SSC MTS GK Questions 2026

The correct answer is the USA. The Bill of Rights is the name given to the first ten amendments to the Constitution of the United States, adopted in 1791, which protect freedoms such as speech and religion against the government. India's framers took from it the idea of a written list of rights that the State cannot violate and that the courts will enforce. Part III of our Constitution, Articles 12 to 35, is the result, and it is often called the Magna Carta of India.

The other countries gave India different features. From Australia came the Concurrent List, freedom of trade and commerce, and the joint sitting of the two Houses of Parliament. From Japan came the phrase "procedure established by law" used in Article 21. From the former USSR came the Fundamental Duties and the ideal of social, economic and political justice in the Preamble. So even inside Part III there are two sources to remember: the chapter as a whole from the USA, and the wording of Article 21 from Japan.

The correct answer is NSKFDC, the National Safai Karamcharis Finance and Development Corporation. The Secretary of the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment said the scheme promotes sustainable livelihoods, capacity building, access to safety gear and mechanisation through interventions implemented by this corporation. The name itself carries the clue, because Safai Karamcharis are the very workers the scheme is built around. Option A is wrong because that corporation works for scheduled caste beneficiaries in general and is not named as the implementing body here. Option C is wrong because it serves backward classes and has no role stated in this release. Option D is wrong because it works for minority communities. Matching a scheme with its implementing corporation is a standard question pattern in general awareness papers.

The correct answer is Rs 34.16 crore. Under the capital subsidy intervention for mechanisation, routed through the Swachhta Udyami Yojana, the Ministry reported that 983 beneficiaries have been supported with this amount. The purpose of the subsidy is to help sanitation workers acquire machines so that hazardous manual work is replaced by mechanised cleaning, which is the central idea of the NAMASTE Scheme. The other three options are wrong simply because no such amount is reported for this intervention; they are plausible looking figures placed to test whether the aspirant recalls the exact number. A useful habit is to memorise the amount together with the beneficiary count, since examiners often pair the two in a single statement and change only one of them.

The correct answer is 90,186. The Ministry's Secretary stated that the sewer and septic tank workers component now covers all 36 States and Union Territories, and that this many workers have been validated. The validated workforce is made up of 86,468 men, 3,713 women and five transgender persons, and these sub-totals add up to the figure in the correct option, which is a quick way to verify the answer. Options A and C are wrong because they do not match any figure reported for this component. Option D is a deliberate trap, because that number belongs to the separate waste picker component, where the profiled count covers 34 States and Union Territories rather than 36. Keeping the two components apart is the key to answering this question correctly.

The correct answer is National Action for Mechanized Sanitation Ecosystem. The Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment defines NAMASTE exactly this way, and describes its aim as ensuring the safety and dignity of sanitation workers by creating an enabling ecosystem that recognises their contribution to the operation and maintenance of sanitation infrastructure. Option B is wrong because the scheme is not framed as a mission for advanced sanitation technology, and the word mission does not appear in its name. Option C is wrong because it is not a municipal training agency and it is not confined to urban local bodies alone. Option D is wrong because NAMASTE is not an authority for sewerage treatment but a scheme centred on workers. Full forms of welfare schemes are frequently asked, so learn the expansion word for word.

The correct answer is once. The Preamble has been amended only one time, by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976. That amendment added three words: "Socialist" and "Secular" to the description of India, and "Integrity" to the phrase "unity and integrity of the Nation".

"Never" is wrong because the 1976 change is on record; it is also why the Preamble as quoted today differs from the text adopted on 26 November 1949, which described India only as a "sovereign democratic republic". "Twice" and "three times" confuse the number of amendments with the number of words added, which is three. Keep the two numbers apart: one amendment, three words. The fact that the Preamble can be amended at all was settled by the Supreme Court in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), which held that it is a part of the Constitution and can be amended so long as its basic features are not destroyed.

The correct answer is N.A. Palkhivala. Nani Ardeshir Palkhivala, one of India's most eminent jurists and constitutional lawyers, called the Preamble the "identity card of the Constitution", because it tells us in one sentence what the Constitution is, where its authority comes from and what it sets out to achieve.

