Test: Polity - 3 - UPSC MCQ

• The Preamble to the Indian Constitution is based on the ‘objective Resolution’ drafted and moved by Jawaharlal Nehru on 13 December 1946. It was adopted unanimously by Constituent Assemble on 22 January 1947. Hence statement 2 is correct.

• After adopting the Preamble, it stands as part of the Constitution. Therefore, the current opinion on the preamble held by the Supreme Court is in consonance with the opinion of the founding fathers.

• The preamble was enacted only after the rest of the constitution was enacted by the Constituent Assembly. Hence statement 1 is not correct.

• The reason for enacting the preamble at the end was to ensure that it was in conformity with the Constitution as adopted by the Constituent Assembly.

• Directive Principles were initially ignored by the Supreme Court while interpreting various socio-economic rights. It was only after the landmark verdict in the Keshavananda Bharati’s case in 1973 that the top court said that directive principles must be viewed as the guidelines by which the fundamental rights are realized.

• Justice PN Bhagwati in the 1980 Minerva Mills case described that "The Indian Constitution is founded on the bedrock of the balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy. To give absolute primacy to one over the other is to disturb the harmony of the Constitution. This harmony and balance is an essential feature of the basic structure of the Constitution."

• In the Champakam Dorairajan case (1951), the Supreme Court ruled that in case of any conflict between the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles, the former would prevail.

• Maneka Gandhi's case is a landmark case for the implementation of Article 21. In this case, the court said that expression ‘personal liberty’ in Article 21 is of the widest amplitude and it covers a variety of rights which go to constitute the personal liberty of man and some of them have raised to the status of distinct fundamental rights and given additional protection under Article 19.

Hence option (b) is the correct answer.

• The Constitution of India provides for State Public Service Commission (SPSC) at the state level like Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) at the centre level. Articles 315 to 323 of the Constitution deal with the composition, appointment and removal of members, functions and powers, independence of a SPSC.

• Option (a) is correct: The Chairman and members of the State Public Service Commission are appointed by the Governor of the state. Although they are appointed by the governor they can be removed by the President only. The President can remove them on the same grounds and in the same manners as he can remove the Chairman or member of UPSC.

• Option (b) is correct: A member of SPSC on ceasing to hold office is eligible for Chairman and member of UPSC, or as a Chairman of that SPSC or any other SPSC but not for any other employment under the government of India or State. Also, the Chairman of a SPSC on ceasing to hold office is eligible for appointment as the chairman or member of UPSC or chairman of any other SPSC but not for any other employment under the Government of India or a state.

• Option (c) is not correct: The expense of SPSC including the Salaries, Allowances and Pensions of the Chairman and Members of SPSC are charged on the Consolidated Fund of State (and not on the Consolidated Fund of India). They are not subject to the vote of the state legislature. Also, the conditions of service of Chairman and members cannot be varied to their disadvantages.

• Option (d) is correct: The role of SPSC is limited and recommendations made by it are only advisory in nature and hence, non-binding on the government. It is up to the state government to accept or reject the advice. however, the government have to answer to the concerned state legislature for not accepting the recommendations of the commission.

• The Supreme Court in 1969 ruled that settlement of a boundary dispute between India and another country does not require a constitutional amendment. It can be done by executive action as it does not involve cession of Indian territory to a foreign country. Hence option (b) is the correct answer.

• While the decision of the Central Government to cede part of a territory known as Berubari Union (West Bengal) to Pakistan led to political agitation and controversy and thereby necessitated the Presidential reference.

• The Supreme Court held that the power of Parliament to diminish the area of a state (under Article 3) does not cover cession of Indian territory to a foreign country. Hence, Indian territory can be ceded to a foreign state only by amending the Constitution under Article 368. Consequently, the 9th Constitutional Amendment Act (1960 ) was enacted to transfer the said territory to Pakistan.

• Article 19 guarantees to all citizens the six rights. These are:

  • Right to freedom of speech and expression.

  • Right to assemble peaceably and without arms.

  • Right to form associations or unions or co-operative societies.

  • Right to move freely throughout the territory of India.

  • Right to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India.

  • Right to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade, or business.

• The 97th amendment to the Constitution inserts Cooperative Societies into Article 19(1)(c) by recognizing the right of the people to form cooperative societies as a fundamental right. Hence, statement 1 is correct.

• These six rights are protected against only state action and not private individuals. Moreover, these rights are available only to the citizens and to shareholders of a company but not to foreigners or legal persons like companies or corporations, etc. Hence, statement 2 is correct.

The Election Commission is a permanent and an independent body established by the constitution of India directly to ensure free and fair elections in the country.

