UPSC Static Quiz – Polity : 13 February 2026

UPSC Static Quiz – Polity : 13 February 2026 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 With reference to the legislative process and the powers of the President of India, consider the following statements: Article 201 of the Constitution provides a constitutional timeline of three months for the President to decide on a Bill reserved for their consideration by a Governor. The President is constitutionally bound to grant assent if a Bill is re-passed by the State Legislature after being returned. Which of the above statements are correct? (a) 1 only (b) 2 only (c) Both 1 and 2 (d) Neither 1 nor 2 Correct Solution: D The legislative process in India involves a delicate balance between the Union and the States. Statement 1 is incorrect because Article 201 of the Constitution does not prescribe any specific time limitfor the President to either grant or withhold assent to a Bill reserved by the Governor. Historically, this “constitutional silence” led to significant delays. Statement 2 is incorrect because, unlike the Governor under Article 200, the President is not constitutionally boundto grant assent even if the State Legislature re-passes the Bill. Article 201 applies to exceptional cases where state legislation may have national implications or conflict with Union laws, and the President retains the discretion to withhold assent provided reasons are recorded and communicated to the State. Incorrect Solution: D The legislative process in India involves a delicate balance between the Union and the States. Statement 1 is incorrect because Article 201 of the Constitution does not prescribe any specific time limitfor the President to either grant or withhold assent to a Bill reserved by the Governor. Historically, this “constitutional silence” led to significant delays. Statement 2 is incorrect because, unlike the Governor under Article 200, the President is not constitutionally boundto grant assent even if the State Legislature re-passes the Bill. Article 201 applies to exceptional cases where state legislation may have national implications or conflict with Union laws, and the President retains the discretion to withhold assent provided reasons are recorded and communicated to the State.

#### 1. Question

With reference to the legislative process and the powers of the President of India, consider the following statements:

• Article 201 of the Constitution provides a constitutional timeline of three months for the President to decide on a Bill reserved for their consideration by a Governor.

• The President is constitutionally bound to grant assent if a Bill is re-passed by the State Legislature after being returned.

Which of the above statements are correct?

• (a) 1 only

• (b) 2 only

• (c) Both 1 and 2

• (d) Neither 1 nor 2

Solution: D

• The legislative process in India involves a delicate balance between the Union and the States.

• Statement 1 is incorrect because Article 201 of the Constitution does not prescribe any specific time limitfor the President to either grant or withhold assent to a Bill reserved by the Governor. Historically, this “constitutional silence” led to significant delays.

• Statement 2 is incorrect because, unlike the Governor under Article 200, the President is not constitutionally boundto grant assent even if the State Legislature re-passes the Bill. Article 201 applies to exceptional cases where state legislation may have national implications or conflict with Union laws, and the President retains the discretion to withhold assent provided reasons are recorded and communicated to the State.

Solution: D

• The legislative process in India involves a delicate balance between the Union and the States.

• Question 2 of 5 2. Question Consider the following statements regarding President’s Rule in India: It can be imposed if a state government fails to comply with the directives issued by the Union government under Article 256. The proclamation of President’s Rule must be approved by both Houses of Parliament within one month from the date of its issue. The President can assume the powers of the High Court of the concerned state during the period of the proclamation. How many of the above statements are correct? (a) Only one (b) Only two (c) All three (d) None Correct Solution: A Statement 1 is correct. Under Article 365, if a state fails to comply with or give effect to any directions from the Centre (including those under Article 256), it is lawful for the President to hold that a situation has arisen in which the government of the state cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. Statement 2 is incorrect because the proclamation must be approved by both Houses of Parliament within two months (not one month) from the date of its issue. Statement 3 is incorrect because the President cannot assume the powers vested in a High Court or suspend the operation of any constitutional provision relating to High Courts. Even during President’s Rule, the status, constitution, and functions of the state High Court remain unaffected. This ensures that the judiciary remains independent even when the executive and legislative branches of the state are suspended or dissolved. This distinction is vital for maintaining the federal balance and the rule of law. Incorrect Solution: A Statement 1 is correct. Under Article 365, if a state fails to comply with or give effect to any directions from the Centre (including those under Article 256), it is lawful for the President to hold that a situation has arisen in which the government of the state cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. Statement 2 is incorrect because the proclamation must be approved by both Houses of Parliament within two months (not one month) from the date of its issue. Statement 3 is incorrect because the President cannot assume the powers vested in a High Court or suspend the operation of any constitutional provision relating to High Courts. Even during President’s Rule, the status, constitution, and functions of the state High Court remain unaffected. This ensures that the judiciary remains independent even when the executive and legislative branches of the state are suspended or dissolved. This distinction is vital for maintaining the federal balance and the rule of law.

