Consider the following statements regarding Financial accountability through Comptroller and Auditor General:
1. Article 148 of the Constitution establishes the office of the Comptroller and Auditor General, who is appointed by the President by warrant under his hand and seal.
2. The Comptroller and Auditor General is eligible for further office under the Government of India or any State Government after the expiration of his term, provided he receives a recommendation from the Public Accounts Committee.
3. The Comptroller and Auditor General holds office for a term of six years or until the age of 65, and the removal process follows the same procedure as the Chief Election Commissioner under Article 324.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct as Article 148 mandates the CAG's appointment by the President under his hand and seal. Statement 2 is incorrect because the CAG is ineligible for any further office under the Government of India or any State Government after retirement to ensure independence. Statement 3 is incorrect because, while the term is six years or age 65, the CAG can only be removed from office in the same manner and on the same grounds as a Judge of the Supreme Court, not the Chief Election Commissioner.
Consider the following statements regarding Doctrine of Pith and Substance in Legislative competence:
1. The 1973 Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala case incorporated the pith and substance doctrine into the Basic Structure theory to limit the amending power of Parliament under Article 368.
2. The Doctrine of Pith and Substance was first applied by the Privy Council in the 1939 case of Prafulla Kumar Mukherjee v. Bank of Commerce Ltd to determine the legislative competence under the Government of India Act 1935.
3. The Supreme Court of India in the 1951 State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara judgment utilized the pith and substance test to uphold the validity of the Bombay Prohibition Act despite its incidental encroachment on the Union List.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because the Doctrine of Pith and Substance relates to the distribution of legislative powers between the Union and States under Article 246, whereas the Basic Structure doctrine established in Kesavananda Bharati (1973) serves as a limitation on Parliament's amending power under Article 368. Statement 2 is correct as the Privy Council established this doctrine in Prafulla Kumar Mukherjee v. Bank of Commerce Ltd (1947, though often cited regarding the 1935 Act) to ensure that if a law is in 'pith and substance' within a legislature's competence, it remains valid even if it incidentally encroaches on another list. Statement 3 is correct because the Supreme Court in State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara (1951) applied this test to uphold the Bombay Prohibition Act, ruling that its incidental impact on the Union List (import/export) did not invalidate the state law since its core essence fell under the State List.
Consider the following statements regarding Separation of Powers between Organs of State:
1. Under Article 121, the Parliament is restricted from discussing the conduct of any Judge of the Supreme Court or of a High Court in the discharge of their duties except upon a motion for an address to the President.
2. The Tenth Schedule of the Constitution, added by the 52nd Amendment Act of 1985, vests the power to decide disqualification of members on the ground of defection in the Election Commission of India.
3. The Delimitation Commission Act of 2002 empowers an independent commission to readjust the division of each State into territorial constituencies for the purpose of elections to the House of the People.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 2 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct as Article 121 explicitly prohibits parliamentary discussion on judicial conduct except during impeachment proceedings. Statement 3 is correct because the Delimitation Commission Act, 2002, mandates an independent body to readjust electoral boundaries based on census data. Statement 2 is incorrect because, under the Tenth Schedule, the power to decide disqualification on grounds of defection rests with the Presiding Officer of the House (Speaker or Chairman), not the Election Commission of India.
Consider the following statements regarding Public Accounts Committee and Expenditure Audit:
1. The Comptroller and Auditor General of India assists the Public Accounts Committee by auditing the appropriation accounts and finance accounts of the Union government.
2. The Public Accounts Committee examines the audit reports submitted by the Comptroller and Auditor General, and its findings are binding on the government departments under the Rules of Procedure of the Lok Sabha.
3. The Committee on Subordinate Legislation, constituted in 1953, scrutinizes the rules and regulations framed by the executive, and its reports are submitted directly to the Supreme Court for judicial review.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct as the CAG acts as a 'friend, philosopher, and guide' to the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) by auditing Union accounts. Statement 2 is incorrect because the PAC's findings are advisory in nature and not binding on the government, serving primarily as a tool for legislative oversight. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Committee on Subordinate Legislation submits its reports to the respective Houses of Parliament, not the Supreme Court, and judicial review remains an independent power of the judiciary.
Consider the following statements regarding Role of Election Commission in ensuring free and fair elections:
1. The Model Code of Conduct, which serves as a set of guidelines issued by the Election Commission, gained prominence during the 1979 Lok Sabha elections to regulate the behavior of political parties and candidates.
2. Under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, the Election Commission possesses the authority to disqualify a candidate for failure to lodge an account of election expenses within the prescribed time and manner.
3. The Supreme Court in the T.N. Seshan v. Union of India (1995) judgment clarified that the Chief Election Commissioner does not enjoy a position of superiority over other Election Commissioners in terms of decision-making powers.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
Statement 1 is correct as the Election Commission first issued the Model Code of Conduct in 1968, but it gained significant prominence and enforcement rigor during the 1979 Lok Sabha elections. Statement 2 is correct because Section 10A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, empowers the ECI to disqualify a person for up to three years for failing to lodge an account of election expenses. Statement 3 is correct as the T.N. Seshan v. Union of India (1995) judgment established that the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners have equal powers, and decisions are taken by a majority vote, ensuring no individual superiority.
Consider the following statements regarding Judicial Activism vs Judicial Overreach:
1. The doctrine of judicial activism in India gained prominence during the post-Emergency era, particularly following the 1977 Supreme Court judgment in the Maneka Gandhi case.
2. The Supreme Court of India invoked the doctrine of 'continuing mandamus' in the 1996 Vineet Narain case to monitor the progress of the Central Bureau of Investigation in corruption probes.
3. Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer and Justice P.N. Bhagwati are widely credited with pioneering the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) framework in the late 1970s to expand access to justice.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
All three statements are correct: the post-Emergency era marked a shift toward judicial activism, with the Maneka Gandhi (1978) case establishing the 'procedure established by law' as requiring fairness and reasonableness. In the Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1997) case, the Supreme Court utilized 'continuing mandamus' to ensure the CBI's independence and accountability in high-profile corruption investigations. Furthermore, Justices V.R. Krishna Iyer and P.N. Bhagwati are recognized as the architects of PIL in India, having relaxed the traditional 'locus standi' rule to allow marginalized sections access to the judiciary.
Consider the following statements regarding Ordinance making power as a conditional legislative tool:
1. In the 2017 Krishna Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar judgment, the seven-judge bench held that the satisfaction of the President or Governor is subject to judicial review on the grounds of mala fide intent.
2. The Ordinance of 1950, promulgated shortly after the commencement of the Constitution, established the initial protocol for the duration of ordinances, setting a maximum lifespan of six months from the date of issuance.
3. The 38th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1975 initially sought to make the satisfaction of the President in promulgating an ordinance final and beyond judicial review.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 2 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct as the Supreme Court in Krishna Kumar Singh (2017) ruled that the satisfaction of the executive is justiciable, particularly if it is based on mala fide intent or an attempt to bypass the legislature. Statement 3 is correct because the 38th Amendment Act (1975) inserted clauses to make the President's satisfaction final and immune from judicial review, though this was later nullified by the 44th Amendment Act (1978). Statement 2 is incorrect because the Constitution itself (Article 123) prescribes the lifespan of an ordinance as six weeks from the reassembly of Parliament, not six months from the date of issuance.
Consider the following statements regarding Central Vigilance Commission and anti-corruption oversight:
1. The Central Vigilance Commission derives its constitutional status from Article 323B, which provides for the establishment of tribunals for the adjudication of corruption cases involving public servants.
