Daily subject-wise quiz: Polity and Governance MCQs on panchayat elections, Article 356 of the Constitution and more (Week 121)
🚨 Click Here to read the UPSC Essentials magazine for July 2025. Share your views and suggestions in the comment box or at manas.srivastava@indianexpress.com🚨
With reference to article 356 of the Constitution, consider the following statements:
1. According to the provisions of Article 356, the President's Rule in a state can be imposed for one month at a time.
2. It empowers the President to withdraw only legislative powers and not the executive powers and financial powers of any state.
3. Article 356 was inspired by the Government of India Act of 1909.
How many of the above statements are correct?
(a) Only one
(b) Only two
(c) All three
(d) None
Explanation
— The Union Home Minister moved a resolution in Rajya Sabha to extend the President's Rule in Manipur for another six months. Article 356 of the Indian Constitution contains provisions for the imposition of 'President's Rule' in a state, removing an elected government.
— Article 356 was inspired by Section 93 of the Government of India Act of 1935. Hence, statement 3 is not correct.
— Article 356 empowers the President to withdraw executive and legislative powers of any state 'if he is satisfied that a situation has arisen in which the government of the state cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution'. Hence, statement 2 is not correct.
— According to the provisions of Article 356, the President's Rule in a state can be imposed for six months at a time for a maximum duration of three years. Every six months, Parliamentary approval to impose President's Rule will be required again. Hence, statement 1 is not correct.
Therefore, option (d) is the correct answer.
Consider the following statements:
1. The Chairman or Speaker, or person acting as such, shall not vote in the first instance, but shall have and exercise a casting vote in the case of an equality of votes.
2. The quorum to constitute a meeting of either House of Parliament shall be one-fifth of the total number of members of the House.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
(a) 1 only
(b) 2 only
(c) Both 1 and 2
(d) Neither 1 nor 2
Explanation
— The Chairman or Speaker, or person acting as such, shall not vote in the first instance, but shall have and exercise a casting vote in the case of an equality of votes. Hence, statement 1 is correct.
— Either House of Parliament has the authority to act despite any vacancy in its membership, and any proceedings in Parliament are valid even if it is later discovered that someone who was not entitled to do so sat, voted, or otherwise participated in the proceedings.
— Until Parliament by law otherwise provides, the quorum to constitute a meeting of either House of Parliament shall be one-tenth of the total number of members of the House. Hence, statement 2 is not correct.
— If at any time during a meeting of a House there is no quorum, it shall be the duty of the Chairman or Speaker, or person acting as such, either to adjourn the House or to suspend the meeting until there is a quorum.
Therefore, option (a) is the correct answer.
(Source: Constitution of India)
With reference to the panchayat elections, consider the following statements:
1. All the seats in a Panchayat shall be filled by persons chosen by indirect election.
2. The ratio between the population of the territorial area of a Panchayat at any level and the number of seats in such Panchayat to be filled by election varies throughout the state.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
(a) 1 only
(b) 2 only
(c) Both 1 and 2
(d) Neither 1 nor 2
Explanation
— There shall be constituted in every State, Panchayats at the village, intermediate and district levels.
— Panchayats at the intermediate level may not be constituted in a State having a population not exceeding twenty lakhs.
— The ratio of the population of a Panchayat's territorial area at whatever level to the number of seats to be filled by election shall, to the greatest extent possible, remain same throughout the State. Hence, statement 2 is not correct.
— All seats in a Panchayat shall be filled by people elected directly from territorial constituencies in the Panchayat area. Hence, statement 1 is not correct.
Therefore, option (d) is the correct answer.
(Other Source: Constitution of India)
Consider the following statements about the Ninth Schedule:
1. The schedule became part of the Constitution by the Twenty-Seventh Amendment.
2. It contains a list of central and state laws that cannot be challenged in court on the violation of fundamental rights.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
(a) 1 only
(b) 2 only
(c) Both 1 and 2
(d) Neither 1 nor 2
Explanation
— The Ninth Schedule contains a list of central and state laws which cannot be challenged in court. Currently, 284 such laws are shielded from judicial review.
— Most of the laws protected under the Schedule concern agriculture/land issues.
— The Schedule became a part of the Constitution in 1951 when the document was amended for the first time. Hence, statement 1 is not correct.
