Practice Test: Indian Polity - 5 - BPSC (Bihar) MCQ

The correct option is B.
Both statements are correct but we cannot say that the second statement is the reason for the first statement.
 

The correct answer is option C.

• Assertion (A) is true: An Ombudsman is an official appointed by Parliament to receive and investigate complaints from the public against administrative actions or decisions. The Ombudsman's primary role is to ensure that citizens receive fair and just treatment from government agencies and officials.
• Reason (R) is false: Although an Ombudsman serves as a mediator between the public and government agencies, they are not considered a "people's representative" in the same sense as elected officials like Members of Parliament. The Ombudsman's role is to ensure accountability and transparency in government administration, but they do not represent the interests of the public in the same way that elected officials do.

Thus, A is true, but R is false.

• Legislative: The legislative branch is responsible for creating laws and regulations. This branch consists of elected representatives who are responsible for debating and passing legislation. They also have the power to amend or repeal existing laws. The legislative branch is essential in controlling administration as it sets the legal framework within which the administration operates.


• Executive: The executive branch is responsible for implementing and enforcing the laws created by the legislative branch. This branch is headed by the President or Prime Minister and includes various ministries and departments that carry out the day-to-day administration of the country. The executive branch ensures that the administration follows the laws and regulations set by the legislative branch.


• Judiciary: The judiciary branch is responsible for interpreting and applying the laws created by the legislative branch. This branch consists of courts and judges who ensure that the administration is acting within the bounds of the law. The judiciary also has the power to review and strike down any administrative actions that violate the law, providing a vital check on the administration's power.

• The executive branch is responsible for preparing and presenting the annual budget, which outlines the government's financial plans and priorities for the upcoming fiscal year.
• Through the budget, the executive can control the allocation of resources to different departments and agencies, ensuring that they have the necessary funding to carry out their functions and meet their objectives.
• The budget also serves as a tool for the executive to implement its policy agenda, as it can allocate resources to specific programs and initiatives that align with its priorities and goals.

• The Civil Service Code is a set of rules and guidelines that govern the conduct of civil servants, who are employees of the government responsible for implementing policies and delivering public services.
• The executive branch, through the Civil Service Code, can control the behavior of civil servants, ensuring that they act in the best interests of the government and the public, and upholding the values of integrity, impartiality, and professionalism.
• The executive can also use the Civil Service Code to hold civil servants accountable for their actions and decisions, and to enforce disciplinary measures when necessary.

The correct option is D.
The best-known power of the Supreme Court is judicial review, or the ability of the Court to declare a Legislative or Executive act in violation of the Constitution, is not found within the text of the Constitution itself. The Court established this doctrine in the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803).
Error of a law is a ground on which superior courts can review decisions of inferior courts and administrative decisions makers. Error of law has three forms. Two of these forms of the ground come from common law and are labelled jurisdictional error of law and non jurisdictional error of law.
An error of fact means that you think the judge had the wrong facts or interpreted them incorrectly. With the right information, you think the judge would not have ruled against you, and you want a chance to give the high court that information.
power or jurisdiction which does not at all exist or vest in a court. A court lacks inherent jurisdiction when ... absence of jurisdiction." The Supreme Court held that when the decree is passed by a court which lacked inherent jurisdiction.

The correct option is C.
2 is obviously wrong, there is no communal representation, seats in LS for anglo indians that too not automatic.

The British administrative system was first introduced in the province of Bengal.

• Background: The British East India Company established its rule in India during the 18th and 19th centuries. The company started as a trading organization, but gradually extended its control over various Indian territories.
• Bengal Presidency: The British East India Company first established its rule in Bengal after the Battle of Plassey in 1757, when they defeated the Nawab of Bengal, Siraj-ud-Daula. This led to the formation of the Bengal Presidency, which was the largest administrative unit under the British rule in India. The British administrative system was first introduced in this province.
• Administrative System: The British introduced various administrative reforms in Bengal, such as the Permanent Settlement of 1793, which aimed to improve the collection of land revenue and establish a stable relationship between the British administration, the zamindars (landlords), and the peasants. They also established a centralized bureaucracy, a police force, and an efficient judicial system.
• Expansion: The success of the administrative system in Bengal led the British to expand it to other provinces in India, such as Madras, Bombay, and eventually all the territories under their control.

For more information and study materials, visit EduRev.

A  is the correct option.The Company's rule lasted until 1858, when it was abolished after the Indian Rebellion of 1857. With the Government of India Act 1858, the British government assumed the task of administering India in the new British Raj.