2. The Central Vigilance Commission was initially set up in 1964 by a resolution of the Government of India based on the recommendations of the K. Santhanam Committee.
3. The Central Vigilance Commissioner and Vigilance Commissioners are appointed by the President on the recommendation of a committee consisting of the Prime Minister, the Union Home Minister, and the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because the CVC is a statutory body established by the CVC Act, 2003, not a constitutional body under Article 323B. Statement 2 is correct as the CVC was originally created in 1964 via a government resolution following the recommendations of the K. Santhanam Committee on Prevention of Corruption. Statement 3 is correct because the appointment is made by the President based on the recommendation of a three-member committee comprising the Prime Minister, the Union Home Minister, and the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha.
Consider the following statements regarding Privileges of Parliament and their limits:
1. Under Article 122, the courts are prohibited from inquiring into the validity of any proceedings in Parliament on the ground of any alleged irregularity of procedure.
2. The Committee of Privileges in the Lok Sabha consists of 15 members nominated by the Speaker to examine cases of breach of privilege referred to it.
3. Section 135A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, grants members of Parliament immunity from arrest and detention in civil cases during the continuance of a session.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
Statement 1 is correct as Article 122 explicitly bars courts from questioning parliamentary proceedings based on procedural irregularities. Statement 2 is correct because the Lok Sabha Committee of Privileges is indeed composed of 15 members nominated by the Speaker to investigate breach of privilege cases. Statement 3 is correct as Section 135A of the Civil Procedure Code provides members immunity from arrest and detention in civil cases during the session and for 40 days before and after it, though this does not extend to criminal matters.
Consider the following statements regarding Contempt of Court as a check on judicial criticism:
1. Fair criticism of a judicial act is protected under Section 5 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, provided the critique is based on the merits of a case that has reached finality.
2. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 defines civil contempt as the willful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, or writ of a court.
3. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 limits the maximum imprisonment for civil contempt to six months, while criminal contempt carries a fine of up to two thousand rupees under Section 12.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 2 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 2 is correct as Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 explicitly defines civil contempt as the willful disobedience of any judgment, decree, direction, order, or writ. Statement 1 is incorrect because Section 5 protects fair criticism of judicial acts regardless of whether the case has reached finality, provided the criticism is made in good faith. Statement 3 is incorrect because Section 12 prescribes a maximum imprisonment of six months or a fine of up to two thousand rupees, or both, for both civil and criminal contempt, rather than limiting the fine exclusively to criminal contempt.
Consider the following statements regarding Delegated Legislation and its Parliamentary Oversight:
1. The Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act of 1949 allows the executive to bypass parliamentary scrutiny for rules related to national security, which were later incorporated into the 1950 Constitution.
2. The Select Committee on Delegated Powers, established in 1964, provides recommendations on the technical drafting of ordinances, which the President issues under Article 123.
3. The Committee on Subordinate Legislation was first constituted in the Lok Sabha on 1 December 1953 to scrutinize whether the powers delegated by Parliament are being properly exercised.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect.
Statement 3 is correct as the Committee on Subordinate Legislation was indeed constituted in the Lok Sabha on 1 December 1953 to ensure the executive does not exceed its delegated rule-making authority. Statement 1 is incorrect because there is no such 'Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act of 1949' in the Indian context, and the Constitution does not contain provisions allowing the executive to bypass parliamentary scrutiny for national security rules. Statement 2 is incorrect because the Committee on Subordinate Legislation does not review ordinances issued under Article 123, as ordinances are primary legislative acts of the executive, not delegated legislation.
Consider the following statements regarding Inter-state Council and Cooperative Federalism:
1. The Inter-State Council Secretariat is located in the Ministry of Finance and provides administrative support for the resolution of inter-state water disputes.
2. The Sarkaria Commission submitted its report in 1988, leading to the immediate incorporation of the Inter-State Council into the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution.
3. The North Eastern Council was established by the North Eastern Council Act of 1971 and operates as a statutory body under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of External Affairs.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because the Inter-State Council Secretariat functions under the Ministry of Home Affairs, not Finance, and it does not handle water disputes, which are governed by the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act. Statement 2 is incorrect because the Inter-State Council was established under Article 263 of the Constitution, not the Seventh Schedule, and it was set up in 1990 following the Sarkaria Commission's recommendations. Statement 3 is incorrect because the North Eastern Council is a statutory body under the Ministry of Development of North Eastern Region (DoNER), not the Ministry of External Affairs.
Consider the following statements regarding Ordinance making power as a conditional legislative tool:
1. An ordinance issued under Article 123 has the same force and effect as an Act of Parliament and is subject to the same constitutional limitations as legislative enactments.
2. Article 123 of the Constitution empowers the President to promulgate ordinances during the recess of Parliament when circumstances render immediate action necessary.
3. The Supreme Court in the 1987 D.C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar case ruled that the re-promulgation of ordinances without placing them before the legislature is a fraud on the Constitution.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
Statement 1 is correct because an ordinance is a temporary legislative instrument under Article 123 that must adhere to the same constitutional constraints, such as Fundamental Rights, as a regular Act. Statement 2 is correct as the President can only promulgate an ordinance when both Houses of Parliament are not in session and immediate action is required. Statement 3 is correct because the Supreme Court in D.C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar (1987) held that the executive cannot bypass the legislature by repeatedly re-promulgating ordinances, as this constitutes a colorable exercise of power and a fraud on the Constitution.
Consider the following statements regarding Role of the Governor in State Legislative processes:
1. The Governor acts as the Chancellor of state universities under the University Grants Commission Act of 1956, which grants the office the authority to veto academic appointments made by the state government.
2. The Seventh Schedule of the Constitution includes provisions for the Governor to bypass the State Legislative Council, a mechanism utilized during the 1967 legislative sessions in West Bengal.
3. The Sarkaria Commission report of 1988 recommended that the Governor should normally communicate their decision on a bill within a period of four months.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect.
Statement 3 is correct as the Sarkaria Commission (1988) recommended that the Governor should decide on a bill within four months to prevent legislative deadlock. Statement 1 is incorrect because the Governor's role as Chancellor is derived from state-specific university acts, not the UGC Act of 1956, and the UGC Act does not grant such veto power. Statement 2 is incorrect because the Seventh Schedule defines the distribution of powers between the Union and States, not legislative procedures, and no constitutional provision allows the Governor to bypass the State Legislative Council.
Consider the following statements regarding Constitutional morality as a restraint on executive discretion:
1. The 1973 Kesavananda Bharati judgment introduced the doctrine of constitutional morality to define the scope of executive power during the proclamation of a national emergency under Article 352.
2. The 2020 Anuradha Bhasin judgment emphasized that executive orders restricting internet access are subject to the test of constitutional morality regarding proportionality and necessity.
3. The 1994 S.R. Bommai case utilized the concept of constitutional morality to formalize the criteria for the President to exercise discretionary power under Article 356 during state legislative crises.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 2 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 2 is correct as the Anuradha Bhasin (2020) judgment mandated that internet suspension orders must adhere to the principles of proportionality and necessity, rooted in constitutional morality. Statement 1 is incorrect because the Kesavananda Bharati (1973) judgment established the 'Basic Structure' doctrine, not constitutional morality, to limit Parliament's amending power. Statement 3 is incorrect because while the S.R. Bommai (1994) case significantly curtailed the President's discretionary power under Article 356 by making it subject to judicial review, it relied on the 'Basic Structure' and federalism, rather than explicitly formalizing 'constitutional morality' as the primary criterion.