The other names are linked to different descriptions, and examiners use them precisely because they sound right. K.M. Munshi, a member of the Drafting Committee, called the Preamble the "political horoscope" of the sovereign democratic republic. Sir Ernest Barker, the British political scientist, described it as the "key-note" of the Constitution. Dr B.R. Ambedkar chaired the Drafting Committee, and his best-known description is of Article 32, which he called the heart and soul of the Constitution. Learn these as pairs, because questions often give the phrase and ask for the person, or the other way round.

The correct answer is A guiding principle for interpretation. The Preamble is not enforceable in a court of law: it is neither a source of power for the legislature nor a limit on its powers. Its main legal use is as an aid to interpretation. When the meaning of a provision of the Constitution is unclear, courts look to the Preamble to understand the objectives the framers had in mind.

The other options describe things the Preamble is not. It is not a schedule: the Constitution's schedules are separate lists placed at the end of the text, such as the list of languages. It is not a financial guideline. And it is not an enforceable part of law, which is the most tempting wrong answer: even after the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) held that the Preamble is a part of the Constitution, it remained non-justiciable. Being part of the Constitution and being enforceable in court are two different things, and this question tests exactly that difference.

The correct answer is the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973). In the Berubari Union case of 1960 the Supreme Court had said that the Preamble is not a part of the Constitution, though it is a key to the minds of its makers. In Kesavananda Bharati the Court rejected that view and held that the Preamble is a part of the Constitution and can be amended, provided its basic features are not changed.

The Berubari Union case is the earlier decision that was reversed, so it cannot be the answer. The LIC of India case of 1995 came later and only reaffirmed that the Preamble is an integral part of the Constitution; it did not reverse anything. The Golaknath case of 1967 concerned Parliament's power to amend Fundamental Rights, not the status of the Preamble. The word "reverse" in the question is the clue: it points to the case that overturned Berubari, which is Kesavananda Bharati.

The correct answer is the Russian Revolution. The ideal of justice in the Preamble, described as social, economic and political, was inspired by the Russian Revolution of 1917, which is why books often list the former USSR as its source. It sits alongside the three objectives drawn from France.

The French Revolution is the source of liberty, equality and fraternity, the other three objectives, so it is the most tempting wrong answer. The American connection is to the idea of having a preamble at all, taken from the Constitution of the United States, not to the ideal of justice. The Magna Carta is a landmark of English constitutional history but is not the source of anything in the Preamble. A good way to remember the split: of the four objectives, justice points east, to Russia, while liberty, equality and fraternity point west, to France.

The correct answer is France. The ideals of liberty, equality and fraternity in the Preamble were taken from France, where they were the watchwords of the French Revolution. France is also the source of the idea of a republic.

The other options gave India different features. The United Kingdom is the source of parliamentary government, the rule of law, the cabinet system and single citizenship. Canada gave the idea of a federation with a strong Centre and residuary powers vested in the Centre. Ireland gave the Directive Principles of State Policy and the method of electing the President. The ideal of justice in the Preamble, the fourth of its objectives, has a different source again: the Russian Revolution. So of the four objectives, three (liberty, equality and fraternity) trace to France and one (justice) traces to the former USSR, a split that examiners like to test.

The correct answer is United States of America. The idea of beginning a constitution with a preamble was borrowed from the Constitution of the USA, whose own text opens with the words "We the People". The content of India's Preamble, however, comes from Jawaharlal Nehru's Objectives Resolution, moved in the Constituent Assembly on 13 December 1946 and adopted on 22 January 1947.

The other countries are sources of different parts of the Preamble or of the Constitution. The USSR is the source of the ideal of social, economic and political justice. Britain gave parliamentary government, the rule of law and single citizenship. Canada gave the model of a federation with a strong Centre. Be careful to separate two different questions that look alike: the idea of having a preamble came from the USA, while the ideals of liberty, equality and fraternity written inside it came from the French Revolution.

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 Socialist. The 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976 added three words to the Preamble: "Socialist" and "Secular" to the description of India, and "Integrity" to the phrase "unity and integrity of the Nation". It is the only amendment ever made to the Preamble.

Democratic, Republic and Sovereign were all in the Preamble from the start: as adopted on 26 November 1949, it described India as a "sovereign democratic republic". That is why they are wrong here. Questions on this amendment come in several forms: which word was added, which word was not added, or how many words were added. Keep all three in mind together: Socialist, Secular and Integrity, added in 1976. A related fact worth linking is the Kesavananda Bharati case of 1973, which had held three years earlier that the Preamble is part of the Constitution and can be amended without changing its basic features.

