Indian Polity Mixed Quiz: Set 52

The correct answer is A, Privileges. Equality means that no person or group enjoys special rights denied to others, so it implies the absence of privileges.

In political theory, equality rests on the idea that all people deserve equal concern and respect. Harold Laski described equality first of all as the absence of special privilege, along with adequate opportunities for all. The Indian Constitution reflects this: Article 14 gives equality before the law, Article 15 bars discrimination, Article 17 abolishes untouchability and Article 18 abolishes titles, all of which remove privileges based on birth, caste or status.

B is wrong because a society of equals still has laws and restraints that apply to everyone alike.

C is wrong because equality of opportunity actually allows fair competition rather than removing it.

D is wrong because equality is itself an ideal and does not require the absence of ideology.

Exam tip: Laski: equality means the absence of special privilege and adequate opportunities for all; Articles 14 to 18 are the Right to Equality.

The correct answer is C, the Speaker of the Lok Sabha. Article 110(3) says that if any question arises whether a Bill is a Money Bill, the decision of the Speaker of the Lok Sabha is final, and Article 110(4) requires the Speaker to endorse the certificate on the Bill when it is transmitted to the Rajya Sabha or sent for assent. The certificate cannot be questioned in any court or in either House. A, the President, is wrong because the President only recommends the introduction of a Money Bill and later gives assent to it. B, the Finance Minister, is wrong because a minister merely moves the Bill; the presiding officer, not the government, classifies it. D, the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, is wrong because the Rajya Sabha has no say in the classification, which is exactly why the Speaker's certificate is final.

The correct answer is B, 2 only. The first Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha was recognised in 1969, when Ram Subhag Singh of the Congress (O) was given the post.

Statement 1 is wrong: the Swatantra Party was founded only in 1959, years after the first Lok Sabha (1952–57); the largest opposition party then was the Communist Party of India. Statement 3 is wrong: the practice, based on the Speaker's direction, is that a party needs at least one-tenth of the House's strength, that is 55 members, not 75. The Salary and Allowances of Leaders of Opposition in Parliament Act, 1977 later gave the post statutory recognition.

A is wrong because both statements 1 and 3 are false.

C is wrong because the minimum is one-tenth of the House (55), not 75.

D is wrong because only statement 2 is true.

Exam tip: first LoP recognised in 1969; the one-tenth rule means 55 seats in a 543-member Lok Sabha.

The correct answer is C, 1962. Zero Hour is an Indian innovation in parliamentary procedure and has been in use since 1962. It begins immediately after Question Hour, at about 12 noon, and lasts until the listed business of the day is taken up, and it allows a member to raise a matter without the prior notice that every other device requires. Its most examined feature is that it is nowhere mentioned in the Rules of Procedure, which makes it an informal device. A, 1952, is wrong because that year marks the first sitting of the Parliament elected under the Constitution, not the start of Zero Hour. B, 1954, is wrong because that is the year from which the calling attention motion, another Indian innovation, has been in use. D, 1977, is wrong; no parliamentary device of this kind dates from that year.

The correct answer is B, 1, 2 and 3. All three subjects sit in the list named against them in the Seventh Schedule.

The Seventh Schedule, read with Article 246, divides law-making powers into three lists. Public health and sanitation, hospitals and dispensaries is entry 6 of the State List, so states run most health services. Citizenship, naturalisation and aliens is entry 17 of the Union List, which is why only Parliament made the Citizenship Act, 1955. Legal, medical and other professions is entry 26 of the Concurrent List, so both Parliament and the states can make laws on them, as with the Advocates Act and the National Medical Commission Act.

A is wrong: pair 1 is correct, but pairs 2 and 3 are correct too.

C is wrong: it leaves out the correct pair 1.

D is wrong: it leaves out the correct pairs 1 and 2.

Exam tip: Seventh Schedule with Article 246; public health = State List, citizenship = Union List, professions = Concurrent List.

The correct answer is B, Mandal Commission. The Second Backward Classes Commission, headed by B. P. Mandal, recommended 27 per cent reservation for Other Backward Classes in central government services and public undertakings. It was appointed in 1979 and submitted its report in 1980, listed 3,743 castes as backward and put the share of the OBCs in the population at about 52 per cent. The quota was fixed at 27 per cent so that total reservation would stay within the 50 per cent ceiling the courts had indicated. The recommendation was put into effect in 1990, and the Supreme Court upheld it in the Indra Sawhney case of 1992. A is wrong because the Sarkaria Commission of 1983 examined Centre-State relations. C is wrong because the Balwant Rai Mehta Committee of 1957 suggested the three-tier panchayati raj system. D is wrong because the Kothari Commission of 1964-66 dealt with education. Exam tip: Mandal Commission 1979, report 1980, 27 per cent OBC quota, upheld in Indra Sawhney 1992.