Consider the following statements regarding Role of Election Commission in ensuring free and fair elections:
1. The Election Commission of India was established on 25 January 1950, a date now commemorated annually as National Voters' Day to encourage democratic participation.
2. Article 324 of the Constitution vests the superintendence, direction, and control of elections in a commission consisting of the Chief Election Commissioner and such number of other Election Commissioners as the President may fix from time to time.
3. The Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners are appointed by the President on the recommendation of a selection committee, a process introduced by the Election Commission (Conditions of Service) Amendment Act, 1991.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct as the ECI was established on 25 January 1950, and National Voters' Day has been celebrated on this date since 2011. Statement 2 is correct because Article 324 grants the ECI plenary powers of superintendence, direction, and control over elections, with the President determining the number of Election Commissioners. Statement 3 is incorrect because the appointment process was recently overhauled by the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, not the 1991 Act, which only dealt with service conditions.
Consider the following statements regarding Doctrine of Pith and Substance in Legislative competence:
1. Under Article 246 of the Indian Constitution, the pith and substance doctrine serves as a judicial tool to resolve conflicts between the Union List and the State List by examining the true nature and character of the legislation.
2. The Seventh Schedule of the Constitution provides for the pith and substance test in Entry 97 of the Union List, allowing the Parliament to legislate on residual matters that fall outside the State List.
3. The 1966 judgment in Harakchand Ratanchand Banthia v. Union of India established that if the pith and substance of an Act falls within a legislative entry, the legislation remains valid even if it incidentally touches upon matters in another list.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 2 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct as the doctrine is a judicial interpretative tool used to determine the 'true nature and character' of a law when it overlaps between the Union and State Lists under Article 246. Statement 3 is correct because the Harakchand Ratanchand Banthia case (1966) affirmed that incidental encroachment on a field reserved for another legislature does not invalidate a law if its pith and substance remains within the competent legislature's domain. Statement 2 is incorrect because the pith and substance doctrine is a judicial creation derived from constitutional interpretation, not a provision explicitly mentioned in Entry 97 of the Union List, which pertains solely to residual legislative powers.
Consider the following statements regarding Impeachment and Removal processes of Constitutional functionaries:
1. The Vice-President of India is removed from office by a resolution of the Council of States passed by a majority of all the then members of the Council and agreed to by the House of the People by a two-thirds majority.
2. Under Article 61, the President of India can be impeached for violation of the Constitution, with the charge initiated by either House of Parliament provided a notice signed by at least one-fourth of the total number of members is moved.
3. The Attorney General for India is appointed by the President and is removed from office by a joint sitting of both Houses of Parliament if a motion of no-confidence is passed.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 2 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 2 is correct because Article 61 mandates that impeachment of the President for 'violation of the Constitution' requires a resolution moved after a 14-day notice signed by at least one-fourth of the total membership of the initiating House. Statement 1 is incorrect because the Vice-President is removed by a resolution of the Rajya Sabha passed by an 'effective majority' (majority of all the then members) and merely 'agreed to' by the Lok Sabha, which does not require a two-thirds majority. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Attorney General holds office during the pleasure of the President and can be removed by the President at any time, without any requirement for a parliamentary motion or joint sitting.
Consider the following statements regarding Power of Pardon as an Executive check on Judiciary:
1. Article 161 empowers the Governor of a State to grant pardons, reprieves, respites, or remissions of punishment for any person convicted of an offense against a law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the State extends.
2. The Supreme Court in the 1980 Maru Ram v. Union of India case established that the power of pardon is not a private act of grace but a constitutional responsibility exercised by the executive.
3. Under Article 72 of the Constitution, the President possesses the authority to grant pardons, reprieves, respites, or remissions of punishment for any person convicted of an offense against a Union law.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
All three statements are correct: Article 161 grants the Governor pardoning powers limited to state-level laws, while Article 72 empowers the President regarding Union laws and court-martial cases. In the landmark 1980 Maru Ram v. Union of India case, the Supreme Court clarified that the power of pardon is not an act of grace but a constitutional duty subject to judicial review, ensuring it is exercised fairly and not arbitrarily.
Consider the following statements regarding Public Accounts Committee and Expenditure Audit:
1. The membership of the Public Accounts Committee is limited to 22 members, with 15 elected from the Lok Sabha and 7 from the Rajya Sabha.
2. The Estimates Committee, which was first constituted in 1950, examines the annual budget estimates and holds the power to suggest alternative policies to the executive.
3. The Public Accounts Committee was first established in 1921 following the enactment of the Government of India Act 1919.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 2 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct as the PAC comprises 22 members (15 from Lok Sabha and 7 from Rajya Sabha) elected annually through proportional representation. Statement 3 is correct because the PAC was first set up in 1921 under the provisions of the Government of India Act 1919. Statement 2 is incorrect because, while the Estimates Committee was indeed first constituted in 1950, it is restricted to suggesting economies in expenditure and cannot question the underlying policy of the government; it must accept the policy as laid down by Parliament.
Consider the following statements regarding Legislative control over Executive via Parliamentary Committees:
1. The Committee on Petitions considers representations on matters of general public importance and suggests remedial measures.
2. Ministers are barred from being elected as members of the Financial Committees, including the Estimates Committee and the Public Accounts Committee.
3. The Chairperson of the Public Accounts Committee is appointed by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha from amongst its members.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
Statement 1 is correct as the Committee on Petitions examines representations on public grievances and suggests remedial measures. Statement 2 is correct because ministers are ineligible for the Estimates Committee, Public Accounts Committee, and Committee on Public Undertakings to ensure independent financial oversight. Statement 3 is correct as the Speaker appoints the PAC Chairperson from its members, a convention established in 1967 where the chair is traditionally drawn from the opposition party.
Consider the following statements regarding Delegated Legislation and its Parliamentary Oversight:
1. The Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha include provisions for the Speaker to refer draft regulations to the Law Commission before they are presented for legislative approval.
2. The 1973 Report of the Committee on Subordinate Legislation suggests that the executive possesses the authority to give retrospective effect to rules, provided such rules are ratified by the Supreme Court.
3. Under the provisions of the General Clauses Act of 1897, the publication of rules in the Official Gazette serves as a formal requirement for the commencement of delegated legislation.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect.
Statement 3 is correct because the General Clauses Act, 1897, mandates the publication of rules in the Official Gazette as a prerequisite for their legal validity and commencement. Statement 1 is incorrect because the Rules of Procedure do not require the Speaker to refer draft regulations to the Law Commission; instead, the Committee on Subordinate Legislation examines these rules to ensure they are within the scope of the parent Act. Statement 2 is incorrect because while the executive can be granted the power to give retrospective effect to rules by the parent Act, such authority is subject to judicial review by the courts to ensure it is not unreasonable or unconstitutional, and it does not require prior ratification by the Supreme Court.
Consider the following statements regarding Writs jurisdiction as a tool for administrative accountability:
1. The writ of Prohibition is available against private individuals or associations, and it is frequently used by the Supreme Court to check the exercise of discretionary powers by non-state entities.
2. The 42nd Amendment Act of 1976 removed the power of High Courts to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights, transferring this jurisdiction to the newly created Administrative Tribunals.
3. The Habeas Corpus writ was first codified in the Indian legal framework through the Government of India Act 1935, which allowed the Federal Court to review detentions made by provincial governors.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because the writ of Prohibition is issued only against judicial and quasi-judicial bodies to prevent them from exceeding their jurisdiction, not against private individuals. Statement 2 is incorrect as the 42nd Amendment did not remove the High Courts' writ jurisdiction; rather, it curtailed it, and Article 226 remains a fundamental power of High Courts, while Administrative Tribunals were established under Article 323A to adjudicate service matters, not to replace writ jurisdiction. Statement 3 is incorrect because Habeas Corpus is a common law writ rooted in English law and was enforceable in Indian courts long before 1935, and the Government of India Act 1935 did not introduce or codify this writ into the Indian legal framework.