The correct answer is Sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic, republic. This is the order in which the Preamble describes India: "a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC". Socialist and secular were inserted between sovereign and democratic by the 42nd Amendment in 1976; before that the phrase read "sovereign democratic republic".

The first option swaps socialist and secular, which is the most common slip, since both words were added at the same time. The third option repeats "secular" and begins with the wrong word, and the fourth moves "sovereign" from the front to the end. A simple way to hold the order is to say the three S-words by sound: So, So, Se (Sovereign, Socialist, Secular), followed by the original last two words, Democratic Republic. The two words added in 1976 sit together in the middle.

The correct answer is The People of India. The Preamble opens with the words "We, the people of India", which name the people as the source from which the Constitution draws its authority. The Constitution was not handed down by a government, a court or a legislature; the people, through their Constituent Assembly, adopted, enacted and gave it to themselves on 26 November 1949.

The Supreme Court, the Indian Parliament and the Central Government are all created by the Constitution, so none of them can be its source of authority. Each of them exercises only the powers the Constitution gives it. This is the first of the four things the Preamble tells us, the others being the nature of the Indian State (sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic, republic), its objectives (justice, liberty, equality and fraternity) and the date of adoption. A fill-in-the-blank question like this one tests whether you know the exact opening words, so learn the text as written.

The correct answer is 389. The Cabinet Mission Plan of 1946 fixed the total strength of the Constituent Assembly at 389 seats: 296 for British India and 93 for the princely states. Of the 296 British Indian seats, 292 were for the eleven governors' provinces and 4 for the chief commissioners' provinces.

Every other option is a real number from the same chapter, placed to catch a hurried reader. 299 is the strength of the Assembly after Partition, when the members from the areas that went to Pakistan left. 296 is only the share of British India, without the princely states. 395 is not a count of members at all: it is the number of Articles in the Constitution as originally adopted. Questions on this topic often place these numbers side by side, so link each one to what it counts: 389 members at the start, 299 after Partition, 296 seats for British India and 395 original Articles.

The correct answer is M.N. Roy. Manabendra Nath Roy, a pioneer of the communist movement in India, was the first to put forward the idea of a Constituent Assembly, in 1934. The Indian National Congress took up the idea and made it an official demand in 1935, and the British government accepted the demand in principle in the August Offer of 1940. The Assembly itself was finally formed in 1946 under the Cabinet Mission Plan.

Jawaharlal Nehru is the most tempting wrong answer, because he became closely identified with the demand and later moved the Objectives Resolution in the Assembly on 13 December 1946; but the idea was first put forward by Roy. Mahatma Gandhi and Subhas Chandra Bose are not credited with first proposing it. When a question uses the words "first" or "originally", it is usually testing exactly this: the difference between who proposed an idea and who carried it forward.

The correct answer is Germany. The provision for suspending Fundamental Rights during an Emergency was taken from the Weimar Constitution of Germany. It is the only feature of the Indian Constitution usually traced to that source.

The other options are sources of different features. France gave the idea of a republic and the ideals of liberty, equality and fraternity in the Preamble. Russia, as the former USSR, gave the Fundamental Duties and the ideal of social, economic and political justice. Australia gave the Concurrent List, freedom of trade and commerce, and the joint sitting of the two Houses of Parliament. The emergency provisions as a whole are drawn largely from the Government of India Act, 1935, so a question on "emergency provisions" in general points there, while one on "suspension of Fundamental Rights during an Emergency" points to Germany. Read the wording carefully before choosing.

The correct answer is Ireland. The Directive Principles of State Policy in Part IV of the Constitution were modelled on the Irish Constitution. India also took two other features from Ireland: the nomination of members to the Rajya Sabha and the method of electing the President.

The other countries gave different features. The USSR is the source of the Fundamental Duties and of the ideal of social, economic and political justice in the Preamble. The United States gave the Fundamental Rights, judicial review, the independence of the judiciary and the impeachment of the President. China is not counted among the sources of the Indian Constitution at all. The pair most often confused is Rights and Principles: Fundamental Rights come from the USA, while the Directive Principles come from Ireland. A simple memory hook is "Rights from America, Directions from Ireland".