Article 324 of the Constitution provides that the power of superintendence, direction and control of elections to parliament, state legislatures, the office of president of India and the office of vice president of India shall be vested in the election commission. Thus, the Election Commission is an all-India body in the sense that it is common to both the Central government and the state governments.

Statement 1 is incorrect. It must be noted here that the election commission is not concerned with the elections to panchayats and municipalities in the states. For this, the Constitution of India provides for the formation of separate State Election Commissions.

Statement 2 is incorrect. The constitution has provided many safeguards to ensure the independence of the commission however it falls short on some accounts. The Constitution does not provide the qualifications of the members and also does not specify the term of the members of the Commission.

The constitution also does not debar members of the commission from further appointment by the government.

The Attorney General (AG) is appointed by the president. He must be a person who is qualified to be appointed a judge of the Supreme Court. In other words, he must be a citizen of India and he must have been a judge of some high court for five years or an advocate of some high court for ten years or an eminent jurist, in the opinion of the president.

Statement 1 is Correct - The term of office of the AG is not fixed by the Constitution. He holds office during the pleasure of the president

Statement 2 is Correct. - The Constitution does not contain the procedure and grounds for his removal. He holds office during the pleasure of the president.This means that he may be removed by the president at any time. He may also quit his office by submitting his resignation to the president. Conventionally, he resigns when the government (council of ministers) resigns or is replaced, as he is appointed on its advice.

Statement 3 is Correct - The remuneration of the AG is not fixed by the Constitution. He receives such remuneration as the president may determine.

Option (d) is the correct answer.

The Constitution of India (Article 148) provides for an independent office of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG). He is the head of the Indian Audit and Accounts Department

Statement 1 is Correct - He is the guardian of the public purse and controls the entire financial system of the country at both levels—the Centre and the state. His duty is to uphold the Constitution of India and laws of Parliament in the field of financial administration. He is one of the bulwarks of the democratic system of government in India; the others being the Supreme Court, the Election Commission and the Union Public Service Commission.

Statement 2 is Correct.- The CAG is appointed by the president of India by a warrant under his hand and seal. The CAG, before taking over his office, makes and subscribed before the president an oath or affirmation he can be removed by the president on the basis of a resolution passed to that effect by both the Houses of Parliament with special majority, either on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity

• Article 359 authorises the President to suspend the right to move any court for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights during a National Emergency. This means that under Article 359, the Fundamental Rights as such are not suspended, but only their enforcement. The said rights are theoretically alive but the right to seek remedy is suspended. The suspension of enforcement relates to only those Fundamental Rights that are specified in the Presidential Order. Hence statement 2 is correct.

• The 44th Amendment Act of 1978 restricted the scope of Article 359 in two ways.

  • Firstly, the President cannot suspend the right to move the Court for the enforcement of fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 20 to 21. In other words, the right to protection in respect of conviction for offences (Article 20) and the right to life and personal liberty (Article 21) remain enforceable even during emergency.

  • Secondly, only those laws which are related with the emergency are protected from being challenged and not other laws and the executive action taken only under such a law, is protected.

• Article 359 operates in case of both when National Emergency is declared on grounds of war or external aggression as well as on the ground of armed rebellion.

• Article 359 may extend to the entire country or a part of it. Hence statement 3 is not correct.

• Article 359 does not empower the President to promulgate ordinance in a state. Hence statement 1 is not correct.

• The National Pension Scheme is a social security initiative by the Central Government. Earlier, the NPS scheme covered only the Central Government employees. Now, however, the PFRDA has made it open to all Indian citizens on a voluntary basis. Hence statement 1 is correct.

• NPS scheme holds immense value for anyone who works in the private sector and requires a regular pension after retirement.

• NRI can open an NPS account. Contributions made by NRI are subject to regulatory requirements as prescribed by RBI and FEMA from time to time. However, OCI (Overseas Citizens of India) and PIO (Person of Indian Origin) cardholders and HUFs are not eligible for the opening of an NPS account. Hence statement 2 is correct.

• NPS account can be opened only in an individual capacity and cannot be opened or operated jointly or for and on behalf of HUF.

Statement 1 is not correct: The Pradhan Mantri Swasthya Suraksha Yojana (PMSSY) was

announced in 2003 with the objectives of correcting regional imbalances in the availability of

affordable/ reliable tertiary healthcare services and also to augment facilities for quality

medical education in the country. PMSSY has two components:-

1. Setting up of AIIMS like Institutions

2. Upgradation of Government Medical College(GMC)/ Institutions.

Statement 2 is correct: The nodal Ministry is the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.

