UPSC Static Quiz – Polity : 7 March 2026

UPSC Static Quiz – Polity : 7 March 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 A person is prosecuted for a criminal offence but is acquitted by the court. Subsequently, new incriminating evidence emerges, and the State decides to prosecute the person again for the same offence. The person’s plea that this second prosecution violates his fundamental right under Article 20(2) is: (a) Valid, because Article 20(2) embodies the principle of autrefois acquit. (b) Invalid, because the protection under Article 20(2) is available only against a second punishment, not a second trial after an acquittal. (c) Valid, because the protection against double jeopardy in India is absolute and prohibits any second trial for the same offence. (d) Invalid, because Article 20(2) does not apply to prosecutions based on new evidence. Correct Solution: B Article 20(2)states: “No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once.” The key words are “prosecuted and punished.” This constitutional protection is based on the doctrine of autrefois convict(protection after a conviction and punishment). It means if a person has been prosecuted and punished, they cannot be prosecuted and punished again for that same offence. The broader common law doctrine of autrefois acquit(protection from retrial after an acquittal) is not included as a fundamental right under Article 20(2). Therefore, the person’s plea in the given scenario is invalid(Option b). The constitutional bar under Article 20(2) is not triggered because the person was not “prosecuted and punished” in the first trial; they were acquitted. While a retrial after acquittal might be barred, this protection comes from the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), specifically Section 300, which provides a statutory right(not a fundamental right) against both autrefois acquit and autrefois convict. Incorrect Solution: B Article 20(2)states: “No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once.” The key words are “prosecuted and punished.” This constitutional protection is based on the doctrine of autrefois convict(protection after a conviction and punishment). It means if a person has been prosecuted and punished, they cannot be prosecuted and punished again for that same offence. The broader common law doctrine of autrefois acquit(protection from retrial after an acquittal) is not included as a fundamental right under Article 20(2). Therefore, the person’s plea in the given scenario is invalid(Option b). The constitutional bar under Article 20(2) is not triggered because the person was not “prosecuted and punished” in the first trial; they were acquitted. While a retrial after acquittal might be barred, this protection comes from the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), specifically Section 300, which provides a statutory right(not a fundamental right) against both autrefois acquit and autrefois convict.

#### 1. Question

A person is prosecuted for a criminal offence but is acquitted by the court. Subsequently, new incriminating evidence emerges, and the State decides to prosecute the person again for the same offence. The person’s plea that this second prosecution violates his fundamental right under Article 20(2) is:

• (a) Valid, because Article 20(2) embodies the principle of autrefois acquit.

• (b) Invalid, because the protection under Article 20(2) is available only against a second punishment, not a second trial after an acquittal.

• (c) Valid, because the protection against double jeopardy in India is absolute and prohibits any second trial for the same offence.

• (d) Invalid, because Article 20(2) does not apply to prosecutions based on new evidence.

Solution: B

• Article 20(2)states: “No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once.” The key words are “prosecuted and punished.”

• This constitutional protection is based on the doctrine of autrefois convict(protection after a conviction and punishment). It means if a person has been prosecuted and punished, they cannot be prosecuted and punished again for that same offence.

• The broader common law doctrine of autrefois acquit(protection from retrial after an acquittal) is not included as a fundamental right under Article 20(2).

• Therefore, the person’s plea in the given scenario is invalid(Option b). The constitutional bar under Article 20(2) is not triggered because the person was not “prosecuted and punished” in the first trial; they were acquitted.

• While a retrial after acquittal might be barred, this protection comes from the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), specifically Section 300, which provides a statutory right(not a fundamental right) against both autrefois acquit and autrefois convict.

Solution: B

• Article 20(2)states: “No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once.” The key words are “prosecuted and punished.”

• The broader common law doctrine of autrefois acquit(protection from retrial after an acquittal) is not included as a fundamental right under Article 20(2).

• Question 2 of 5 2. Question With reference to the budgetary process, what does the term ‘Guillotine’ signify? (a) A motion to disapprove the policy underlying a demand for grant. (b) A process where all outstanding demands for grants are put to vote at once without discussion. (c) The power of the Lok Sabha to vote on the budget, which the Rajya Sabha does not possess. (d) The presentation of a Gender Budget Statement along with the main budget documents. Correct Solution: B The term ‘Guillotine’ refers to a procedural device used in the Lok Sabha to conclude the discussion on the Demands for Grants and put them to vote. The Parliament has a limited time to discuss the budget. On the last day allocated for the discussion and voting on the Demands for Grants, the Speaker puts all the remaining demands to vote, whether they have been discussed or not. This process of bunching together the undiscussed demands and putting them to a vote is known as the ‘guillotine’. It is a measure to ensure that the budget is passed within the stipulated time frame, but it is often criticized as it curtails detailed parliamentary scrutiny of a significant portion of the government’s proposed expenditure. Incorrect Solution: B The term ‘Guillotine’ refers to a procedural device used in the Lok Sabha to conclude the discussion on the Demands for Grants and put them to vote. The Parliament has a limited time to discuss the budget. On the last day allocated for the discussion and voting on the Demands for Grants, the Speaker puts all the remaining demands to vote, whether they have been discussed or not. This process of bunching together the undiscussed demands and putting them to a vote is known as the ‘guillotine’. It is a measure to ensure that the budget is passed within the stipulated time frame, but it is often criticized as it curtails detailed parliamentary scrutiny of a significant portion of the government’s proposed expenditure.