— It was created by the new Article 31B, which along with 31A was brought in by the government to protect laws related to agrarian reform and for abolishing the Zamindari system. While A. 31A extends protection to 'classes' of laws, A. 31B shields specific laws or enactments.
— The First Amendment added 13 laws to the Schedule. Subsequent amendments in 1955, 1964, 1971, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1984, 1990, 1994, and 1999 have taken the number of protected laws to 284.
— When the Tamil Nadu law was challenged in 2007 (I R Coelho v State of Tamil Nadu), the Supreme Court ruled in a unanimous nine-judge verdict that while laws placed under Ninth Schedule cannot be challenged on the grounds of violation of fundamental rights, they can be challenged on the ground of violating the basic structure of the Constitution. Hence, statement 2 is correct.
Therefore, option (b) is the correct answer.
With reference to the preamble, consider the following statements:
1. The ideals behind the preamble were first laid down in the Objectives Resolution.
2. The preamble is 'non-justiciable'.
3. The 42nd Amendment to the Constitution replaced the words 'sovereign democratic republic' with 'sovereign socialist secular democratic republic'.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
(a) Only one
(b) Only two
(c) All three
(d) None
Explanation
— A preamble serves as an introduction to a document and contains its basic principles and goals.
— When the Indian Constitution was being drafted, the ideals behind the preamble were first laid down in the Objectives Resolution, adopted by the Constituent Assembly in 1947. Hence, statement 1 is correct.
— Additionally, the violation of any principle mentioned in the preamble cannot be a reason to go to court, meaning the preamble is 'non-justiciable' — however, judgments of courts can cite it as an additional factor in their reasoning, given that it constitutes the spirit of the Constitution. Hence, statement 2 is correct.
— The 42nd Amendment to the Constitution, passed in 1976 when the Emergency was in place, replaced the words 'sovereign democratic republic' with 'sovereign socialist secular democratic republic'. Hence, statement 3 is correct.
— The amendment also changed 'unity of the nation' to 'unity and integrity of the nation'.
Therefore, option (c) is the correct answer.
Daily Subject-wise quiz — History, Culture, and Social Issues (Week 119)
Daily subject-wise quiz — Polity and Governance (Week 120)
Daily subject-wise quiz — Science and Technology (Week 120)
Daily subject-wise quiz — Economy (Week 120)
Daily subject-wise quiz — Environment and Geography (Week 120)
Daily subject-wise quiz – International Relations (Week 120)
Subscribe to our UPSC newsletter and stay updated with the news cues from the past week.
Stay updated with the latest UPSC articles by joining our Telegram channel – IndianExpress UPSC Hub, and follow us on Instagram and X.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
14 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
End ‘inhuman' hand-pulled rickshaws in Matheran: SC
The Supreme Court on Wednesday ordered immediate phasing out of hand-driven rickshaws in Maharashtra's hill town of Matheran within six months, observing that continuation of such an inhuman practice in a developing country like India violates human dignity and betrays the constitutional guarantee of social and economic justice to all citizens. End 'inhuman' hand-pulled rickshaws in Matheran: SC Dealing with an issue concerning plying of e-rickshaws in Matheran, one of the few towns in the country where vehicular traffic is prohibited, the top court was informed that to service the transportation needs of about 8 lakh tourists visiting the hill station annually and over 4,000 residents living in the town, hand-driven rickshaws are still in vogue. The bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan R Gavai said, 'Continuing such practice even after 78 years of independence and after 75 years of the Constitution being enacted promising social and economic justice to its citizens, would be betraying the promise given by the people of India to themselves.' Granting six months for the state to phase out hand-rickshaw pullers and in the meantime, framing a scheme for their rehabilitation, the court further held, 'We direct the state to forthwith stop plying of hand-held rickshaws in a phased manner and in any case within six months.' The court noted that persons pulling hand-held rickshaws are victims of circumstances who have no alternate source of livelihood and such practices were held to be against the goal of social justice by the top court in a 1980 decision in Azad Rickshaw Pullers union v State of Punjab. 