• Authority responsible: The authority who ordered the creation of the posts of collector in British days was the Court of Directors of East India Company.
• Role of the Court of Directors: The Court of Directors was the governing body of the East India Company, responsible for making decisions and implementing policies for the administration and management of the British territories in India. They played a crucial role in shaping the administrative structure of British India.
• Reason for creating the posts of collector: The posts of collector were created to improve revenue collection and administration in British India. Collectors were responsible for collecting land revenue, maintaining law and order, and overseeing the general administration of their assigned districts.
• Impact on the Indian administration: The creation of the posts of collector marked a significant shift in the administrative structure of British India. It led to the establishment of a centralized and efficient system of revenue collection, which would later evolve into the Indian Civil Service.

A district collector, often abbreviated to collector, is an Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer in charge of revenue collection and administration of a district in India. Since district collectors are senior-most executive magistrate in the district, the post is also referred to as the district magistrate, and as the office-bearer works under the supervision of a divisional commissioner, the post is also known as deputy commissioner.

The East India Company, during its rule in India, assigned various responsibilities to the post of Collector. One such additional function vested with the Collector was the role of a Judge Magistrate. This role was crucial to maintain law and order within the district and ensure the smooth functioning of the administration. The responsibilities of the Collector as a Judge Magistrate included:

• Administration of Justice: The Collector, as a Judge Magistrate, was responsible for overseeing the legal system within the district. This involved presiding over cases, hearing appeals, and ensuring the fair and impartial administration of justice.
• Maintenance of Law and Order: As the chief law enforcement officer in the district, the Collector was responsible for maintaining law and order. This involved working closely with the police to prevent crime, investigate and prosecute criminal activities, and maintain public order.
• Supervision of the Police: The Collector, in their capacity as a Judge Magistrate, was responsible for supervising and directing the police force within the district. This involved ensuring that the police were properly trained, equipped, and functioning in accordance with the law.
• Revenue and Judicial Functions: The Collector's role as a Judge Magistrate also involved handling revenue disputes and other judicial functions. This helped maintain a balance between the revenue collection and the legal system, ensuring that disputes were resolved efficiently and fairly.
• Dispensation of Justice: The Collector, as a Judge Magistrate, was responsible for ensuring that justice was served in all cases that came before them. This involved hearing cases, passing judgments, and ensuring that punishments were carried out in accordance with the law.

In summary, the additional function vested with the Collector by the East India Company as a Judge Magistrate was crucial for maintaining law and order, administering justice, and overseeing the functioning of the police within the district. This role helped to ensure the smooth functioning of the administration and uphold the rule of law during the Company's rule in India.

• British Colonial Rule: The period of 1776-1850 marked significant changes in the administrative set-up in India, primarily due to the increasing influence of the British East India Company and later the British Crown. The British started to formalise the administrative structures at the lower levels in the districts to efficiently manage and govern the territories they acquired.
• Regulating Act of 1773: The Regulating Act of 1773 was an important milestone in this process, as it established a centralised government in Bengal, with a Governor-General and a Council to oversee the administration. This marked the beginning of the formalisation of the hierarchical administrative structure in India.
• District Collectors: The British introduced the office of the District Collector, who was responsible for the overall administration, revenue collection, and maintaining law and order in the district. This position played a crucial role in formalising the administrative set-up at the lower levels in the districts.
• Permanent Settlement of Bengal (1793): The Permanent Settlement of Bengal in 1793 was another critical step in this direction. This land revenue system aimed at streamlining revenue collection and administration in the Bengal Presidency. It led to the further formalisation of the administrative set-up at the lower levels in the districts.
• Expansion of British Rule: Between 1776 and 1850, the British expanded their rule in India, annexing several territories and princely states. This expansion necessitated a more formalised administrative set-up at the lower levels in the districts to ensure effective governance and management of the vast territories.
• Administrative Reforms: Various administrative reforms, such as the introduction of the civil service system, the codification of laws, and the establishment of modern educational institutions, further contributed to the formalisation of the administrative set-up at the lower levels in the districts during this period.

The development of the criminal justice system at the district level during British times was facilitated by several actions. However, the most significant action was the appointment of separate District Judges in the 19th century. This decision played a crucial role in the evolution of the criminal justice system at the district level for the following reasons:

• Separation of Judicial and Executive Functions: Before the appointment of separate District Judges, the Collector was also the Judge Magistrate, which meant that the same person was responsible for both executive and judicial functions. This led to a conflict of interest and inefficiency in the administration of justice. By appointing separate District Judges, the British administration ensured a clear separation of powers, leading to a more efficient and effective criminal justice system.


