article 226 and Article 13) to examine the constitutionality of legislative enactments and executive orders, the term “Judicial Review” itself is not explicitly mentioned in Article 32 or elsewhere in the Constitution.

• The power is inferred from various provisions that empower the judiciary to uphold the Constitution and enforce Fundamental Rights. Article 32 grants the power to issue writs for enforcing FRs, which inherently involves reviewing state actions. Thus, Statement-I is correct, but Statement-II is incorrect.

Solution: C

• Question 4 of 5 4. Question Consider the following statements regarding the writ of Habeas Corpus: It can be issued against both public authorities and private individuals. It is a command issued by the court to a person who has detained another to produce the body of the latter before it. The writ cannot be issued if the detention is lawful and by a competent court. How many of the above statements are correct? (a) Only one (b) Only two (c) All three (d) None Correct Solution: C The writ of Habeas Corpus is a Latin term meaning ‘to have the body of’. It is a fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and illegal detention. Statement 1 is correct. The writ of Habeas Corpus can be issued against both public authorities (like the police or executive) as well as private individuals who have unlawfully detained another person. Statement 2 is correct. It is an order issued by the court to a person or authority who has detained another person, requiring them to produce the body of the detained person before the court so that the court may determine the legality of the detention. Statement 3 is correct. The writ of Habeas Corpus is not issued if the detention is lawful, the proceeding is for contempt of a legislature or a court, detention is by a competent court, or the detention is outside the jurisdiction of the court. Its purpose is to provide a swift and effective remedy against illegal detention, not to interfere with lawful custody. Incorrect Solution: C The writ of Habeas Corpus is a Latin term meaning ‘to have the body of’. It is a fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and illegal detention. Statement 1 is correct. The writ of Habeas Corpus can be issued against both public authorities (like the police or executive) as well as private individuals who have unlawfully detained another person. Statement 2 is correct. It is an order issued by the court to a person or authority who has detained another person, requiring them to produce the body of the detained person before the court so that the court may determine the legality of the detention. Statement 3 is correct. The writ of Habeas Corpus is not issued if the detention is lawful, the proceeding is for contempt of a legislature or a court, detention is by a competent court, or the detention is outside the jurisdiction of the court. Its purpose is to provide a swift and effective remedy against illegal detention, not to interfere with lawful custody.

#### 4. Question

Consider the following statements regarding the writ of Habeas Corpus:

• It can be issued against both public authorities and private individuals.

• It is a command issued by the court to a person who has detained another to produce the body of the latter before it.

• The writ cannot be issued if the detention is lawful and by a competent court.

How many of the above statements are correct?

• (a) Only one

• (b) Only two

• (c) All three

Solution: C

• The writ of Habeas Corpus is a Latin term meaning ‘to have the body of’. It is a fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and illegal detention.

• Statement 1 is correct. The writ of Habeas Corpus can be issued against both public authorities (like the police or executive) as well as private individuals who have unlawfully detained another person.

• Statement 2 is correct. It is an order issued by the court to a person or authority who has detained another person, requiring them to produce the body of the detained person before the court so that the court may determine the legality of the detention.

• Statement 3 is correct. The writ of Habeas Corpus is not issued if the detention is lawful, the proceeding is for contempt of a legislature or a court, detention is by a competent court, or the detention is outside the jurisdiction of the court. Its purpose is to provide a swift and effective remedy against illegal detention, not to interfere with lawful custody.

Solution: C

• The writ of Habeas Corpus is a Latin term meaning ‘to have the body of’. It is a fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and illegal detention.

• Question 5 of 5 5. Question Consider the following statements: Statement-I: The writ jurisdiction of a High Court is wider in scope than that of the Supreme Court. Statement-II: The Supreme Court can issue writs only for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights, whereas a High Court can issue writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights as well as for any other purpose. Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above statements? (a) Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct and Statement-II is the correct explanation for Statement-I (b) Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct and Statement-II is not the correct explanation for 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 statement that the High Court’s writ jurisdiction is wider than the Supreme Court’s is a well-established principle in Indian constitutional law. So, Statement-I is correct. Statement-II provides the reason for the wider scope. It correctly points out that the Supreme Court’s power under Article 32 is specifically for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights. In contrast, the High Court’s power under Article 226 is for enforcing Fundamental Rights and “for any other purpose.” This ‘other purpose’ has been interpreted to mean the enforcement of any other legal right. So, Statement-II is correct. Statement-II provides the precise legal and constitutional reason why Statement-I is true. Incorrect Solution: A The statement that the High Court’s writ jurisdiction is wider than the Supreme Court’s is a well-established principle in Indian constitutional law. So, Statement-I is correct. Statement-II provides the reason for the wider scope. It correctly points out that the Supreme Court’s power under Article 32 is specifically for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights. In contrast, the High Court’s power under Article 226 is for enforcing Fundamental Rights and “for any other purpose.” This ‘other purpose’ has been interpreted to mean the enforcement of any other legal right. So, Statement-II is correct. Statement-II provides the precise legal and constitutional reason why Statement-I is true.

#### 5. Question

Consider the following statements:

Statement-I: The writ jurisdiction of a High Court is wider in scope than that of the Supreme Court.

Statement-II: The Supreme Court can issue writs only for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights, whereas a High Court can issue writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights as well as for any other purpose.

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

• (a) Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct and Statement-II is the correct explanation for Statement-I

• (b) Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct and Statement-II is not the correct explanation for 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 statement that the High Court’s writ jurisdiction is wider than the Supreme Court’s is a well-established principle in Indian constitutional law. So, Statement-I is correct.

Statement-II provides the reason for the wider scope. It correctly points out that the Supreme Court’s power under Article 32 is specifically for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights. In contrast, the High Court’s power under Article 226 is for enforcing Fundamental Rights and “for any other purpose.” This ‘other purpose’ has been interpreted to mean the enforcement of any other legal right. So, Statement-II is correct.

Statement-II provides the precise legal and constitutional reason why Statement-I is true.

Solution: A

The statement that the High Court’s writ jurisdiction is wider than the Supreme Court’s is a well-established principle in Indian constitutional law. So, Statement-I is correct.

Statement-II provides the precise legal and constitutional reason why Statement-I is true.

Join our Official Telegram Channel HERE for Motivation and Fast Updates

Join our Twitter Channel HERE

Follow our Instagram Channel HERE

Stay Consistent

Consistency is key in UPSC preparation. By making the UPSC Static Quiz a part of your daily routine, you will steadily improve your knowledge base and exam readiness. Join us every day to tackle new questions and make your journey towards UPSC success more structured and effective.