#### 2. Question

Consider the following statements regarding President’s Rule in India:

• It can be imposed if a state government fails to comply with the directives issued by the Union government under Article 256.

• The proclamation of President’s Rule must be approved by both Houses of Parliament within one month from the date of its issue.

• The President can assume the powers of the High Court of the concerned state during the period of the proclamation.

How many of the above statements are correct?

• (a) Only one

• (b) Only two

• (c) All three

Solution: A

• Statement 1 is correct. Under Article 365, if a state fails to comply with or give effect to any directions from the Centre (including those under Article 256), it is lawful for the President to hold that a situation has arisen in which the government of the state cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.

• Statement 2 is incorrect because the proclamation must be approved by both Houses of Parliament within two months (not one month) from the date of its issue.

Statement 3 is incorrect because the President cannot assume the powers vested in a High Court or suspend the operation of any constitutional provision relating to High Courts. Even during President’s Rule, the status, constitution, and functions of the state High Court remain unaffected. This ensures that the judiciary remains independent even when the executive and legislative branches of the state are suspended or dissolved. This distinction is vital for maintaining the federal balance and the rule of law.

Solution: A

• Statement 2 is incorrect because the proclamation must be approved by both Houses of Parliament within two months (not one month) from the date of its issue.

• Question 3 of 5 3. Question Consider the following statements regarding the legislative procedures in the Indian Parliament: A bill pending in the Rajya Sabha which has not been passed by the Lok Sabha lapses on the dissolution of the Lok Sabha. The Constitution provides for a joint sitting of both Houses to resolve a deadlock over a Constitution Amendment Bill. The President can summon a joint sitting if a bill passed by one House is rejected by the other House, or if more than six months have elapsed from the date of the receipt of the bill by the other House without the bill being passed by it. How many of the above statements is/are correct? (a) Only one (b) Only two (c) All three (d) None Correct Solution: A Statement 1 is incorrect. The rules regarding the lapsing of bills upon the dissolution of the Lok Sabha are precise. A bill that originates in the Rajya Sabha and is pending there, and which has not been passed by the now-dissolved Lok Sabha, does not lapse. The rationale is that the bill is still alive in the permanent House (Rajya Sabha) and can be considered by the newly constituted Lok Sabha after elections. A bill only lapses if it has been touched by the Lok Sabha in some way (originated there, or passed by it). Statement 2 is incorrect. The provision for a joint sitting of both Houses, as laid out in Article 108, is a mechanism to resolve deadlocks over ordinary bills or financial bills only. It is explicitly not applicable to Money Bills or Constitution Amendment Bills. A Constitution Amendment Bill, under Article 368, must be passed by each House separately by the requisite special majority. There is no provision for resolving a disagreement between the two Houses over such a bill through a joint sitting. If the Rajya Sabha rejects or fails to pass a Constitution Amendment Bill passed by the Lok Sabha, the bill comes to an end. Statement 3 is correct. This statement accurately describes the conditions under which the President can summon a joint sitting as per Article 108. A deadlock is deemed to have occurred under three conditions: (i) if the bill is rejected by the other House; (ii) if the Houses have finally disagreed as to the amendments to be made in the bill; or (iii) if more than six months elapse from the date of the receipt of the bill by the other House without the bill being passed by it. In calculating the period of six months, no account is taken of any period during which the House is prorogued or adjourned for more than four consecutive days. Incorrect Solution: A Statement 1 is incorrect. The rules regarding the lapsing of bills upon the dissolution of the Lok Sabha are precise. A bill that originates in the Rajya Sabha and is pending there, and which has not been passed by the now-dissolved Lok Sabha, does not lapse. The rationale is that the bill is still alive in the permanent House (Rajya Sabha) and can be considered by the newly constituted Lok Sabha after elections. A bill only lapses if it has been touched by the Lok Sabha in some way (originated there, or passed by it). Statement 2 is incorrect. The provision for a joint sitting of both Houses, as laid out in Article 108, is a mechanism to resolve deadlocks over ordinary bills or financial bills only. It is explicitly not applicable to Money Bills or Constitution Amendment Bills. A Constitution Amendment Bill, under Article 368, must be passed by each House separately by the requisite special majority. There is no provision for resolving a disagreement between the two Houses over such a bill through a joint sitting. If the Rajya Sabha rejects or fails to pass a Constitution Amendment Bill passed by the Lok Sabha, the bill comes to an end. Statement 3 is correct. This statement accurately describes the conditions under which the President can summon a joint sitting as per Article 108. A deadlock is deemed to have occurred under three conditions: (i) if the bill is rejected by the other House; (ii) if the Houses have finally disagreed as to the amendments to be made in the bill; or (iii) if more than six months elapse from the date of the receipt of the bill by the other House without the bill being passed by it. In calculating the period of six months, no account is taken of any period during which the House is prorogued or adjourned for more than four consecutive days.