• Specialization and Expertise: The appointment of separate District Judges allowed for the recruitment of individuals with legal education and expertise in criminal law. This led to better decision-making and a more consistent application of criminal laws and procedures, ultimately improving the overall quality of the criminal justice system at the district level.


• Uniformity in Judicial Administration: With the appointment of separate District Judges, the British administration was able to establish a more uniform system of judicial administration across various districts. This helped in ensuring consistency in the interpretation and application of criminal laws, leading to a more predictable and reliable criminal justice system.


• Accountability and Transparency: The appointment of separate District Judges resulted in greater accountability and transparency in the administration of criminal justice at the district level. District Judges were now solely responsible for their decisions and actions, making it easier to monitor and evaluate their performance, thus enhancing the overall effectiveness and credibility of the criminal justice system.

In conclusion, the appointment of separate District Judges in the 19th century was a significant action that facilitated the development of the criminal justice system at the district level during British times. It led to the separation of judicial and executive functions, specialization and expertise, uniformity in judicial administration, and increased accountability and transparency in the administration of criminal justice.

• Administrative Structure: The British administration in the 19th century was characterized by a centralized system with the Collector at the center. The Collector was responsible for the administration of the district, revenue collection, and the execution of civil and criminal justice. The workload of the Collector was immense, which led to inefficiencies and delays in the administrative process.
• Need for a Separate District Judge: To reduce the burden of work on the Collector and to ensure the smooth functioning of the judiciary, the British authorities decided to appoint a separate District Judge. This was done to ensure that the Collector could focus on revenue collection and administration, while the District Judge would handle the judicial responsibilities. This separation allowed for better management of the administrative and judicial functions in the district.
• Improvement of Judicial System: The appointment of a separate District Judge led to a more efficient and effective judicial system, as it allowed for specialization and better management of resources. It also helped in reducing the backlog of cases and ensuring timely dispensation of justice to the people. This decision was crucial in streamlining the judiciary and improving the overall administration in the British-controlled districts in the 19th century.

• Regulating Act (1773): This Act marked the beginning of the British administration in India. It established the Governor-General and Council at Fort William (Calcutta) and laid the foundation for the centralization of administration.
• Pitt's India Act (1784): This Act introduced significant changes in the administration of the East India Company. It created a Board of Control in London to oversee the Company's affairs and strengthened the powers of the Governor-General.
• Charter Act (1813): The Charter Act of 1813 ended the East India Company's monopoly over trade with India and opened up the Indian market for British private merchants. It also provided for the establishment of a separate Governor for the newly acquired territories in India.
• Charter Act (1833): This Act centralized the administration of the East India Company by creating the office of the Governor-General of India. The Governor-General was given full authority over all the British territories in India, and the post was first held by Lord William Bentinck.
• Development of Bureaucracy: The administrative system was supported by the development of a bureaucracy, which included the Indian Civil Service (ICS) and the Indian Police Service (IPS). These services were responsible for enforcing the laws and maintaining order in the British territories.
• Establishment of Courts: To administer justice, a hierarchy of courts was established in India. At the top were the High Courts, followed by District Courts and finally, the Village Courts (Panchayats). The British also introduced the principle of rule of law, which meant that everyone, including the officials, was subject to the same legal system.
• Introduction of Modern Education: The British introduced modern education in India to train the Indian population in the English language and Western knowledge. This helped to create a class of educated Indians who could assist in the administration of the country.

The supervisory officers over Collectors appointed by the Company in Bengal, Bihar, and Central Provinces were:

• The British East India Company established the three provinces of Bengal, Bihar, and Central Provinces in India.
• As part of their administrative structure, they appointed Collectors in each district to manage revenue collection, law and order, and other administrative tasks.
• Divisional Commissioners were appointed as supervisory officers to oversee the work of these Collectors.
• The Divisional Commissioners were responsible for supervising multiple districts within a division, ensuring smooth functioning and coordination among the Collectors.
• They also played a crucial role in implementing policies and directives issued by the higher authorities, such as the Board of Revenue or the Governor-General.
• As part of their duties, Divisional Commissioners maintained close communication with Collectors, conducted inspections, and reported their findings to the higher authorities.

For more information on this topic, you can refer to resources available on the EduRev platform.