Consider the following statements regarding Privileges of Parliament and their limits:
1. The Keshav Singh case (1964) involved a conflict between the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly and the Allahabad High Court regarding the extent of the power of the House to punish for contempt.
2. Article 194 of the Constitution governs the privileges of State Legislatures and provides that these powers are equivalent to those of the United States Congress as per the 1950 Adaptation of Laws Order.
3. The 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act of 1976 codified the specific parliamentary privileges under Article 105(3) and established a permanent statutory definition for the term 'breach of privilege'.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct as the 1964 Keshav Singh case established that the judiciary has the power to review the exercise of legislative privileges if they infringe upon fundamental rights. Statement 2 is incorrect because Article 194 equates state legislative privileges to those of the British House of Commons, not the U.S. Congress, as they existed at the time of the Constitution's commencement. Statement 3 is incorrect because parliamentary privileges have never been comprehensively codified by any constitutional amendment; they remain largely uncodified and are governed by the conventions of the British Parliament.
Consider the following statements regarding Judicial Review under Article 13 and 32:
1. Under the doctrine of eclipse, pre-constitutional laws inconsistent with fundamental rights are considered void ab initio, and they remain inoperative even after the relevant fundamental right is amended.
2. The Supreme Court in the Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980) case held that the power of judicial review under Article 32 is limited to administrative actions and does not extend to the validity of parliamentary legislation.
3. The 42nd Amendment Act of 1976 introduced Article 13A to provide the Supreme Court with the authority to review constitutional amendments, effectively limiting the scope of the basic structure doctrine.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because the doctrine of eclipse holds that pre-constitutional laws are not void ab initio but merely eclipsed and unenforceable, becoming operative again if the constitutional restriction is removed. Statement 2 is false as the Minerva Mills case (1980) reaffirmed that judicial review is a 'basic structure' of the Constitution, empowering the judiciary to invalidate parliamentary legislation that violates fundamental rights. Statement 3 is incorrect because the 42nd Amendment actually sought to curtail judicial review, and it was the Supreme Court in Minerva Mills that struck down those provisions, asserting that the power of judicial review is an essential feature of the Constitution.
Consider the following statements regarding Impeachment and Removal processes of Constitutional functionaries:
1. The removal of the Chairman of the Union Public Service Commission follows the procedure outlined in Article 317, which involves a reference to the Supreme Court for an inquiry into the grounds of misbehaviour.
2. The Comptroller and Auditor General of India is removed from office in the same manner and on the like grounds as a Judge of the Supreme Court, as specified under Article 148(2) of the Constitution.
3. The Election Commission of India provides for the removal of the Chief Election Commissioner through a resolution passed by a simple majority in the Lok Sabha, following the recommendation of the President.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because while the Chairman of the UPSC is removed by the President based on an inquiry by the Supreme Court, this is mandated under Article 317(1), not a general 'impeachment' process. Statement 2 is incorrect because Article 148(1) stipulates that the CAG is removed in the same manner and on the like grounds as a Judge of the Supreme Court, but Article 148(2) actually pertains to the form of oath and conditions of service. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Chief Election Commissioner is removed in the same manner and on the like grounds as a Judge of the Supreme Court, requiring a special majority in both Houses of Parliament, not a simple majority in the Lok Sabha.
Consider the following statements regarding Inter-state Council and Cooperative Federalism:
1. The Standing Committee of the Inter-State Council is chaired by the Union Finance Minister and includes five Union Cabinet Ministers as members.
2. Article 263 of the Indian Constitution empowers the President to define the nature of the duties to be performed by the Inter-State Council.
3. The Inter-State Council was established in 1990 by a Presidential Order following the recommendation of the Sarkaria Commission.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because the Standing Committee of the Inter-State Council is chaired by the Union Home Minister, not the Finance Minister. Statement 2 is correct as Article 263 empowers the President to define the nature of duties to be performed by the Council, which acts as a constitutional body to facilitate coordination between states. Statement 3 is correct because the Inter-State Council was indeed established in 1990 through a Presidential Order based on the recommendations of the Sarkaria Commission to promote center-state and inter-state cooperation.
Consider the following statements regarding Contempt of Court as a check on judicial criticism:
1. The Contempt of Courts (Amendment) Act, 2006 introduced the defense of truth, which allows a person to plead justification by truth if the court finds the disclosure serves the public interest.
2. Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 provides that the Supreme Court can take cognizance of criminal contempt on its own motion or on a motion made by the Attorney General.
3. The inherent powers of the High Courts to punish for contempt are derived from Article 215, which mirrors the provisions granted to the Supreme Court under the 1950 Judicial Review Act.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because the Contempt of Courts (Amendment) Act, 2006 introduced truth as a valid defense, but it does not require proving 'public interest' as a condition for the defense. Statement 2 is incorrect because Section 15 allows the Supreme Court to take cognizance of criminal contempt on its own motion or on a motion made by the Attorney General OR the Solicitor General, not just the Attorney General. Statement 3 is incorrect because High Courts derive their power to punish for contempt from Article 215 of the Constitution as 'Courts of Record,' not from any '1950 Judicial Review Act,' which does not exist.
Consider the following statements regarding Contempt of Court as a check on judicial criticism:
1. The Bar Council of India Rules, 1975 contain specific guidelines regarding the professional conduct of advocates, including provisions that categorize public criticism of sitting judges as professional misconduct.
2. Article 129 of the Constitution of India declares the Supreme Court a court of record and grants it the power to punish for contempt of itself.
3. Article 142 of the Constitution enables the Supreme Court to pass decrees necessary for doing complete justice, a power frequently invoked to initiate suo motu contempt proceedings against executive officers.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 2 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 2 is correct as Article 129 explicitly establishes the Supreme Court as a 'court of record' with the inherent power to punish for contempt of itself. Statement 1 is incorrect because while the Bar Council of India Rules mandate that advocates must maintain a respectful attitude towards the court, there is no specific rule categorizing all public criticism of sitting judges as professional misconduct, as the right to fair criticism is protected under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Statement 3 is incorrect because, although Article 142 allows the Court to pass orders for 'complete justice,' contempt proceedings are primarily governed by the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and Article 129, rather than being a power derived from Article 142.
Consider the following statements regarding Inter-state Council and Cooperative Federalism:
1. The National Development Council, established in 1952, functions as the primary advisory body for the Inter-State Council regarding fiscal federalism.
2. The Zonal Councils were created under the States Reorganisation Act of 1956 and function as constitutional bodies chaired by the Union Home Minister.
3. The Inter-State Council serves as a permanent constitutional body that meets at least twice a year to resolve disputes between the Union and the States.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because the National Development Council is an extra-constitutional body, not an advisory body to the Inter-State Council. Statement 2 is incorrect because Zonal Councils are statutory bodies established under the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, not constitutional bodies. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Inter-State Council, established under Article 263, is a constitutional body, but it does not have a mandatory requirement to meet at least twice a year; it meets as and when necessary.
Consider the following statements regarding Judicial Activism vs Judicial Overreach:
1. Article 142 of the Constitution provides the Supreme Court with the power to pass decrees or orders necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it.