'It is really unfortunate that after 45 years of the decision of this court, the inhuman practice of a human being pulling another human being is still prevalent in the town of Matheran…Permitting such an inhuman practice which is against the basic concept of human dignity in a country like India, which is a developing country, belittles the constitutional promise of social and economic justice,' the bench held. The court was conscious that ending this practice will entail depriving them of their source of livelihood. The court noted that with advancement of technology, e-rickshaws are now available which are eco-friendly and operate on batteries. The court directed the Maharashtra government that while evolving a scheme for rehabilitating the hand-held drivers, the state must consider a novel scheme launched by Gujarat government in Kevadia, where e-rickshaw licenses on hire has been provided to local Adivasi women who ferry tourists visiting the town to witness the Statue of Unity - a massive 600-feet statue of Sardar Vallabbhai Patel, and the Sardar Sarovar dam. The court asked the state to consider giving priority to hand-held rickshaw pullers in getting the licenses for e-rickshaws and also consider tribal women among other needy persons in and around Matheran. The court was assisted in passing the order by senior advocate K Parmeshwar assisting the court as amicus curiae who insisted that only 20 e-rickshaws should be permitted for now. The court further permitted laying of paver blocks on the main city road from Kasturi Naka to Shivaji Statue (4-km long stretch) without any concrete bedding to ensure the roads are motorable by rickshaws, horse carts even during monsoons. The hand-held rickshaw pullers and horse-cart pullers were represented by senior advocate Shyam Divan and advocate Nina Nariman who took the court through the adverse effects of concreting the roads. However, the court permitted no paver blocks on the internal town roads and the trekking route. The court allowed the state to consider sponsoring the e-rickshaw scheme through corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiative or any other scheme but clarified that non-availability of funds will not be treated as an excuse for not implementing the scheme. Matheran located in the Western Ghats was declared an eco-sensitive zone by the Centre in 2003 and is home to several species of flora and fauna including the bonnet macaque, Hanuman langur, Malabar giant squirrel, and barking deer among others.
Time of India
36 minutes ago
- Time of India
INDIA bloc hails Telangana govt's BC quota Bill
Hyderabad: INDIA bloc leaders on Wednesday hailed Telangana govt's move to give 42% reservation to BCs in education, employment and local governance. In a post on X, Leader of the Opposition in Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi, said: "The Telangana government and Congress sat on a dharna in Delhi today, demanding the President's assent to the law. .. This law is a major advance towards the Constitution's vision of social justice, grounded in data from the caste census." Thanking INDIA leaders for voicing their support to the Bill, he said that it was a collective effort to ensure all Indians from marginalised communities have their rightful share in power and progress. You Can Also Check: Hyderabad AQI | Weather in Hyderabad | Bank Holidays in Hyderabad | Public Holidays in Hyderabad Congress MP Priyanka Gandhi, in a post on X, stated: "The Congress govt in Telangana has passed a historic Bill ensuring 42% reservation for OBCs in education, employment, and local governance — a bold step grounded in caste census data. But the Bill remains stuck, awaiting the President's assent. This is not just Telangana's fight — it's a national call for justice, equity, and rightful representation for marginalised communities. Justice delayed is justice denied." Several opposition parties of the INDIA bloc extended their support to chief minister A Revanth Reddy-led protest, demanding presidential assent to the two Bills. Speaking at the dharna at Jantar Mantar in Delhi, DMK MP Kanimozhi Karunanidhi said: "How can they say there is a cap of 50% on reservations? How can there be a cap on justice? How can you say there should be only 50% justice? This programme is a big step towards making a big wrong into right... by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Villas For Sale in Dubai Might Surprise You Villas In Dubai | Search Ads Get Rates Undo Tamil Nadu has been a forerunner in securing reservations for OBCs, and today the TN state has 69% reservation," she said, and added that governors are becoming a tool of oppression for the BJP. Samajwadi Party MP Dharmendra Yadav demanded Centre's support to the Bill, and said, "Uttar Pradesh and the entire SP party stands with Telangana in this fight." NCP MP Supriya Sule said Revanth, in the past, had told her that he will not rest until Congress comes to power in Telangana. "He did it, and from zero to becoming a CM, his intention was always to ensure the Congress flag flies high. The NCP is with him towards achieving 42% quota for BCs," she said. Inset: Hope Parl supports T BC Bills: Bhatti Hyderabad: Telangana deputy chief minister Bhatti Vikramarka said reservation for BCs is not a matter of politics between Congress and BJP, but an issue between the state govt and the central govt. "We have completed all statutory formalities. Now it is up to the Centre to give its approval. The BJP supported the Bill in the Assembly, and I hope they will support it in Parliament too. The ordinance to remove the 50% cap should also be approved along with two BC quota Bills, if not the 50% would still apply," he said. Telangana irrigation minister N Uttam Kumar Reddy alleged that the President did not give assent to the BC Bills and the ordinance due to pressure from the BJP, which is anti-BC.
