Indian Polity Mixed Quiz: Set 56

The correct answer is D, 2 and 3 only. Part IV holds the Directive Principles of State Policy, which no court can enforce but which the State must apply in making laws.

Article 37 says the provisions of Part IV shall not be enforceable by any court, but the principles laid down in it are nevertheless fundamental in the governance of the country, and it shall be the duty of the State to apply them in making laws. The Directive Principles cover Articles 36 to 51 and were inspired by the Irish Constitution. They include equal pay for equal work, a uniform civil code, organisation of village panchayats, separation of the judiciary from the executive and the promotion of international peace.

A is wrong: Directive Principles are non-justiciable, so statement 1 is false.

B is wrong: it leaves out statement 3, which is also correct.

C is wrong: it includes the false statement 1 and leaves out statement 2.

Exam tip: Part III Fundamental Rights are justiciable; Part IV Directive Principles (Articles 36-51) are non-justiciable but fundamental in governance (Article 37).

The correct answer is D, Santhanam Committee. The Central Vigilance Commission was created in 1964 by a government resolution, on the advice of the Committee on Prevention of Corruption headed by K. Santhanam.

The Santhanam Committee worked from 1962 to 1964 and recommended an independent body to oversee vigilance in central government offices. The CVC began as an executive body and received statutory status first by an ordinance in 1998 and then through the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003. It has a Central Vigilance Commissioner and up to two Vigilance Commissioners, appointed by the President on the advice of a committee of the Prime Minister, the Home Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha.

A is wrong: the First Administrative Reforms Commission of 1966 recommended the Lokpal and Lokayukta, not the CVC.

B is wrong: the Gorwala report of 1951 dealt with public administration in general.

C is wrong: the Kripalani Committee of 1949 examined the working of the railways.

Exam tip: Santhanam Committee → CVC (1964) and also the CBI (1963).

The correct answer is B, Gondi. Gondi, spoken by the Gond tribal community of central India, has not been included in the Eighth Schedule.

The Eighth Schedule lists the languages recognised by the Constitution, and Articles 344 and 351 link it to the development of Hindi. The original Constitution had 14 languages. Sindhi was added by the 21st Amendment in 1967, Konkani, Manipuri and Nepali by the 71st Amendment in 1992, and Bodo, Dogri, Maithili and Santhali by the 92nd Amendment in 2003, taking the total to 22. Santhali is the only tribal language in the list written in its own Ol Chiki script, while Gondi has long sought a place in it.

A is wrong: Manipuri (Meitei) was added by the 71st Amendment, 1992.

C is wrong: Nepali was added by the same 71st Amendment, 1992.

D is wrong: Dogri, spoken in Jammu, was added by the 92nd Amendment, 2003.

Exam tip: 71st Amendment (1992) = Konkani, Manipuri, Nepali; 92nd Amendment (2003) = Bodo, Dogri, Maithili, Santhali.

The correct answer is B, reduced by one hundred rupees. A token cut is moved to ventilate a specific grievance within the sphere of responsibility of the Government of India, and its form is that the amount of the demand be reduced by one hundred rupees; the sum is symbolic and the purpose is the discussion it forces. A is wrong because reducing the demand to one rupee is a policy cut, which expresses disapproval of the policy underlying the demand itself. C is wrong because a reduction by a specified amount for the sake of economy is an economy cut, where the member suggests that the same work can be done more cheaply. D is wrong because no cut motion asks for a demand to be withdrawn; the Lok Sabha can of course refuse a demand outright by voting it down, but that is a refusal of the demand, not a cut motion.

The correct answer is B, the Fifty-second Amendment, 1985. That amendment inserted the Tenth Schedule and amended Articles 101, 102, 190 and 191, which deal with the vacation of seats and the disqualification of members. It came into force on 1 March 1985.

Option A, the Forty-fourth Amendment, 1978, undid much of the Forty-second Amendment: it restored the term of the Lok Sabha to five years, deleted the right to property from the fundamental rights and tightened the conditions for a proclamation of Emergency. Option C, the Sixty-first Amendment, 1989, lowered the voting age from twenty-one years to eighteen years. Option D, the Ninety-first Amendment, 2003, did not add the Schedule; it amended it, deleting the exemption for a split and capping the size of the Council of Ministers, so it is the common distractor in this question.

The correct answer is B, 12 October, the date on which the Commission was constituted in 1993. Option A, 10 December, is Human Rights Day, which marks the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948; students confuse the two dates constantly, so fix the pair in memory. Option C, 26 November, is Constitution Day, the day the Constituent Assembly adopted the Constitution in 1949. Option D, 28 September, is close to the date of the ordinance that preceded the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, but it is not the day the Commission came into being. The safe way to hold this fact is the chain: Declaration in 1948 on 10 December, Paris Principles in 1991, Act and Commission in 1993 on 12 October.