#### 3. Question

Consider the following statements regarding the legislative procedures in the Indian Parliament:

• A bill pending in the Rajya Sabha which has not been passed by the Lok Sabha lapses on the dissolution of the Lok Sabha.

• The Constitution provides for a joint sitting of both Houses to resolve a deadlock over a Constitution Amendment Bill.

• The President can summon a joint sitting if a bill passed by one House is rejected by the other House, or if more than six months have elapsed from the date of the receipt of the bill by the other House without the bill being passed by it.

How many of the above statements is/are correct?

• (a) Only one

• (b) Only two

• (c) All three

Solution: A

• Statement 1 is incorrect. The rules regarding the lapsing of bills upon the dissolution of the Lok Sabha are precise. A bill that originates in the Rajya Sabha and is pending there, and which has not been passed by the now-dissolved Lok Sabha, does not lapse. The rationale is that the bill is still alive in the permanent House (Rajya Sabha) and can be considered by the newly constituted Lok Sabha after elections. A bill only lapses if it has been touched by the Lok Sabha in some way (originated there, or passed by it).

• Statement 2 is incorrect. The provision for a joint sitting of both Houses, as laid out in Article 108, is a mechanism to resolve deadlocks over ordinary bills or financial bills only. It is explicitly not applicable to Money Bills or Constitution Amendment Bills. A Constitution Amendment Bill, under Article 368, must be passed by each House separately by the requisite special majority. There is no provision for resolving a disagreement between the two Houses over such a bill through a joint sitting. If the Rajya Sabha rejects or fails to pass a Constitution Amendment Bill passed by the Lok Sabha, the bill comes to an end.

• Statement 3 is correct. This statement accurately describes the conditions under which the President can summon a joint sitting as per Article 108. A deadlock is deemed to have occurred under three conditions: (i) if the bill is rejected by the other House; (ii) if the Houses have finally disagreed as to the amendments to be made in the bill; or (iii) if more than six months elapse from the date of the receipt of the bill by the other House without the bill being passed by it. In calculating the period of six months, no account is taken of any period during which the House is prorogued or adjourned for more than four consecutive days.

Solution: A

• Question 4 of 5 4. Question Consider the following statements regarding the power of the Parliament to reorganise the states under Article 3 of the Constitution: A bill contemplating the reorganisation of states can be introduced in the Parliament only with the prior recommendation of the President. The President must refer the bill to the legislature of the concerned state for expressing its views within a specified period. The Parliament is bound by the views expressed by the state legislature and cannot pass the bill if the state legislature rejects it. 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. Article 3 clearly stipulates that a bill for the formation of new states or alteration of areas, boundaries, or names of existing states can be introduced in either House of Parliament only on the prior recommendation of the President. This is a mandatory procedural requirement. Statement 2 is correct. Before recommending the introduction of the bill, the President is required to refer the same to the legislature of the state(s) whose area, boundary, or name is affected by it. The purpose is to allow the state legislature to express its views on the proposal within a period specified by the President (or within such further period as the President may allow). Statement 3 is incorrect. This is a crucial aspect of the unitary bias in the Indian federal system. The Parliament is not bound by the views of the state legislature. It can proceed with the bill and pass it by a simple majority, even if the state legislature has expressed its opposition or has not furnished its views within the stipulated time. This power of the Parliament makes the states “destructible” units within an “indestructible” Union. Incorrect Solution: B Statement 1 is correct. Article 3 clearly stipulates that a bill for the formation of new states or alteration of areas, boundaries, or names of existing states can be introduced in either House of Parliament only on the prior recommendation of the President. This is a mandatory procedural requirement. Statement 2 is correct. Before recommending the introduction of the bill, the President is required to refer the same to the legislature of the state(s) whose area, boundary, or name is affected by it. The purpose is to allow the state legislature to express its views on the proposal within a period specified by the President (or within such further period as the President may allow). Statement 3 is incorrect. This is a crucial aspect of the unitary bias in the Indian federal system. The Parliament is not bound by the views of the state legislature. It can proceed with the bill and pass it by a simple majority, even if the state legislature has expressed its opposition or has not furnished its views within the stipulated time. This power of the Parliament makes the states “destructible” units within an “indestructible” Union.

