Olympiad Test Level 2: Indian Polity- 2 - Class 7 MCQ

India is Sovereign, Socialist, Secular, Democratic Republic

3. Equal pay for equal work

"Equal pay for equal work" is a Directive Principle of State Policy, not a fundamental right. It is mentioned in Article 39(d) of the Indian Constitution.

Introduction:
In a democracy, protecting the freedom of every citizen is one of the most crucial tasks. It ensures that individuals have the right to express their opinions, beliefs, and ideas without fear of persecution or discrimination.
Explanation:
The given options suggest various aspects related to religious freedom. Let's evaluate each option to determine the correct answer:
- Option A: Every religious community. While protecting the freedom of religious communities is important, it does not encompass the entire population and may exclude individuals who do not belong to any particular religious group.
- Option B: Converting to another religion than your own. While freedom of religion includes the right to convert, it is just one aspect of religious freedom. Protecting the freedom of every citizen extends beyond the act of conversion.
- Option C: Every citizen. This option is the correct answer. Protecting the freedom of every citizen ensures that all individuals, regardless of their religious beliefs or membership in any community, have the right to express themselves freely.
- Option D: Allowing religious meetings to be held. While allowing religious meetings is an important aspect of religious freedom, it does not cover the broader concept of protecting the freedom of every citizen.
Conclusion:
In a democracy, protecting the freedom of every citizen is of utmost importance. It ensures that individuals have the right to express their opinions, beliefs, and ideas without any discrimination or persecution based on their religious affiliation or lack thereof.

Explanation:
The President of India can nominate 2 members belonging to the Anglo-Indian community in the Parliament in case none of the above conditions are met. Let's break down each option to understand why the answer is D:
A: Lok Sabha has adequate representation.
- If the Lok Sabha has adequate representation, there is no need for the President to nominate members from the Anglo-Indian community. The Anglo-Indian community representation is only considered when there is inadequate representation.
B: Lok Sabha has inadequate representation.
- This option is not relevant because the President can nominate Anglo-Indian members only when none of the given conditions are met.
C: Rajya Sabha has inadequate representation.
- The President does not nominate members from the Anglo-Indian community in the Rajya Sabha. The nomination is specific to the Lok Sabha.
D: None of the above
- This is the correct answer as it covers the scenario where none of the given conditions are met, allowing the President to nominate 2 members from the Anglo-Indian community in the Parliament.
In conclusion, the President can nominate 2 members belonging to the Anglo-Indian community in the Parliament when none of the given conditions (adequate representation in Lok Sabha or inadequate representation in Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha) are met.

Explanation:
The correct answer is D: It can impeach the judges of the High Court of India.
Reason:
The Parliament of India has three main functions: legislative, executive, and judicial. However, there are certain limitations to its judicial functions. The Parliament cannot impeach the judges of the High Court of India. Here's why:
Legislative Functions of Parliament:
- Making laws and amending existing laws.
- Formulating policies and regulations.
- Approving the budget and financial matters.
- Overseeing the functioning of the government.
Executive Functions of Parliament:
- Ensuring accountability of the government.
- Monitoring the implementation of policies and programs.
- Debating and discussing executive decisions.
Judicial Functions of Parliament:
- Impeaching and removing the President of India.
- Impeaching the judges of the Supreme Court of India.
Limitations:
- The Parliament cannot impeach the judges of the High Court of India. This power lies with the respective High Courts and the President of India.
- The impeachment process for judges of the Supreme Court is initiated by the Parliament, but the final decision lies with a special committee consisting of members of both Houses of Parliament and the Chief Justice of India or a Supreme Court judge nominated by the Chief Justice.
In summary, while the Parliament of India has significant judicial functions, it cannot impeach the judges of the High Court of India, making option D the correct answer.

President nominates on the basis of their distinction in the field of Science, art, literature and Soial Science.

Answer:

In the given options, all three options can be taken to the judiciary. Here is a detailed explanation:

Disputes among the citizens:
- The judiciary can handle disputes between citizens, whether it is related to property, contracts, personal injury, or any other civil matter.
- Citizens can approach the judiciary to seek legal remedies and resolution for their disputes with other citizens.
Disputes between a citizen and government:
- When there is a conflict between a citizen and the government, such as infringement of fundamental rights, misuse of power, administrative decisions, or any other legal matter, it can be taken to the judiciary.
- The judiciary acts as a guardian of the constitution and can provide relief and justice to citizens in cases against the government.
Dispute between the central and the state governments:
- In a federal system of government, conflicts may arise between the central government and state governments regarding jurisdiction, constitutional interpretation, or any other matter.
- These disputes can be taken to the judiciary, specifically the Supreme Court, which has the authority to resolve such conflicts and provide legal clarity.
Therefore, all three options mentioned in the question can be taken to the judiciary for resolution and legal remedies.

Directive Principles of State Policy

The Judiciary of India is Independent

The correct answer is option A: the Cabinet.
Here is a detailed explanation:
Definition of a No-Confidence Motion:
A no-confidence motion is a parliamentary motion that signifies that the opposition parties believe that the Lok Sabha (the lower house of the Indian Parliament) does not have confidence in a particular entity or individual.
Explanation of the options:
A. The Cabinet: The Cabinet consists of ministers who are responsible for various government departments. A no-confidence motion against the Cabinet indicates that the opposition parties believe that the government's executive branch is not capable of governing effectively.
B. The Council of Ministers: The Council of Ministers refers to the collective body of ministers in the government. A no-confidence motion against the Council of Ministers also implies a lack of confidence in the government's executive branch.
C. The Prime Minister: The Prime Minister is the head of government and the leader of the ruling party or coalition. A no-confidence motion against the Prime Minister indicates a lack of confidence in their leadership and governance.
D. None of the above: This option is incorrect as a no-confidence motion can be moved against any of the above entities, depending on the specific circumstances and the concerns of the opposition parties.
In conclusion, a no-confidence motion signifies a lack of confidence in the Cabinet, which consists of ministers responsible for various government departments.