#### 2. Question

With reference to the budgetary process, what does the term ‘Guillotine’ signify?

• (a) A motion to disapprove the policy underlying a demand for grant.

• (b) A process where all outstanding demands for grants are put to vote at once without discussion.

• (c) The power of the Lok Sabha to vote on the budget, which the Rajya Sabha does not possess.

• (d) The presentation of a Gender Budget Statement along with the main budget documents.

Solution: B

• The term ‘Guillotine’ refers to a procedural device used in the Lok Sabha to conclude the discussion on the Demands for Grants and put them to vote. The Parliament has a limited time to discuss the budget. On the last day allocated for the discussion and voting on the Demands for Grants, the Speaker puts all the remaining demands to vote, whether they have been discussed or not.

• This process of bunching together the undiscussed demands and putting them to a vote is known as the ‘guillotine’. It is a measure to ensure that the budget is passed within the stipulated time frame, but it is often criticized as it curtails detailed parliamentary scrutiny of a significant portion of the government’s proposed expenditure.

Solution: B

• Question 3 of 5 3. Question “The Indian Constitution is a federal one because it contains a division of powers between the Centre and the States, but it is marked by a strong unitary bias.” Which of the following provisions support the “Unitary Bias” of the Constitution? Single Constitution for both Centre and States. Flexibility of the Constitution regarding the amendment of State boundaries. Appointment of the Governor by the Centre. Integrated Judiciary. Select the correct answer using the code given below: (a) 1, 2 and 3 only (b) 2, 3 and 4 only (c) 1 and 4 only (d) 1, 2, 3 and 4 Correct Solution: D All four features illustrate the centralizing tendency (Unitary Bias) of the Indian Constitution, often cited by K.C. Wheare and D.D. Basu. Single Constitution: Unlike the USA, where states have their own Constitutions, India has a single document. States (except the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir historically) have no right to frame their own constitution. Destructible States (Article 3): The Parliament can unilaterally change the name, area, or boundaries of a state by a simple majority. The state’s consent is not required (only their views are sought). This makes India an “Indestructible Union of Destructible States.” Governor’s Appointment: The Governor is appointed by the President (Centre) and holds office during his pleasure. The Governor acts as a constitutional link between the Union and the State. Integrated Judiciary: In a pure federation (USA), there are Federal Courts and State Courts. In India, the Supreme Court, High Courts, and Subordinate Courts form a single, integrated hierarchy enforcing both Central and State laws. This is a unitary feature. Incorrect Solution: D All four features illustrate the centralizing tendency (Unitary Bias) of the Indian Constitution, often cited by K.C. Wheare and D.D. Basu. Single Constitution: Unlike the USA, where states have their own Constitutions, India has a single document. States (except the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir historically) have no right to frame their own constitution. Destructible States (Article 3): The Parliament can unilaterally change the name, area, or boundaries of a state by a simple majority. The state’s consent is not required (only their views are sought). This makes India an “Indestructible Union of Destructible States.” Governor’s Appointment: The Governor is appointed by the President (Centre) and holds office during his pleasure. The Governor acts as a constitutional link between the Union and the State. Integrated Judiciary: In a pure federation (USA), there are Federal Courts and State Courts. In India, the Supreme Court, High Courts, and Subordinate Courts form a single, integrated hierarchy enforcing both Central and State laws. This is a unitary feature.

#### 3. Question

“The Indian Constitution is a federal one because it contains a division of powers between the Centre and the States, but it is marked by a strong unitary bias.” Which of the following provisions support the “Unitary Bias” of the Constitution?

• Single Constitution for both Centre and States.

• Flexibility of the Constitution regarding the amendment of State boundaries.

• Appointment of the Governor by the Centre.

• Integrated Judiciary.

Select the correct answer using the code given below:

• (a) 1, 2 and 3 only

• (b) 2, 3 and 4 only

• (c) 1 and 4 only

• (d) 1, 2, 3 and 4

Solution: D

All four features illustrate the centralizing tendency (Unitary Bias) of the Indian Constitution, often cited by K.C. Wheare and D.D. Basu.