The functional commissioners located at Madras during the Company period were known as the Members, Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue was an administrative body responsible for supervising the Collectors in their respective functional areas. This system was established by the British East India Company to manage revenue collection and administration in their territories.

• Role of Members, Board of Revenue: These officials were responsible for overseeing the work of Collectors, ensuring proper revenue collection, and handling land revenue administration. They reported to the higher authorities and made sure that the Collectors were efficiently performing their duties.
• Collectors: Collectors were the primary revenue officers in their districts, responsible for land revenue collection, maintaining land records, and handling other administrative tasks. They were appointed by the East India Company and reported to the Members, Board of Revenue.
• Other Administrative Officers: In addition to the Members, Board of Revenue and Collectors, there were other administrative officers such as District Magistrates, Divisional Commissioners, and Deputy Commissioners. These officers had different roles and responsibilities in the administration and governance of the region.
• Evolution of the System: The administrative structure established by the British East India Company evolved over time, with the introduction of new positions and changes in responsibilities. The Members, Board of Revenue system was eventually replaced by other systems of governance as the British administration in India evolved.

For more information, you can explore resources on EduRev, which offer a comprehensive understanding of the history and administrative systems during the Company period in India.

• Introduction of Competitive Exams: The British introduced competitive exams for selecting candidates for administrative services. This ensured that only capable and deserving candidates were recruited, based on their performance in the examinations. The Indian Civil Service (ICS) exam, which was later replaced by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) exam, is a prime example of this merit-based system.


• Impartial Selection Process: The merit system introduced by the British helped in creating an impartial selection process, which was free from nepotism and corruption. This ensured that candidates were selected solely based on their abilities and qualifications, rather than on their connections or social standing.


• Creation of a Professional Bureaucracy: The merit-based recruitment system led to the creation of a professional bureaucracy, which was efficient, well-trained, and capable of handling the complex tasks of administration. The Indian Administrative Service (IAS) and other central services, which are the successors of the ICS, continue to be the backbone of the Indian administration.


• Standardized Training: The British Legacy also introduced standardized training programs for the selected candidates, which helped in developing their skills and knowledge. The Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy of Administration (LBSNAA) in Mussoorie, which provides training to the IAS officers, is a legacy of this system.


• Codification of Rules and Procedures: The British administration also contributed to the codification of rules and procedures, which provided a framework for the smooth functioning of the administrative system. This has helped in maintaining consistency, transparency, and accountability in the functioning of the Indian administration.

Correct Answer :- d

Explanation : The Government of Indian Act was passed by the British parliament in 1935 and came into effect in 1937. It was based on a report by a Joint Select Committee, led by Lord Linlithgow, set up the two houses of the British parliament.

The separation of judiciary from executive is an area where both the Centre and States have passed legislation to enforce Directive Principles in India. This principle has been enacted to ensure that the judicial system remains independent and impartial, free from any interference or influence from the executive branch of the government. The main objective of this separation is to protect the fundamental rights of citizens and maintain the rule of law.

• Article 50 of the Constitution: The Directive Principles of State Policy, as outlined in Part IV of the Indian Constitution, contain several guidelines and objectives for the state. One of these principles, mentioned in Article 50, calls for the separation of the judiciary from the executive. This provision highlights the need for an independent and impartial judiciary to uphold the rule of law and protect the fundamental rights of citizens.
• Legislations: Both the Central and State governments have passed various laws and regulations to give effect to this principle. For example, the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) are central legislations that govern the functioning of courts and the administration of justice in both civil and criminal matters. These laws establish a clear distinction between the roles and functions of the judiciary and the executive.
• Judicial appointments: The appointment of judges is another area where separation of judiciary from executive is maintained. The process of appointing judges to the higher judiciary, such as the Supreme Court and High Courts, is based on the recommendations of the collegium system, which comprises the Chief Justice of India and senior judges. This system ensures that the judiciary remains independent and free from executive influence.
• Financial autonomy: To maintain the independence of the judiciary, the financial administration of the courts is also separate from the executive. The budgetary allocations for the judiciary are made by the Parliament and State Legislatures, ensuring that the judiciary has the necessary financial resources to function effectively and independently.

Overall, the separation of judiciary from executive is an essential aspect of the Indian legal system, which has been enforced through various legislations and measures by both the Centre and States. This separation is crucial to maintain the independence and impartiality of the judiciary and to uphold the rule of law in the country.