2. The 1981 S.P. Gupta case, also known as the First Judges Case, upheld the primacy of the Chief Justice of India in judicial appointments and incorporated the executive consultation process into Article 124.
3. The 1973 Kesavananda Bharati judgment introduced the Basic Structure doctrine, which serves as the legal basis for the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act of 1976 to limit judicial review powers.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct as Article 142 empowers the Supreme Court to pass orders for 'complete justice,' a provision frequently cited to justify judicial activism. Statement 2 is incorrect because the S.P. Gupta case (1981) actually upheld the primacy of the executive in judicial appointments, while the 'primacy of the CJI' was established later in the Second Judges Case (1993). Statement 3 is incorrect because the Basic Structure doctrine was established to limit the Parliament's amending power, whereas the 42nd Amendment Act (1976) was an attempt by the executive to curtail judicial review, which the Court later struck down in Minerva Mills (1980).
Consider the following statements regarding Privileges of Parliament and their limits:
1. Article 105 of the Constitution provides for the powers, privileges, and immunities of the Houses of Parliament and their members.
2. The 44th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1978 substituted the reference to the House of Commons in Article 105 with the practices of the British Parliament as they existed before that date.
3. The Supreme Court in the M.S.M. Sharma v. Sri Krishna Sinha case (1959) held that parliamentary privileges override the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
Statement 1 is correct as Article 105 explicitly defines the powers, privileges, and immunities of Parliament and its members. Statement 2 is correct because the 44th Amendment Act, 1978, removed the reference to the British House of Commons, stipulating that privileges would be those of the House of Commons as it existed on the date of the Constitution's commencement. Statement 3 is correct because the Supreme Court in the M.S.M. Sharma case ruled that the specific provisions of Article 105(2) prevail over the general right to freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a), meaning parliamentary privileges take precedence.
Consider the following statements regarding Central Vigilance Commission and anti-corruption oversight:
1. Under the Central Vigilance Commission Act of 2003, the Commission exercises superintendence over the Delhi Special Police Establishment in relation to investigations of offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. The Central Vigilance Commission possesses the power to inquire into complaints received under the Public Interest Disclosure and Protection of Informers Resolution, 2004.
3. The 2003 Act grants the Commission the authority to initiate direct criminal prosecution against Group A officers without seeking prior sanction from the concerned administrative ministry.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct as the CVC Act, 2003 empowers the Commission to exercise superintendence over the Delhi Special Police Establishment (CBI) regarding investigations under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Statement 2 is correct because the CVC is the designated agency to receive and act upon complaints under the Public Interest Disclosure and Protection of Informers (PIDPI) Resolution. Statement 3 is incorrect because the CVC acts as an advisory body and lacks the authority to initiate direct criminal prosecution; it must refer cases to the competent authority, and prosecution of public servants remains subject to the prior sanction requirements under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Consider the following statements regarding Constitutional morality as a restraint on executive discretion:
1. The 2017 Puttaswamy judgment established that the executive's power to process personal data is constrained by the constitutional morality inherent in the right to privacy.
2. Justice Indu Malhotra, in the 2018 Sabarimala dissent, noted that constitutional morality serves as a safeguard against the executive's potential to prioritize religious tradition over individual liberty.
3. In the 2019 Delhi v. Union of India case, the Supreme Court observed that the principle of constitutional morality prevents the executive from undermining the democratic governance structure of the NCT.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
All three statements are correct: the 2017 Puttaswamy judgment elevated privacy to a fundamental right, limiting executive data processing; Justice Indu Malhotraâs 2018 Sabarimala dissent emphasized that constitutional morality must supersede religious dogma to protect individual liberty; and the 2019 Delhi v. Union of India verdict ruled that constitutional morality mandates the executive respect the unique federal-democratic governance structure of the NCT, preventing arbitrary encroachment on elected powers.
Consider the following statements regarding Legislative control over Executive via Parliamentary Committees:
1. The Public Accounts Committee was first established in 1921 under the provisions of the Government of India Act 1919.
2. The Business Advisory Committee allocates time for the discussion of government legislative business and is chaired by the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha.
3. The Estimates Committee consists of 30 members, all of whom are elected by the Lok Sabha from amongst its members every year.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 2 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct as the Public Accounts Committee was established in 1921 following the Government of India Act 1919. Statement 3 is correct because the Estimates Committee comprises 30 members, all elected annually by the Lok Sabha from its members. Statement 2 is incorrect because the Business Advisory Committee is chaired by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha, not the Leader of the Opposition.
Consider the following statements regarding Role of the Governor in State Legislative processes:
1. The 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act of 1976 introduced the provision for the Governor to send a bill to the President, which aligns with the original intent of the 1950 Constituent Assembly debates.
2. The Governor possesses the power to promulgate ordinances under Article 213 when the State Legislative Assembly is not in session, provided the subject matter falls within the State List.
3. Article 201 of the Constitution provides for the President to direct the Governor to return a bill to the House, a power exercised by the President during the 1975 internal emergency period.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 2 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 2 is correct because Article 213 empowers the Governor to promulgate ordinances during the recess of the State Legislature, provided the subject falls under the State or Concurrent List. Statement 1 is incorrect because the provision for the Governor to reserve a bill for the President's consideration (Articles 200 and 201) was part of the original Constitution of 1950, not introduced by the 42nd Amendment. Statement 3 is incorrect because, while Article 201 allows the President to direct the Governor to return a bill for reconsideration, this specific power was not a unique feature of the 1975 emergency period, nor was it the primary mechanism used during that time.
Consider the following statements regarding Separation of Powers between Organs of State:
1. The Comptroller and Auditor General of India is appointed under Article 148, and the office functions as a wing of the Ministry of Finance to oversee the legislative appropriation of funds.
2. The Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) judgment identified the separation of powers as a part of the basic structure of the Indian Constitution.
3. Article 50 of the Constitution of India directs the State to take steps to separate the judiciary from the executive in the public services of the State.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because the CAG is an independent constitutional authority under Article 148 and is not a wing of the Ministry of Finance, ensuring its autonomy in auditing government accounts. Statement 2 is correct as the Supreme Court in the landmark Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) established that the separation of powers is a fundamental feature of the basic structure doctrine. Statement 3 is correct because Article 50 is a Directive Principle of State Policy that explicitly mandates the separation of the judiciary from the executive to ensure judicial independence.
Consider the following statements regarding Writs jurisdiction as a tool for administrative accountability:
1. The writ of Mandamus is available against the President of India or the Governors of States for the performance of their official duties, as established by the 1950 Supreme Court ruling in the AK Gopalan case.
2. The writ of Certiorari is issued by a higher court to a lower court or tribunal to correct an error of jurisdiction, and it is applicable even when the lower body acts in a purely administrative or executive capacity.
3. Article 32 of the Constitution provides for the suspension of writ jurisdiction during a financial emergency, as declared under Article 360, to ensure the stability of the national exchequer.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because Article 361 grants immunity to the President and Governors, making Mandamus unavailable against them. Statement 2 is incorrect because, per the A.K. Kraipak case (1970), Certiorari is issued only against judicial or quasi-judicial bodies, not purely administrative or executive authorities. Statement 3 is incorrect because Article 32 is a fundamental right that can only be suspended during a Proclamation of Emergency under Article 359, not during a Financial Emergency under Article 360.
Consider the following statements regarding Central Vigilance Commission and anti-corruption oversight:
1. The 1964 executive resolution established the Commission as a multi-member body comprising three Vigilance Commissioners to ensure regional representation in anti-corruption oversight.
2. The Central Vigilance Commission includes the Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation as an ex-officio member to facilitate coordination during the preliminary inquiry phase of high-profile cases.