Patenting in India

• A patent is an exclusive set of rights granted for an invention, which may be a product or process that provides a new way of doing something or offers a new technical solution to a problem.

• Indian patents are governed by the Indian Patent Act of 1970.

• India became a party to the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement.

• India is also a signatory to several IPR-related conventions including:

  • The Berne Convention which governs copyright,

  • The Budapest Treaty,

  • The Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property ○ The Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) governs various patent-related matters.

The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) together with its sister Covenant, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and the Universal Declaration, form the International Bill of Human Rights which is the pillar for human rights protection within the United Nations.

• Universal Declaration on Human Rights (a non-legally binding document) was adopted in 1948.

• In 1966, two separate treaties, covering almost entirely all the rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights were adopted after approximately 20 years of negotiations ICESCR is an international human rights treaty, it creates legally binding international obligations to those States that have agreed to be bound by the standards contained in it. Hence statement 1 is correct.

• The Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights is the supervisory body of the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. It was established under United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) Resolution. Hence statement 2 is correct.

• Though the Directive Principles are non-justiciable, the Constitution (Article 37) makes it clear that these principles are fundamental in the governance of the country and it shall be the duty of the state to apply these principles in making laws.

• The framers of the Constitution made the Directive Principles non-justiciable and legally non-enforceable because:

• The country did not possess sufficient financial resources to implement them. To implement all the directive principles the newly formed independent state would require an enormous amount of financial resources and this would be a challenge to the country. Keeping in this regard they were made non-justiciable. Hence, statement 1 is correct.

• The presence of vast diversity and backwardness in the country would stand in the way of their implementation. The directive principles are so diverse in character and constitutional makers felt that making them justiciable may create obstacles for the newly independent country as some of the directive principles like the Uniform Civil Code were opposed by some communities. They wanted to give the state sufficient time and a place of choosing to India's future leaders implement them. Hence, statement 2 is correct.

• Fundamental rights already have been made justiciable and making Directive principles justiciable will be meaningless. Hence statement 3 is not correct as making Directive Principles justiciable will not be meaningless and in fact making them justiciable can create a socially just and egalitarian society. They were not made justiciable for the above two reasons.

• The Constitution makers, therefore, taking a pragmatic view, refrained from giving teeth to these principles. They believed more in an awakened public opinion rather than in court procedures as the ultimate sanction for the fulfilment of these principles.

A number of provisions in the Constitution can be amended by a simple majority of the two Houses of Parliament outside the scope of Article 368. These provisions include:

• Admission or establishment of new states. Hence option 1 is correct.

• Formation of new states and alteration of areas, boundaries, or names of existing states.

• Abolition or creation of legislative councils in states.

• Second Schedule–emoluments, allowances, privileges, and so on of the president, the governors, the Speakers, judges, etc.

• Quorum in Parliament.

• Salaries and allowances of the members of Parliament.

• Rules of procedure in Parliament.

• Privileges of the Parliament, its members, and its committees.

• Use of English language in Parliament.

• Number of puisne judges in the Supreme Court.

• Conferment of more jurisdiction on the Supreme Court. Hence option 4 is correct.

• Use of official language. Hence option 2 is correct.

• Citizenship–acquisition and termination.

• Elections to Parliament and state legislatures. Hence option 3 is correct.

• Delimitation of constituencies.

• Union territories.

• Fifth Schedule–administration of scheduled areas and scheduled tribes.

• Sixth Schedule–administration of tribal areas.

- 1. Residence for Employment: Parliament can prescribe residence within a state as a condition for certain public employment to ensure local representation.

- 2. Special Benefits:This refers to a scenario where a state grants special benefits or privileges to its residents that are not available to citizens uniformly across the country.

- 3. Scheduled Tribes' Protection: The Constitution allows special measures for Scheduled Tribes to protect their interests, acknowledging their unique socio-economic status.

Thus, all three scenarios allow for permissible discrimination as per constitutional provisions.

• A proclamation of emergency may be revoked by the President at any time by a subsequent proclamation. Such a proclamation does not require parliamentary approval. Hence Statement 1 is not correct.

• If approved by both the Houses of Parliament, the emergency continues for six months and can be extended to an indefinite period with an approval of the Parliament for every six months. Hence Statement 2 is not correct.

• Additional Information:

  • National Emergency: National emergency can be declared on the basis of war, external aggression or armed rebellion. The Constitution employs the expression ‘proclamation of emergency’ to denote an emergency of this type.

  • Grounds of declaration: Under Article 352, the president can declare a national emergency when the security of India or a part of it is threatened by war or external aggression or armed rebellion.