The correct answer is B, a Money Bill. A Money Bill is introduced in the Lok Sabha only on the recommendation of the President, so the government has already obtained the President's approval of the proposal; Article 111 therefore allows the President only to assent to it or to withhold assent, not to return it. A is wrong because an ordinary Bill is exactly the kind of Bill the President may return once with a message, and the Houses may then pass it again with or without amendment. C is wrong because a Private Member's Bill differs only in who moves it; if it is an ordinary Bill it can be returned like any other. D is wrong because a Category II Financial Bill under Article 117(3) merely involves expenditure from the Consolidated Fund and is treated as an ordinary Bill for assent, so it too may be returned.

The correct answer is B. Article 100(1) provides that the Speaker or the person acting as Speaker shall not vote in the first instance, but shall have and exercise a casting vote in the case of an equality of votes. The purpose is to keep the chair above party contest while still giving the House a way out of a deadlock. Option A is wrong because voting in the first instance on every question is what an ordinary member does, and the chair is deliberately denied that right. Option C is wrong because the Speaker role in Money Bills is a different one altogether: under Article 110(4) the Speaker certifies whether a Bill is a Money Bill, and that certificate is final and cannot be questioned in any court. Option D is wrong because the Speaker is a full member of the House and does vote in two situations, namely a casting vote under Article 100 and a first-instance vote on a resolution for the Speaker own removal under Article 96.

The correct answer is B, it must state the reasons on which it is based. A censure motion has to set out the specific charge against the minister or ministers it names, whereas a no-confidence motion need state no ground whatever. A censure motion may be directed against an individual minister, a group of ministers or the whole Council of Ministers. A is wrong because a censure motion, like a no-confidence motion, is moved in the Lok Sabha only. C is wrong because no minimum of one hundred members is prescribed anywhere; the figure to remember is fifty, and it applies to the adjournment motion and the no-confidence motion. D is wrong, and it is the key difference in the other direction: the passing of a censure motion does not oblige the Council of Ministers to resign, while the passing of a no-confidence motion does.

The correct answer is B, 62 years, raised by the Fifteenth Amendment Act, 1963. Article 217(1) originally fixed the retirement age of a High Court judge at 60 years, and the Fifteenth Constitutional Amendment Act of 1963 raised it to 62. Option A is wrong because 60 was indeed the original figure but is no longer the rule. Options C and D are wrong because 65 years is the retirement age of a judge of the Supreme Court under Article 124(2), and that figure has never been changed, nor has the retirement age of a High Court judge been raised to 65 despite repeated recommendations. Candidates should remember the pair 65 and 62 together, with the Fifteenth Amendment attached to the smaller figure. A judge also holds no fixed term, may resign by writing to the President, and continues until the age of retirement unless removed under the special-majority procedure.

The correct answer is B, Article 112. Article 112 requires the President to cause a statement of the estimated receipts and expenditure of the Government of India for every financial year to be laid before both Houses of Parliament, and the Constitution calls that statement the Annual Financial Statement; in ordinary speech it is the Budget. A is wrong because Article 110 only defines what a money bill is and lists the six matters a money bill may deal with; it says nothing about the Budget being laid before the Houses. C is wrong because Article 114 deals with the Appropriation Bill, the law by which money is actually withdrawn from the Consolidated Fund of India after the grants have been voted. D is wrong because Article 117 carries the special provisions for financial bills, chiefly that they are introduced in the Lok Sabha on the recommendation of the President.

The correct answer is B, Sarkaria Commission. The Inter-State Council was constituted in 1990 by a presidential order acting on this commission's report on centre-state relations. Article 263 empowers the President to set up such a council to inquire into disputes between states, discuss subjects of common interest and make recommendations. The Sarkaria Commission, headed by Justice R. S. Sarkaria, was appointed in 1983 and submitted its report in 1988; it asked that the council be made a permanent body. The Prime Minister chairs it, and the chief ministers of all states, the administrators of union territories and six union ministers are its members. Option A is wrong because the Punchhi Commission came much later, in 2007, and reported in 2010. Option C is wrong because the Rajamannar Committee of 1969 was set up by the Tamil Nadu government, not the Union. Option D is wrong because the Mungerilal Commission dealt with backward class reservation in Bihar. Exam tip: Article 263 plus Sarkaria Commission gives the Inter-State Council, 1990.

The correct answer is B, State Human Rights Commission. A State Human Rights Commission is created by Chapter V of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, an ordinary law of Parliament, so it is a statutory and not a constitutional body; Parliament could abolish it by amending that Act alone. Option A is wrong because the Finance Commission is set up under Article 280, which the President must act upon every fifth year. Option C is wrong because the Union Public Service Commission is created by Article 315, and the conditions of service of its members are protected by Articles 316 to 323. Option D is wrong because the Election Commission of India owes its existence to Article 324, which vests in it the superintendence, direction and control of elections. The trap in this question is that all four are called commissions; only the source of each body's authority separates them.