3. The Vigilance Commissioner serves a fixed term of six years from the date of entry into office, consistent with the tenure provisions established for members of the Union Public Service Commission.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because the CVC was originally a single-member body, and even after becoming a multi-member statutory body in 2003, it comprises a Central Vigilance Commissioner and not more than two Vigilance Commissioners, not based on regional representation. Statement 2 is incorrect as the CBI Director is not an ex-officio member of the CVC; instead, the CVC exercises superintendence over the CBI regarding the Prevention of Corruption Act. Statement 3 is incorrect because the tenure of the Central Vigilance Commissioner and Vigilance Commissioners is four years or until they attain the age of 65, whichever is earlier, not six years.
Consider the following statements regarding Judicial Review under Article 13 and 32:
1. Article 13(2) of the Constitution prohibits the State from making any law that takes away or abridges the rights conferred by Part III.
2. The power of judicial review in India is derived from Articles 13, 32, and 226, allowing courts to declare legislative enactments unconstitutional.
3. In the A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) case, the Supreme Court initially adopted a narrow interpretation of the procedure established by law.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
Statement 1 is correct as Article 13(2) explicitly mandates that the State shall not make any law that takes away or abridges fundamental rights, rendering such laws void to the extent of the contravention. Statement 2 is correct because the judiciary derives its power of judicial review from Articles 13, 32, and 226, which empower the Supreme Court and High Courts to invalidate laws violating the Constitution. Statement 3 is correct because, in the 1950 A.K. Gopalan case, the Supreme Court adopted a restrictive 'procedure established by law' approach, which was later expanded to 'due process of law' following the Maneka Gandhi (1978) judgment.
Consider the following statements regarding Judicial Activism vs Judicial Overreach:
1. The Vishaka Guidelines, formulated by the Supreme Court in 1997, served as the primary legal framework for addressing sexual harassment at workplaces until the enactment of the 2013 Act.
2. The 1993 Second Judges Case established the Collegium system for the appointment of judges, a mechanism developed through judicial interpretation rather than a specific constitutional amendment.
3. In the 2014 Shreya Singhal v. Union of India judgment, the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act for being violative of Article 19(1)(a).
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
All three statements are correct: the Vishaka Guidelines (1997) filled a legislative vacuum regarding workplace harassment until the 2013 Act was passed; the Collegium system was introduced via the Second Judges Case (1993) through judicial interpretation of 'consultation' under Article 124; and the Shreya Singhal judgment (2014) struck down Section 66A of the IT Act for its vague and overbroad nature, which violated the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a). There are no incorrect statements.
Consider the following statements regarding Impeachment and Removal processes of Constitutional functionaries:
1. Article 124(4) of the Constitution provides that a Judge of the Supreme Court can be removed by an order of the President only after an address by each House of Parliament supported by a majority of the total membership of that House and a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting.
2. The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 regulates the procedure for the investigation and proof of the misbehaviour or incapacity of a Judge of the Supreme Court or of a High Court.
3. The Governor of a State holds office during the pleasure of the President and is subject to the same impeachment process as the President under Article 156, clause 3.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct as Article 124(4) mandates a special majority (total membership and two-thirds of those present and voting) for the removal of a Supreme Court judge. Statement 2 is correct because the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 provides the statutory framework for the investigation of proved misbehaviour or incapacity. Statement 3 is incorrect because, while the Governor holds office during the pleasure of the President, they are not subject to impeachment; the impeachment process under Article 61 is exclusively reserved for the President of India.
Consider the following statements regarding Role of the Governor in State Legislative processes:
1. The Supreme Court in the 2023 ruling of 'State of Punjab vs Principal Secretary to the Governor' clarified that the Governor cannot indefinitely withhold assent to bills.
2. Under Article 200 of the Constitution, the Governor may reserve a bill passed by the State Legislature for the consideration of the President.
3. When a bill is returned by the Governor for reconsideration under the first proviso to Article 200, the State Legislature is empowered to pass the bill again with or without amendments.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
Statement 1 is correct as the Supreme Court in 'State of Punjab vs Principal Secretary to the Governor (2023)' ruled that the Governor must act as soon as possible and cannot indefinitely withhold assent, as this would defeat the democratic process. Statement 2 is correct because Article 200 explicitly empowers the Governor to reserve bills for the President's consideration, particularly those that may endanger the position of the High Court. Statement 3 is correct because under the first proviso to Article 200, if the Governor returns a non-money bill for reconsideration, the legislature can pass it again with or without amendments, and the Governor is then constitutionally obligated to grant assent.
Consider the following statements regarding Power of Pardon as an Executive check on Judiciary:
1. Following the 2022 Supreme Court ruling in the Bilkis Bano case, the authority to grant remission for crimes investigated by central agencies is vested in the state where the convict is currently incarcerated.
2. In the 2014 Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India judgment, the Supreme Court held that an inordinate delay by the President or Governor in deciding a mercy petition serves as a ground for commuting a death sentence to life imprisonment.
3. The mercy jurisdiction under Article 72 encompasses the authority to grant a pardon for court-martial sentences, and this executive decision remains immune to judicial review regardless of the procedural fairness applied during the process.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 2 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 2 is correct because the Supreme Court in Shatrughan Chauhan (2014) ruled that an inordinate, unexplained delay by the President or Governor in deciding mercy petitions is a ground for commuting a death sentence to life imprisonment. Statement 1 is incorrect because the 2024 Bilkis Bano judgment clarified that the state where the crime was committed, not where the convict is incarcerated, has the jurisdiction to grant remission. Statement 3 is incorrect because, while Article 72 covers court-martial sentences, the Supreme Court in Epuru Sudhakar (2006) established that the exercise of mercy power is subject to limited judicial review on grounds of mala fides, arbitrariness, or procedural impropriety.
Consider the following statements regarding Separation of Powers between Organs of State:
1. The doctrine of 'checks and balances' finds its origin in the 1935 Government of India Act, which established the Federal Court and defined the appellate jurisdiction of the Privy Council.
2. Article 74 provides for a Council of Ministers to aid and advise the President, and the 44th Amendment Act of 1978 removed the provision for the President to return such advice for reconsideration.
3. The 42nd Amendment Act of 1976 introduced the concept of judicial review to define the boundaries between the legislature and the judiciary in the Preamble.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because the doctrine of 'checks and balances' is a constitutional principle famously articulated by Montesquieu, not an invention of the 1935 Act. Statement 2 is incorrect because the 44th Amendment Act of 1978 actually introduced the provision allowing the President to require the Council of Ministers to reconsider their advice once, whereas the 42nd Amendment had previously made such advice binding without exception. Statement 3 is incorrect because judicial review is a fundamental feature derived from the Constitution itself and interpreted by the Supreme Court (e.g., Kesavananda Bharati case), not introduced by the 42nd Amendment, which conversely sought to curtail judicial powers.
Consider the following statements regarding Legislative control over Executive via Parliamentary Committees:
1. The Committee on Public Undertakings was created in 1964 on the recommendation of the Krishna Menon Committee.
2. The Committee on Subordinate Legislation examines whether the powers to make regulations delegated by the Parliament are being properly exercised.
3. Departmentally Related Standing Committees were formally introduced in the Indian Parliament in 1993 to secure greater financial control.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
Statement 1 is correct as the Committee on Public Undertakings was established in 1964 following the recommendation of the Krishna Menon Committee. Statement 2 is correct because the Committee on Subordinate Legislation scrutinizes the executive's exercise of delegated legislative powers to ensure they remain within the scope of the parent Act. Statement 3 is correct as the 17 Departmentally Related Standing Committees were formally introduced in 1993 to strengthen parliamentary oversight over the executive's functioning and financial expenditures.