United News of India
40 minutes ago
- United News of India
'One human pulling another is inhuman': Supreme Court bans hand-pulled rickshaws in Matheran
New Delhi, Aug 6 (UNI) In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court today condemned the continued use of hand-pulled rickshaws, calling the practice inhuman and violative of the right to dignity guaranteed by the Constitution. The Court held that such manual labor, which involves a human being pulling another, must be abolished immediately, especially after 78 years of Independence and 75 years of the Constitution. A three judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai, Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice N.V. Anjaria passed the directions while hearing issues related to the ongoing e-rickshaw pilot project in the eco-sensitive hill town of Matheran, Maharashtra. The Court observed that individuals are compelled to adopt this inhumane form of labour due to poverty and lack of alternatives. Emphasizing that such practices betray the constitutional ideals of social and economic justice, the bench remarked: 'Permitting such a practice, which is against the basic concept of human dignity in a country like India, belittles the constitutional promises of social and economic justice.' Referring to the Court's own 1980 judgment in Azad Rickshaw Pullers Union vs State of Punjab, the bench noted that even 45 years after its observations on the incompatibility of cycle-pulled rickshaws with social justice, manual rickshaw pulling remains prevalent in Matheran. The Court stated, 'The question that we ask ourselves is whether this practice is alive to the Constitutional promise of social and economic equality and social and economic justice. The answer will, unfortunately, have to be in the negative... To continue such a human practice even after 78 years of Independence... would be betraying the promise given by the people of India to themselves.' Citing the precedent in People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, where non-payment of minimum wages was held to be forced labour under Article 23, the Court emphasized that the State has a responsibility to rehabilitate those dependent on such degrading work and provide viable alternatives. The bench held that e-rickshaws represent such an alternative and directed the State of Maharashtra to implement an e-rickshaw scheme for genuine rickshaw pullers. The Supreme Court directed that there should be a phased abolition of hand-pulled rickshaws in Matheran within six months. Implementation of an e-rickshaw scheme modeled on Kevadia (Gujarat), where the State will purchase e-rickshaws and allot them on hire to genuine handcart pullers. The Matheran Monitoring Committee, chaired by the local Collector, will identify genuine rickshaw pullers and determine the required number of e-rickshaws based on ground realities. Remaining e-rickshaws may be allocated to tribal women and other locals to ensure sustainable livelihoods. Laying of paver blocks from Dasturi Naka to Shivaji Statue is permitted, but not on internal roads or trading routes. Concrete blocks to be replaced with paver blocks where applicable. The State is cautioned that lack of funds cannot be used as an excuse for non-implementation. The Court stressed, 'We clarify that non-availability of funds cannot be an excuse for non-implementation of the aforesaid scheme. We earnestly hope that the State would tender necessary assistance in stopping such an inhumane practice.' Due to environmental concerns, Matheran prohibits the use of motor vehicles, with only emergency services such as fire trucks and ambulances allowed. The Court noted that eco-friendly e-rickshaws are a viable alternative. This ruling comes in the backdrop of ongoing proceedings in the T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad case, a continuing mandamus litigation concerning forest and environmental protection. In earlier hearings, the Court had permitted the introduction of 20 e-rickshaws in Matheran on a pilot basis, with clear instructions that these be allotted to existing handcart pullers. The plan had faced resistance from local horsemen's associations, who sought modifications to the scheme. In April this year, the Court had allowed these e-rickshaw owners, all former handcart pullers, to operate them for transporting tourists and residents in the town. Senior Advocates Shyam Divan, Colin Gonsalves, and K. Parameswar (Amicus Curiae) appeared in the matter. UNI SNG RN