The correct answer is C, the 69th Amendment, 1991. The Constitution (Sixty-ninth Amendment) Act, 1991 inserted Articles 239AA and 239AB, renamed the Union Territory of Delhi as the National Capital Territory of Delhi and provided it with a Legislative Assembly and a Council of Ministers. Option A is wrong because the Fourteenth Amendment of 1962 inserted Article 239A, which allowed Parliament to create a legislature or a Council of Ministers for certain Union Territories, and it is the basis of Puducherry's assembly, not Delhi's. Option B is wrong because the Sixty-first Amendment of 1988 lowered the voting age from twenty-one to eighteen years. Option D is wrong because the Seventy-fourth Amendment of 1992 added Part IXA on municipalities and the Twelfth Schedule; it strengthened urban local bodies across the country and had nothing to do with Delhi's status as a capital territory.

The correct answer is B, a Constitution Amendment Bill. Article 368 requires each House to pass such a Bill separately by a special majority, and the Constitution provides no joint sitting for it; a Money Bill is also outside the scope of Article 108. A is wrong because the rejection of an ordinary Bill by the other House is one of the three grounds on which Article 108 expressly allows a joint sitting. C is wrong because a Financial Bill of Category I, although introduced only in the Lok Sabha on the President's recommendation, is in every other respect an ordinary Bill, so the Rajya Sabha may amend or reject it and a joint sitting may follow. D is wrong because a final disagreement over amendments to an ordinary Bill is the second ground listed in Article 108, and the Dowry Prohibition Bill of 1961 reached a joint sitting in just this way.

The correct answer is A, the final goal of a stateless society. Both Gandhi and Marx saw the State as an instrument of coercion and imagined an ideal society in which it would no longer be needed.

Marx held that after a proletarian revolution and a transitional dictatorship of the proletariat, class divisions would vanish and the State would "wither away", leaving a classless, stateless communist society. Gandhi called the State "violence in a concentrated and organised form" and hoped for an enlightened anarchy, a Ram Rajya of self-governing, self-reliant village republics in which people rule themselves. The two differed sharply on the means: Marx accepted violent revolution, while Gandhi insisted on non-violence and change of heart.

B is wrong: class struggle is central to Marxism, but Gandhi rejected it in favour of harmony between classes.

C is wrong: Marx wanted private property abolished, while Gandhi proposed trusteeship, in which owners hold wealth in trust for society.

D is wrong: economic determinism, the idea that the economic base shapes everything else, is Marxist; Gandhi gave primacy to moral and spiritual forces.

Exam tip: Gandhi and Marx agree on the end (stateless society) but differ on the means (non-violence and trusteeship versus class struggle and revolution).

The correct answer is C, two hours and thirty minutes. The rules provide that once the Speaker admits an adjournment motion, the House must give it not less than two hours and thirty minutes of discussion, so that a matter grave enough to set aside the listed business is actually examined. A, one hour, is wrong, though it may be confused with the half-an-hour discussion, which is a different device altogether and lasts thirty minutes. B, two hours, is wrong, but it is the trap in this question: the short duration discussion under Rule 193 is popularly called the two-hour discussion, and candidates transfer its length to the adjournment motion. D, three hours, is wrong; no rule fixes a three-hour minimum for any of these devices. In practice the Speaker takes up an admitted adjournment motion at four in the afternoon, after the day's listed business, and the discussion ends in a vote.

The correct answer is C, two-thirds. Paragraph 4 says that where the original political party of a member merges with another party, the member is not disqualified if not less than two-thirds of the members of the legislature party concerned have agreed to the merger. Both the members who go over and the members who refuse to go and stay with the old party are protected.

Option A, one-third, was the figure in Paragraph 3 for a split, and that paragraph was deleted by the Ninety-first Amendment in 2003, which is why one-third now protects nobody. Option B, one-half, and option D, three-fourths, appear nowhere in the Tenth Schedule; three-fourths is the figure used in Article 368 for ratification by states only in the sense of a special majority of the House, not for mergers. Examiners pair one-third and two-thirds deliberately, so the two figures must be remembered together with their paragraphs.

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, public order, police and land. Article 239AA(3)(a) lets the Delhi assembly make laws on the State List and the Concurrent List as they apply to the territory, but excludes Entries 1, 2 and 18 of the State List, which are public order, police and land, along with Entries 64, 65 and 66 so far as they relate to those three. Option A is wrong because public health, education and local government are with the Delhi government, which runs hospitals, schools and municipal matters. Option C is wrong because, although police is indeed excluded, prisons and agriculture are not: prisons were brought within the territory's competence and agriculture was never a reserved subject. Option D is wrong because only land is excluded of the three named; water supply and electricity are handled by the Delhi government through its own boards and utilities.