• The Fundamental Duties were incorporated into the Indian Constitution through the 42nd Amendment Act in 1976.
• These duties are mentioned in Part IV-A of the Constitution, which deals with Article 51A.
• The 42nd Amendment Act was enacted during the period of Emergency in India (1975-1977) under the leadership of then-Prime Minister Indira Gandhi.
• The inclusion of the Fundamental Duties was based on the recommendations of the Swaran Singh Committee, which was constituted to study the question of amending the Constitution to outline the duties and obligations of citizens.
• These duties are non-justiciable, which means they cannot be legally enforced by a court of law. However, they serve as moral and ethical guidelines for citizens, encouraging them to contribute to the nation's progress and uphold its values.
• There are currently 11 Fundamental Duties listed in the Constitution, which cover various aspects such as respecting the National Flag, promoting harmony, protecting the environment, and supporting scientific temper, among others.

The court system in India ensures uniformity in the enforcement of civil and criminal laws in the country. The Indian judiciary is divided into different levels, with the Supreme Court at the apex, followed by High Courts, District Courts, and subordinate courts. This hierarchical structure helps maintain consistency and uniformity in the application and interpretation of laws across the nation.

• Supreme Court: The Supreme Court of India is the highest judicial body in the country. It has the ultimate authority to interpret the Constitution and adjudicate disputes between states or between the central government and states. The Supreme Court also has the power to review judgments made by lower courts, ensuring the uniform application of laws throughout the nation.
• High Courts: High Courts are the highest judicial bodies at the state level. They have jurisdiction over civil and criminal matters within their respective states and can also hear appeals from lower courts. High Courts play a crucial role in maintaining uniformity in the enforcement of laws within their jurisdiction.
• District Courts: District Courts are the primary courts of original jurisdiction for civil and criminal matters in India. These courts have the authority to hear and decide cases involving disputes between individuals, as well as cases involving criminal offenses. District Courts are responsible for ensuring that the laws are uniformly enforced within their districts.
• Subordinate Courts: Subordinate Courts, also known as lower courts, function under the supervision of District Courts. They handle specific types of cases, such as family courts, labor courts, and consumer courts. These courts help ensure that the laws are applied consistently and uniformly at the grass-root level.

In conclusion, the court system in India plays a vital role in ensuring uniformity in the enforcement of civil and criminal laws. The hierarchical structure of the judiciary facilitates a consistent application of laws and provides a mechanism for addressing any discrepancies or inconsistencies that may arise in the interpretation or enforcement of laws throughout the country.

Fabian socialism, a branch of socialism that emerged in the late 19th century, played a significant role in shaping the political ideology of India's founding fathers, including Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru. The key aspects of Fabian socialism that influenced India's founding fathers are:

• Gradual Reform: Unlike other branches of socialism that advocated for radical and immediate change, Fabian socialism believed in gradual, incremental reform through existing democratic institutions. This approach appealed to India's founding fathers, who sought to bring about social and economic change without resorting to revolutionary methods.
• Emphasis on Education and Intellectual Debate: Fabian socialists placed a high value on education and intellectual debate to shape public opinion and promote their goals. This emphasis on intellectualism resonated with India's founding fathers, who were highly educated and believed in the power of dialogue and discussion to bring about change.
• Welfare State: The Fabian ideology aimed to establish a welfare state, which would provide social security, healthcare, education, and housing to its citizens. This idea significantly influenced India's founding fathers, who sought to create a just and equitable society where all citizens could enjoy a decent standard of living.
• Mixed Economy: Fabian socialism advocated for a mixed economy, combining both public and private enterprises, with the state playing a significant role in key sectors. This economic model was instrumental in shaping India's economic policies during the early years of independence, as it provided a balanced approach to development.

In summary, Fabian socialism's emphasis on gradual reform, intellectual debate, the establishment of a welfare state, and a mixed economy model significantly influenced India's founding fathers, including Pandit Nehru, in shaping the country's political and economic landscape during its formative years.

• Article 39 is a part of the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) enshrined in Part IV of the Indian Constitution.
• These principles serve as guidelines for the government and the states while making policies and laws.
• Although not enforceable in the court of law, DPSPs are fundamental in the governance of the country and help in establishing a just and equitable society.
• Article 39(b) specifically focuses on the distribution of material resources to ensure they serve the common good and promote social justice and welfare.

A resolution to impeach the president has to be passed by a two-thirds majority of the total number of members of the originating house. It is then sent to the other house. The other house investigates the charges that have been made.