• Single Constitution: Unlike the USA, where states have their own Constitutions, India has a single document. States (except the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir historically) have no right to frame their own constitution.

• Destructible States (Article 3): The Parliament can unilaterally change the name, area, or boundaries of a state by a simple majority. The state’s consent is not required (only their views are sought). This makes India an “Indestructible Union of Destructible States.”

• Governor’s Appointment: The Governor is appointed by the President (Centre) and holds office during his pleasure. The Governor acts as a constitutional link between the Union and the State.

• Integrated Judiciary: In a pure federation (USA), there are Federal Courts and State Courts. In India, the Supreme Court, High Courts, and Subordinate Courts form a single, integrated hierarchy enforcing both Central and State laws. This is a unitary feature.

Solution: D

All four features illustrate the centralizing tendency (Unitary Bias) of the Indian Constitution, often cited by K.C. Wheare and D.D. Basu.

• Governor’s Appointment: The Governor is appointed by the President (Centre) and holds office during his pleasure. The Governor acts as a constitutional link between the Union and the State.

• Question 4 of 5 4. Question Consider the following statements regarding the Citizenship Act, 1955: If a person renounces their Indian citizenship, every minor child of that person also loses their citizenship, but the child may resume citizenship within one year after attaining majority (18 years). The Central Government may terminate the citizenship of a naturalized citizen if the citizen has shown disloyalty to the Constitution of India. Citizenship by birth is available to a person born in India on or after 26th January 1950 but before 1st July 1987, irrespective of the nationality of their parents. 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: D Statement 1 is Correct: Section 8 of the Citizenship Act deals with Renunciation. It states that if an adult citizen renounces citizenship, their minor children also lose it. However, the law provides a remedy: the child can resume citizenship by making a declaration within one year of turning 18. Statement 2 is Correct: Section 10 deals with Deprivation. It applies to citizens by Registration or Naturalization (not Birth/Descent). The government can compulsorily terminate citizenship if the person obtained it by fraud, showed disloyalty to the Constitution, or communicated with the enemy during war. Statement 3 is Correct: This tests the amendments to Section 3 (Citizenship by Birth). Born 26/01/1950 – 01/07/1987: Citizen by birth irrespective of parents’ nationality (Jus Soli). Born 01/07/1987 – 03/12/2004: One parent must be Indian. Born after 03/12/2004: Both parents Indian OR one Indian and the other not an illegal migrant. Incorrect Solution: D Statement 1 is Correct: Section 8 of the Citizenship Act deals with Renunciation. It states that if an adult citizen renounces citizenship, their minor children also lose it. However, the law provides a remedy: the child can resume citizenship by making a declaration within one year of turning 18. Statement 2 is Correct: Section 10 deals with Deprivation. It applies to citizens by Registration or Naturalization (not Birth/Descent). The government can compulsorily terminate citizenship if the person obtained it by fraud, showed disloyalty to the Constitution, or communicated with the enemy during war. Statement 3 is Correct: This tests the amendments to Section 3 (Citizenship by Birth). Born 26/01/1950 – 01/07/1987: Citizen by birth irrespective of parents’ nationality (Jus Soli). Born 01/07/1987 – 03/12/2004: One parent must be Indian. Born after 03/12/2004: Both parents Indian OR one Indian and the other not an illegal migrant.

#### 4. Question

Consider the following statements regarding the Citizenship Act, 1955:

• If a person renounces their Indian citizenship, every minor child of that person also loses their citizenship, but the child may resume citizenship within one year after attaining majority (18 years).

• The Central Government may terminate the citizenship of a naturalized citizen if the citizen has shown disloyalty to the Constitution of India.

• Citizenship by birth is available to a person born in India on or after 26th January 1950 but before 1st July 1987, irrespective of the nationality of their parents.

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: D

• Statement 1 is Correct: Section 8 of the Citizenship Act deals with Renunciation. It states that if an adult citizen renounces citizenship, their minor children also lose it. However, the law provides a remedy: the child can resume citizenship by making a declaration within one year of turning 18.

• Statement 2 is Correct: Section 10 deals with Deprivation. It applies to citizens by Registration or Naturalization (not Birth/Descent). The government can compulsorily terminate citizenship if the person obtained it by fraud, showed disloyalty to the Constitution, or communicated with the enemy during war.

• Statement 3 is Correct: This tests the amendments to Section 3 (Citizenship by Birth). Born 26/01/1950 – 01/07/1987: Citizen by birth irrespective of parents’ nationality (Jus Soli). Born 01/07/1987 – 03/12/2004: One parent must be Indian. Born after 03/12/2004: Both parents Indian OR one Indian and the other not an illegal migrant.