The correct answer is Dr Rajendra Prasad. Dr Sachchidananda Sinha presided over the first sitting of the Constituent Assembly on 9 December 1946 only as its temporary President. On 11 December 1946 the Assembly elected Dr Rajendra Prasad as its permanent President, and he held that office until the Assembly finished its work. On 24 January 1950, at its last session, the Assembly also elected him the first President of India.

The other names played different parts. Jawaharlal Nehru moved the Objectives Resolution and chaired the Union Powers, Union Constitution and States Committees. Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel chaired the Provincial Constitution Committee and the Advisory Committee on Fundamental Rights and Minorities. Mahatma Gandhi was not a member of the Constituent Assembly at all. Exams like to pair the words "temporary" and "permanent", so fix the sequence: Sinha first, then Prasad two days later.

The correct answer is C. The Rajya Sabha is a permanent House that is never dissolved, so a Bill that originated there and has not yet been passed by the Lok Sabha survives the dissolution of the Lok Sabha and remains alive in the Rajya Sabha. A is wrong because a Bill still pending in the Lok Sabha dies with that House. B is wrong because a Bill passed by the Lok Sabha but awaiting the Rajya Sabha's decision also lapses, since the agreement of the dissolved House is no longer available. D is wrong because once the Rajya Sabha returns such a Bill with amendments it is back before the Lok Sabha, and a Bill pending before the dissolved House lapses. Bills awaiting assent, Bills returned by the President, and Bills for which a joint sitting has been notified do not lapse.

The correct answer is Liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship. These are the exact words the Preamble uses for liberty, and they appear in it just as written here.

Each of the other options changes one word of the real text, which is exactly how this question catches people. The Preamble speaks of fraternity "assuring the dignity of the individual" and the unity and integrity of the Nation, not "human dignity". It promises equality "of status and of opportunity", not of status and employment. And justice in the Preamble is "social, economic and political"; the word "administrative" does not appear. When an option looks almost right, compare it word for word with the text: justice (social, economic, political), liberty (thought, expression, belief, faith, worship), equality (status, opportunity) and fraternity (dignity of the individual, unity and integrity of the Nation).

The correct answer is B, 1954. The calling attention motion is an Indian innovation in parliamentary procedure and has been in use since 1954. A member calls the attention of a minister to a matter of urgent public importance and the minister makes a statement on it, after which members may seek clarifications. Unlike Zero Hour, it is mentioned in the Rules of Procedure, which makes it a formal device. A, 1950, is wrong; the Constitution came into force that year but this device came later. C, 1962, is wrong because that is the year from which Zero Hour has been in use, and the two Indian innovations are routinely swapped in the options. D, 1971, is wrong; no device of this kind dates from that year, though the Twenty-fourth Constitutional Amendment belongs to it.

The correct answer is C, the salary and allowances of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is paid like other ministers out of the voted expenditure, so the amount appears in a demand for grant that the Lok Sabha can reduce or refuse; it is not charged expenditure. A is wrong because Article 112(3) expressly charges the salaries, allowances and pensions of judges of the Supreme Court on the Consolidated Fund, so that the judiciary is not dependent on an annual vote. B is wrong because debt charges, including interest, sinking fund charges and the cost of raising and servicing loans, are charged expenditure, since the nation's credit cannot be put to a yearly vote. D is wrong because the salary, allowances and pension of the Comptroller and Auditor General are charged on the Fund, a safeguard of the independence of the auditor who examines the government's own accounts.

The correct answer is A, three years. The Protection of Human Rights (Amendment) Act, 2019 reduced the term of the Chairperson and the members of the Commission from five years to three years, or until they attain the age of seventy, whichever is earlier, and it also made them eligible for reappointment. Option C, five years, was the correct answer before the 2019 amendment and is the commonest trap in this question, because older notes still carry that figure. Options B and D, four and six years, have never been the term of this office; six years is associated with other posts such as a Rajya Sabha member's term, and four years with none of the rights commissions. Remember the pair: three years for the office, seventy as the age ceiling for the Chairperson.

The correct answer is B. Article 109 read with Article 117(1) allows a Money Bill to be introduced only in the Lok Sabha, and Article 110(1) permits its introduction only on the recommendation of the President; it is always a Government Bill moved by a minister. A is wrong on both counts: the Rajya Sabha cannot take up a Money Bill at the stage of introduction, and a private member cannot move one. C is wrong because the Rajya Sabha is not the originating House for any money matter, and the Speaker's role is to certify the Bill, not to recommend its introduction. D is wrong because the recommendation must come from the President, who acts on the advice of the Council of Ministers; the Finance Minister introduces the Bill but his recommendation has no constitutional standing.