#### 4. Question

Consider the following statements regarding the power of the Parliament to reorganise the states under Article 3 of the Constitution:

• A bill contemplating the reorganisation of states can be introduced in the Parliament only with the prior recommendation of the President.

• The President must refer the bill to the legislature of the concerned state for expressing its views within a specified period.

• The Parliament is bound by the views expressed by the state legislature and cannot pass the bill if the state legislature rejects it.

How many of the above statements are correct?

• a) Only one

• b) Only two

• c) All three

Solution: B

• Statement 1 is correct. Article 3 clearly stipulates that a bill for the formation of new states or alteration of areas, boundaries, or names of existing states can be introduced in either House of Parliament only on the prior recommendation of the President. This is a mandatory procedural requirement.

• Statement 2 is correct. Before recommending the introduction of the bill, the President is required to refer the same to the legislature of the state(s) whose area, boundary, or name is affected by it. The purpose is to allow the state legislature to express its views on the proposal within a period specified by the President (or within such further period as the President may allow).

• Statement 3 is incorrect. This is a crucial aspect of the unitary bias in the Indian federal system. The Parliament is not bound by the views of the state legislature. It can proceed with the bill and pass it by a simple majority, even if the state legislature has expressed its opposition or has not furnished its views within the stipulated time. This power of the Parliament makes the states “destructible” units within an “indestructible” Union.

Solution: B

• Question 5 of 5 5. Question Consider the following statements regarding State Human Rights Commission (SHRC). Assertion (A): A State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) cannot investigate a matter if the complaint is made more than one year after the incident. Reason (R): The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, aims to provide speedy redressal for human rights violations and prevent the resurrection of old, stale cases which may be difficult to investigate. Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above statements? (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: A The Assertion (A) is correct. Both the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and the State Human Rights Commissions (SHRCs) are bound by a statutory limitation period. Section 36(2) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, explicitly states that the Commission shall not inquire into any matter after the expiry of one year from the date on which the act constituting a violation of human rights is alleged to have been committed. This is a critical jurisdictional constraint. The Reason (R) provides the underlying legislative logic for this limitation. The purpose of such a time bar in legal and quasi-judicial proceedings is to ensure speedy redressal and maintain the efficacy of the investigative process. Over time, evidence can degrade, witnesses may become unavailable or their memories may fade, and the context of the incident can be lost. By imposing a one-year limitation, the Act encourages timely reporting of violations and prevents the commissions from being burdened with historical or stale claims that are difficult to substantiate, thereby focusing resources on more recent and verifiable cases. The reason logically supports the assertion by explaining its rationale. Incorrect Solution: A The Assertion (A) is correct. Both the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and the State Human Rights Commissions (SHRCs) are bound by a statutory limitation period. Section 36(2) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, explicitly states that the Commission shall not inquire into any matter after the expiry of one year from the date on which the act constituting a violation of human rights is alleged to have been committed. This is a critical jurisdictional constraint. The Reason (R) provides the underlying legislative logic for this limitation. The purpose of such a time bar in legal and quasi-judicial proceedings is to ensure speedy redressal and maintain the efficacy of the investigative process. Over time, evidence can degrade, witnesses may become unavailable or their memories may fade, and the context of the incident can be lost. By imposing a one-year limitation, the Act encourages timely reporting of violations and prevents the commissions from being burdened with historical or stale claims that are difficult to substantiate, thereby focusing resources on more recent and verifiable cases. The reason logically supports the assertion by explaining its rationale.

#### 5. Question

Consider the following statements regarding State Human Rights Commission (SHRC).

Assertion (A): A State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) cannot investigate a matter if the complaint is made more than one year after the incident.

Reason (R): The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, aims to provide speedy redressal for human rights violations and prevent the resurrection of old, stale cases which may be difficult to investigate.

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

• (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: A

The Assertion (A) is correct. Both the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and the State Human Rights Commissions (SHRCs) are bound by a statutory limitation period. Section 36(2) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, explicitly states that the Commission shall not inquire into any matter after the expiry of one year from the date on which the act constituting a violation of human rights is alleged to have been committed. This is a critical jurisdictional constraint.

The Reason (R) provides the underlying legislative logic for this limitation. The purpose of such a time bar in legal and quasi-judicial proceedings is to ensure speedy redressal and maintain the efficacy of the investigative process. Over time, evidence can degrade, witnesses may become unavailable or their memories may fade, and the context of the incident can be lost. By imposing a one-year limitation, the Act encourages timely reporting of violations and prevents the commissions from being burdened with historical or stale claims that are difficult to substantiate, thereby focusing resources on more recent and verifiable cases.

The reason logically supports the assertion by explaining its rationale.

Solution: A

The reason logically supports the assertion by explaining its rationale.

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.