• Born 26/01/1950 – 01/07/1987: Citizen by birth irrespective of parents’ nationality (Jus Soli).

• Born 01/07/1987 – 03/12/2004: One parent must be Indian.

• Born after 03/12/2004: Both parents Indian OR one Indian and the other not an illegal migrant.

Solution: D

• Born 26/01/1950 – 01/07/1987: Citizen by birth irrespective of parents’ nationality (Jus Soli).

• Born 01/07/1987 – 03/12/2004: One parent must be Indian.

• Born after 03/12/2004: Both parents Indian OR one Indian and the other not an illegal migrant.

• Question 5 of 5 5. Question According to the constitutional jurisprudence regarding Article 13 and Article 368: Statement I: The word ‘Law’ in Article 13(2) includes a Constitutional Amendment Act, and therefore, an amendment that takes away or abridges Fundamental Rights is void. Statement II: The Supreme Court in the Kesavananda Bharati case upheld the validity of the 24th Amendment Act, which explicitly stated that Article 13 does not apply to amendments made under Article 368. 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: D Statement I is incorrect. In early constitutional interpretation, the Supreme Court in Shankari Prasad (1951) and Sajjan Singh (1965) held that the term “law” in Article 13(2) does not include constitutional amendments made under Article 368. Later, in Golak Nath (1967), the Court briefly held that constitutional amendments are “law” under Article 13 and therefore cannot abridge Fundamental Rights. However, this view was overturned in the Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) The Court clarified that constitutional amendments are made under Article 368 and are not ordinary “law” within the meaning of Article 13. Nevertheless, the Court introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine, holding that Parliament can amend Fundamental Rights but cannot alter the basic structure of the Constitution. Hence, Statement I is incorrect. Statement II is correct. The 24th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1971 amended Articles 13 and 368 to clarify Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution. It inserted Article 13(4) stating that “nothing in this article shall apply to any amendment of this Constitution made under Article 368.” The Supreme Court in Kesavananda Bharati upheld the validity of this amendment, affirming Parliament’s power to amend Fundamental Rights while simultaneously limiting that power through the Basic Structure Doctrine. Incorrect Solution: D Statement I is incorrect. In early constitutional interpretation, the Supreme Court in Shankari Prasad (1951) and Sajjan Singh (1965) held that the term “law” in Article 13(2) does not include constitutional amendments made under Article 368. Later, in Golak Nath (1967), the Court briefly held that constitutional amendments are “law” under Article 13 and therefore cannot abridge Fundamental Rights. However, this view was overturned in the Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) The Court clarified that constitutional amendments are made under Article 368 and are not ordinary “law” within the meaning of Article 13. Nevertheless, the Court introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine, holding that Parliament can amend Fundamental Rights but cannot alter the basic structure of the Constitution. Hence, Statement I is incorrect. Statement II is correct. The 24th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1971 amended Articles 13 and 368 to clarify Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution. It inserted Article 13(4) stating that “nothing in this article shall apply to any amendment of this Constitution made under Article 368.” The Supreme Court in Kesavananda Bharati upheld the validity of this amendment, affirming Parliament’s power to amend Fundamental Rights while simultaneously limiting that power through the Basic Structure Doctrine.

#### 5. Question

According to the constitutional jurisprudence regarding Article 13 and Article 368:

Statement I: The word ‘Law’ in Article 13(2) includes a Constitutional Amendment Act, and therefore, an amendment that takes away or abridges Fundamental Rights is void.

Statement II: The Supreme Court in the Kesavananda Bharati case upheld the validity of the 24th Amendment Act, which explicitly stated that Article 13 does not apply to amendments made under Article 368.

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: D

• Statement I is incorrect. In early constitutional interpretation, the Supreme Court in Shankari Prasad (1951) and Sajjan Singh (1965) held that the term “law” in Article 13(2) does not include constitutional amendments made under Article 368. Later, in Golak Nath (1967), the Court briefly held that constitutional amendments are “law” under Article 13 and therefore cannot abridge Fundamental Rights. However, this view was overturned in the Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) The Court clarified that constitutional amendments are made under Article 368 and are not ordinary “law” within the meaning of Article 13. Nevertheless, the Court introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine, holding that Parliament can amend Fundamental Rights but cannot alter the basic structure of the Constitution. Hence, Statement I is incorrect.

• Statement II is correct. The 24th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1971 amended Articles 13 and 368 to clarify Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution. It inserted Article 13(4) stating that “nothing in this article shall apply to any amendment of this Constitution made under Article 368.” The Supreme Court in Kesavananda Bharati upheld the validity of this amendment, affirming Parliament’s power to amend Fundamental Rights while simultaneously limiting that power through the Basic Structure Doctrine.

Solution: D

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.