Consider the following statements regarding Role of Election Commission in ensuring free and fair elections:
1. The Delimitation Commission Act of 2002 allows the Election Commission to adjust the boundaries of parliamentary constituencies based on the 2011 Census data to ensure equal representation for all citizens.
2. The Electronic Voting Machines were first introduced in the 1982 Kerala Legislative Assembly elections, and their use was subsequently legalized by an amendment to the Constitution in 1989.
3. The Election Commission derives its power to recognize political parties from the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, which was enacted by Parliament to formalize the criteria for national party status.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because the Delimitation Commission Act, 2002, used the 2001 Census, not the 2011 Census, for boundary adjustments. Statement 2 is false as EVMs were first used in the 1982 Paravur constituency election in Kerala, but their use was legalized by an amendment to the Representation of the People Act, 1951, in 1989, not by a Constitutional amendment. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, was issued by the Election Commission of India in the exercise of its powers under Article 324, not by an Act of Parliament.
Consider the following statements regarding Judicial Review under Article 13 and 32:
1. Article 32 provides the right to move the Supreme Court for the enforcement of fundamental rights, which Dr. B.R. Ambedkar described as the heart and soul of the Constitution.
2. The doctrine of severability, often applied under Article 13, allows the court to strike down only the offending portion of a statute while upholding the remainder.
3. The Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) judgment established that the power of judicial review constitutes a part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
Statement 1 is correct as Article 32 empowers the Supreme Court to issue writs for fundamental rights enforcement, famously termed the 'heart and soul' by Dr. Ambedkar. Statement 2 is correct because the doctrine of severability under Article 13 ensures that if a part of a law is unconstitutional, only that specific portion is invalidated, preserving the rest of the statute. Statement 3 is correct as the landmark 1973 Kesavananda Bharati case established that judicial review is an essential feature of the basic structure, meaning it cannot be curtailed even by constitutional amendment.
Consider the following statements regarding Financial accountability through Comptroller and Auditor General:
1. The Comptroller and Auditor General maintains the accounts for both the Union and the States, and these accounts are audited by a separate parliamentary committee established under the 1976 amendment to the Constitution.
2. Under the Comptroller and Auditor General's (Duties, Powers and Conditions of Service) Act of 1971, the CAG is empowered to audit the receipts and expenditure of bodies or authorities substantially financed from the Consolidated Fund.
3. The Comptroller and Auditor General submits three audit reports-appropriation accounts, finance accounts, and public undertakings-to the President, who lays them before each House of Parliament.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because, following the 1976 separation of accounts from audit, the CAG is no longer responsible for maintaining accounts for the Union, and there is no constitutional amendment that established a separate parliamentary committee for this purpose. Statement 2 is correct as the 1971 Act empowers the CAG to audit bodies substantially financed by the Consolidated Fund of India or States. Statement 3 is correct because the CAG submits three distinct audit reports-Appropriation Accounts, Finance Accounts, and Public Undertakings-to the President, who then ensures they are laid before Parliament as per Article 151.
Consider the following statements regarding Ordinance making power as a conditional legislative tool:
1. The 44th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1978 removed the finality of the President's satisfaction regarding ordinances and established a fixed six-week timeline for the introduction of a replacement bill in the Rajya Sabha.
2. The Cooper v. Union of India case of 1970 determined that the ordinance-making power is a parallel legislative power, allowing the executive to bypass the legislative process for fiscal policy adjustments.
3. Article 213 provides the Governor of a state the authority to issue ordinances, which follow the same parliamentary approval process as Article 123 but are limited to the Concurrent List of the Seventh Schedule.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because the 38th Amendment (not 44th) originally made the President's satisfaction final, while the 44th Amendment restored judicial review; furthermore, the six-week timeline applies to both Houses of Parliament, not just the Rajya Sabha. Statement 2 is incorrect as the Cooper case (1970) and D.C. Wadhwa case (1987) established that ordinance-making is not a parallel power and is subject to judicial review if the executive acts mala fide or bypasses the legislature. Statement 3 is incorrect because Article 213 empowers Governors to issue ordinances on any matter within the State or Concurrent List, provided the subject matter falls within the legislative competence of the State Legislature.
Consider the following statements regarding Doctrine of Pith and Substance in Legislative competence:
1. The doctrine of pith and substance is distinct from the doctrine of colorable legislation, as the former focuses on the dominant subject matter of the law while the latter examines whether the legislature has transgressed its power under the guise of acting within it.
2. In the 1994 S.R. Bommai v. Union of India judgment, the Supreme Court applied the pith and substance test to define the scope of Article 356 and the federal distribution of powers during the imposition of President's Rule.
3. The 1954 Delhi Laws Act reference case established that the pith and substance doctrine allows the legislature to delegate its essential legislative functions to the executive branch when the subject matter overlaps between the Concurrent and State Lists.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct because the Doctrine of Pith and Substance examines the 'true nature and character' of a law to determine if it falls within the legislature's competence, whereas the Doctrine of Colorable Legislation focuses on the 'motive' or 'indirect transgression' of power. Statement 2 is incorrect because S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) dealt with the judicial review of the proclamation of President's Rule under Article 356, not the pith and substance test. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Delhi Laws Act case (1951) established the limits of 'delegated legislation' and explicitly held that the legislature cannot delegate its 'essential legislative functions' to the executive, regardless of list overlaps.
Consider the following statements regarding Doctrine of Basic Structure as a check on Parliament:
1. The Golaknath v. State of Punjab judgment of 1967 established the doctrine of basic structure by limiting the amending power of Parliament under Article 368 to preserve fundamental rights.
2. The 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act of 1976 attempted to insert clauses 4 and 5 into Article 368, which the Supreme Court subsequently struck down in the 1980 Minerva Mills case.
3. The Supreme Court of India first articulated the doctrine of basic structure in the Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala judgment delivered on 24 April 1973.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because the Golaknath case (1967) ruled that Parliament could not amend Fundamental Rights, but the 'Basic Structure' doctrine was not established until the 1973 Kesavananda Bharati judgment. Statement 2 is correct as the 42nd Amendment attempted to give Parliament unlimited amending power, which the Supreme Court struck down in the 1980 Minerva Mills case for violating the basic structure. Statement 3 is correct because the Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala judgment (1973) formally introduced the doctrine, asserting that Parliament cannot alter the 'basic structure' of the Constitution.
Consider the following statements regarding Public Accounts Committee and Expenditure Audit:
1. The Comptroller and Auditor General of India is appointed by the President for a fixed term of six years or until the age of 65, and the office derives its authority from Article 151 of the Constitution.
2. The Committee on Public Undertakings was established in 1964 based on the recommendations of the Krishna Menon Committee, and it includes members from the Cabinet.
3. The Departmental Standing Committees were introduced in 1993 to oversee the functioning of various ministries, and these committees possess the authority to modify the budgetary allocations proposed by the Finance Ministry.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because while the CAG's tenure is six years or age 65, its authority is derived from Article 148, whereas Article 151 pertains to the submission of audit reports. Statement 2 is incorrect because, although the Committee on Public Undertakings was established in 1964 on the recommendation of the Krishna Menon Committee, ministers are specifically barred from being members of this committee. Statement 3 is incorrect because, while Departmental Standing Committees were indeed introduced in 1993, they function in an advisory capacity and lack the authority to modify budgetary allocations proposed by the government.