The correct answer is B. The chairperson of the Public Accounts Committee is appointed by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha from among the Lok Sabha members of the committee, and since 1967 the settled convention has been to appoint a member belonging to the Opposition, which strengthens the committee as an instrument of accountability. A Rajya Sabha member of the committee cannot be made chairperson. Option A is wrong because the members elect nobody to the chair; they are themselves elected to the committee by proportional representation, but the chair is filled by appointment. Option C is wrong because the Prime Minister has no role at all here, and allowing the head of the government to choose the chair of the committee that audits the government would defeat its purpose. Option D is wrong because the Deputy Speaker is the ex officio chairperson of the Committee on Private Members Bills and Resolutions, not of the Public Accounts Committee; the Speaker chairs the Business Advisory, Rules and General Purposes Committees.

The correct answer is D, the Ninety-first Amendment, passed in 2003. It omitted Paragraph 3 of the Tenth Schedule, which had saved a split supported by one-third of the members of a legislature party. Bulk defections were being presented as splits to claim that protection, so only a merger approved by two-thirds survives today.

Option A, the Sixty-first Amendment, 1989, reduced the voting age to eighteen years. Option B, the Seventy-third Amendment, 1992, gave constitutional status to Panchayati Raj and added Part IX and the Eleventh Schedule. Option C, the Eighty-sixth Amendment, 2002, inserted Article 21A, making free and compulsory education for children of six to fourteen years a fundamental right, and added the fundamental duty in Article 51A(k). The Ninety-first Amendment is also remembered for capping the Council of Ministers at fifteen per cent of the House and for inserting Article 361B.

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, seven. Article 239AA(4) says the Council of Ministers of Delhi shall consist of not more than ten per cent of the total number of members of its Legislative Assembly. The assembly has seventy directly elected seats, so ten per cent of seventy gives seven ministers, a figure that includes the Chief Minister. Option A is wrong because five is not derived from any provision; it is a plausible-looking but invented number. Option C is wrong because ten is the percentage figure in the article, not the number of ministers, and this is the trap the question is built on. Option D is wrong because twelve exceeds the ceiling; a fifteen per cent cap applies to the states under Article 164(1A), but Delhi is governed by the stricter ten per cent rule written into Article 239AA itself.

The correct answer is C, the Chairman or the Speaker of the House concerned. Paragraph 6 of the Tenth Schedule gives that power to the presiding officer, and where the question is about the presiding officer, it is decided by a member of the House elected for the purpose.

Option A, the President, decides disqualification under Articles 102 and 103 for grounds such as holding an office of profit, and there the President must act on the opinion of the Election Commission. Option B, the Election Commission, has no role at all in a Tenth Schedule case, which is a favourite trap in this question. Option D, the Supreme Court, does not decide the question at first instance, but after Kihoto Hollohan versus Zachillhu, 1992, struck down Paragraph 7, the courts may review the presiding officer's order on grounds such as mala fides, perversity or violation of natural justice.

The correct answer is A, the Governor of Punjab. Article 239(2) allows the President to appoint the Governor of a state as the administrator of an adjoining Union Territory, and under it the Governor of Punjab has been given additional charge as the Administrator of Chandigarh. Option B is wrong because, although Chandigarh is the shared capital of both Punjab and Haryana, it is the Governor of Punjab and not of Haryana who holds the charge. Option C is wrong because a judge of a High Court performs judicial functions and cannot hold an executive office of this kind; such an appointment would offend the separation of powers. Option D is wrong because, while senior civil servants serve as administrators of some Union Territories such as Lakshadweep, Chandigarh is administered under the Article 239(2) arrangement with the Governor of Punjab.

The correct answer is D, Paragraph 7. That paragraph barred the jurisdiction of all courts in respect of any matter connected with the disqualification of a member under the Schedule. The Supreme Court held that taking away the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226 and of the Supreme Court under Article 136 changed the position of those courts, so the amendment needed ratification by the legislatures of half the states under Article 368(2), which had not been obtained. Paragraph 7 therefore fell, while the rest of the Schedule was upheld.

Option A, Paragraph 2, lays down the grounds of defection and remains in force. Option B, Paragraph 4, carries the merger exemption and also stands. Option C, Paragraph 6, which makes the presiding officer the deciding authority, was upheld, with the Court holding that the officer acts as a tribunal whose order is open to judicial review once it is made.