Consider the following statements regarding Power of Pardon as an Executive check on Judiciary:
1. The Supreme Court in the 1951 Nanavati v. State of Bombay case clarified that the Governor's power to suspend a sentence remains operational even while the matter is sub-judice before the Supreme Court under Article 136.
2. Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the state government holds the power to suspend or remit sentences for offenses investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation, provided the trial occurred within that state's jurisdiction.
3. The 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act of 1976 introduced the requirement for the President to record reasons for the grant of pardon, which was subsequently upheld by the 1989 Kehar Singh case.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because in Nanavati v. State of Bombay (1961), the Supreme Court ruled that the Governor's power to suspend a sentence is subject to the sub-judice rule and cannot be exercised once a Special Leave Petition is filed under Article 136. Statement 2 is incorrect because Section 435 of the CrPC mandates that for cases investigated by the CBI, the state government must act only after consultation with the Central Government. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Constitution does not mandate the recording of reasons for the grant of pardon, and the Kehar Singh case (1989) clarified that while the President's order is subject to limited judicial review, there is no constitutional requirement to provide written reasons.
Consider the following statements regarding Doctrine of Basic Structure as a check on Parliament:
1. The Waman Rao v. Union of India judgment of 1981 defined the cut-off date for the application of the basic structure doctrine as the commencement of the Constitution on 26 January 1950.
2. The Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain case of 1975 involved a challenge to the 39th Constitutional Amendment, leading the court to invalidate the election of the Prime Minister based on the principle of federalism.
3. The 24th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1971 restored the plenary power of Parliament to amend the Constitution, which the Supreme Court upheld as consistent with the basic structure in the Shankari Prasad case.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because the Waman Rao case (1981) established 24 April 1973 (the date of the Kesavananda Bharati judgment) as the cut-off date, not 1950. Statement 2 is incorrect because the 39th Amendment was invalidated based on the principles of 'free and fair elections' and 'rule of law,' not federalism. Statement 3 is incorrect because the 24th Amendment was challenged in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), and the Shankari Prasad case (1951) occurred long before the Basic Structure doctrine was even conceptualized.
Consider the following statements regarding Writs jurisdiction as a tool for administrative accountability:
1. The Supreme Court of India in the 1974 Maneka Gandhi case expanded the scope of Article 32 by linking the right to life with the principles of natural justice and administrative fairness.
2. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Courts possess the authority to issue writs to any person or authority, including the government, within their territorial jurisdiction.
3. The writ of Quo-Warranto is issued by a court to prevent illegal usurpation of a public office, provided the office is of a substantive character created by a statute or the Constitution.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
Statement 1 is correct because the 1978 Maneka Gandhi judgment (not 1974) revolutionized Article 21 by establishing that administrative actions affecting life and liberty must satisfy the 'test of reasonableness' and principles of natural justice. Statement 2 is correct as Article 226 grants High Courts wider powers than the Supreme Court, allowing them to issue writs to any person or authority, including governments, within their territorial jurisdiction. Statement 3 is correct because Quo-Warranto serves as a tool for administrative accountability by ensuring that only legally qualified individuals hold public offices created by the Constitution or statute.
Consider the following statements regarding Doctrine of Basic Structure as a check on Parliament:
1. The doctrine of basic structure finds its origin in the German Basic Law of 1949, which the Indian judiciary adopted through the judicial review provisions of Article 13 during the 1973 constitutional crisis.
2. The Preamble to the Constitution was declared a part of the basic structure in the Berubari Union case of 1960, providing a interpretive tool for the judiciary to limit legislative amendments.
3. The Ninth Schedule was introduced by the First Constitutional Amendment Act of 1951, and the Supreme Court in the I.R. Coelho case held that laws placed within it are immune to judicial review.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because the doctrine is a judicial innovation of the Indian Supreme Court (Kesavananda Bharati case, 1973), not a direct adoption from German law. Statement 2 is incorrect because the Berubari Union case (1960) explicitly held that the Preamble is not a part of the Constitution, a position later reversed in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973). Statement 3 is incorrect because, while the Ninth Schedule was added by the First Amendment, the I.R. Coelho case (2007) ruled that laws placed in the Ninth Schedule after April 24, 1973, are subject to judicial review if they violate the basic structure.
Consider the following statements regarding Constitutional morality as a restraint on executive discretion:
1. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, in his speech to the Constituent Assembly on November 4, 1948, described constitutional morality as a paramount reverence for the forms of the Constitution.
2. In the 2018 Navtej Singh Johar judgment, the Supreme Court held that constitutional morality acts as a counter-majoritarian check on executive discretion.
3. The 2018 Sabarimala temple entry verdict invoked constitutional morality to limit the executive's reliance on customary practices that infringe upon fundamental rights.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
Statement 1 is correct as Dr. Ambedkar defined constitutional morality in 1948 as a 'paramount reverence' for the forms of the Constitution, emphasizing that legal forms must be tempered by the spirit of the law. Statement 2 is correct because the Navtej Singh Johar judgment (2018) explicitly recognized constitutional morality as a transformative tool that prevents majoritarian impulses from overriding individual fundamental rights. Statement 3 is correct as the Sabarimala verdict (2018) utilized the doctrine to subordinate customary practices and religious traditions to the constitutional mandate of equality and non-discrimination, thereby restraining executive inaction or support for exclusionary customs.
Consider the following statements regarding Financial accountability through Comptroller and Auditor General:
1. The audit jurisdiction of the Comptroller and Auditor General includes the accounts of the Reserve Bank of India and the Life Insurance Corporation, as defined by the 1950 Audit and Accounts Order.
2. The administrative expenses of the office of the Comptroller and Auditor General, including all salaries and pensions, are charged upon the Consolidated Fund of India.
3. The Comptroller and Auditor General provides the final certification for the annual financial statement presented to Parliament, which acts as the legal basis for the authorization of the Appropriation Bill.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 2 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 2 is correct because Article 148 of the Constitution mandates that the administrative expenses of the CAG's office, including salaries and pensions, are charged upon the Consolidated Fund of India to ensure independence. Statement 1 is incorrect because the CAG's audit jurisdiction over bodies like the RBI and LIC is governed by specific statutes (e.g., the CAG's DPC Act, 1971) rather than the 1950 Order, and the CAG does not audit the RBI. Statement 3 is incorrect because the CAG audits accounts after expenditure is incurred and submits reports to the President; the final certification of the Annual Financial Statement (Budget) is a function of the Finance Ministry, not the CAG.
Consider the following statements regarding Delegated Legislation and its Parliamentary Oversight:
1. The 'laying on the table' procedure provides a mechanism for Parliament to modify or annul subordinate legislation within a period of 30 days, as often specified in the enabling statute.
2. The Administrative Procedure Act of 1956 provides a framework for public consultation during the rule-making process, which the Cabinet Secretary oversees to ensure inter-departmental coordination.
3. The scrutiny of delegated legislation by the Rajya Sabha Committee on Subordinate Legislation involves examining whether the executive has exceeded the scope of the parent Act passed in 1952.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 2 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct as the 'laying on the table' procedure allows Parliament to review subordinate legislation, typically within a 30-day period as prescribed by the parent Act. Statement 3 is correct because the Committee on Subordinate Legislation, established in 1953, is mandated to scrutinize whether the executive's rules remain within the powers delegated by the parent Act. Statement 2 is incorrect because there is no 'Administrative Procedure Act of 1956' in India; the rule-making process is governed by individual enabling statutes and the General Clauses Act, 1897, rather than a single comprehensive administrative procedure law.