  • The President can declare a national emergency even before the actual occurrence of war or armed rebellion or external aggression

• Parliamentary approval and duration

  • The proclamation of emergency must be approved by both the houses of parliament within one month from the date of its issue. If approved by both the houses, the Emergency continues for 6 months and can be extended to an indefinite period with an approval of the Parliament for every six months.

  • Every resolution approving the proclamation of emergency or its continuance must be passed by either House of Parliament by a special majority.

• Effects of national emergency

  • A proclamation of Emergency has drastic and wide-ranging effects on the political system. These consequences can be grouped into 3 categories:

  • Effects on the centre-state relations: While a proclamation of Emergency is in force, the normal fabric of the Centre-State relations undergoes a basic change. this can be studied under three heads:

  • Executive: Centre becomes entitled to give executive directions to a state on ‘any’ matter

  • Legislative: The parliament becomes empowered to make laws on any subject mentioned in the state list, the president can issue ordinances on State subjects also, if the parliament is not in session. The laws made on state subjects by the parliament become inoperative six months after the emergency has ceased to be in operation.

  • Financial: the president can modify the constitutional distribution of revenues between the centre and the states

• Effect on the life of the Lok Sabha and State Assembly:

  • While a proclamation of National Emergency is in operation, the life of the Lok Sabha may be extended beyond the normal term for one year at a time. However, this extension cannot continue beyond a period of six months after the emergency has ceased to operate.

  • Similarly, the Parliament may extend the normal tenure of a state Legislative Assembly by one year each time during a national emergency, subject to a maximum period of six months after the emergency has ceased to operate.

  • Effect on fundamental rights: Articles 358 and 359 describes the effect of a National Emergency on the Fundamental Rights. These two provisions are explained below:

    (i) Suspension of Fundamental rights under Article 19: According to Article 358, when a proclamation of National Emergency is made, the six fundamental rights under article 19 are automatically suspended. Article 19 is automatically revived after the expiry of the emergency.

    (ii) The 44th Amendment Act laid out that Article 19 can only be suspended when the National Emergency is laid on the grounds of war or external aggression and not in the case of armed rebellion.

• Suspension of other Fundamental Rights: Under Article 359, the President is authorised to suspend, by order, the right to move any court for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights during a National Emergency. Thus, remedial measures are suspended and not the Fundamental Rights.

• The suspension of enforcement relates to only those Fundamental Rights that are specified in the Presidential Order.

• The suspension could be for the period during the operation of emergency or for a shorter period.

• The Order should be laid before each House of Parliament for approval.

• The 44 Amendment Act mandates that the President cannot suspend the right to move the court for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights guaranteed by Article 20 and 21.

• The Preamble of the Constitution of India reveals four components.

• It states that the constitution derives its authority from the people of India. Therefore it reveals the source of authority of the constitution.

• It declares India to be of a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic, and republican polity. Therefore, it reveals the nature of the Indian State.

• It specifies justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity as the objectives of the constitution

• It stipulates November 26, 1949, as the date of adoption of the constitution.

• The preamble is neither a source of power to legislature nor a prohibition upon the powers of legislation.

• Like Fundamental Duties and Directive Principle of State Policy, Preamble is also non-justiciable, that is, its provisions are not enforceable in courts of law.

• Hence option (c) is the correct answer.

• While the Prime Minister is the head of the government, the President is the head of the State. In our political system, the head of the State exercises only nominal powers. The President supervises the overall functioning of all the political institutions in the country so that they operate in harmony to achieve the objectives of the State.

• Presidents all over the world are not always nominal executives like the President of India. In many countries of the world, the President is both the head of the state and the head of the government. The President of the United States of America is the most well-known example of this kind of President. The US President is directly elected by the people. He personally chooses and appoints all Ministers. The law- making is still done by the legislature (called the Congress in the US), but the president can veto any law.

• Most importantly, the president does not need the support of the majority of members in Congress and neither is he answerable to them. He has a fixed tenure of four years and completes it even if his party does not have a majority in the Congress

• Merits of Presidential System:

  • Stable government. Hence option 2 is correct.

  • Definiteness in policies.

  • Based on separation of powers. Hence option 3 is correct.

  • Government by experts.

• Demerits of Presidential System:

  • The conflict between legislature and executive.

  • Non-responsible government. Hence option 4 is not correct.

  • May lead to autocracy.

  • Narrow representation. Hence option 1 is not correct.

• Article 22 grants protection to persons who are arrested or detained. Detention is of two types, namely, punitive and preventive. Punitive detention is to punish a person for an offense committed by him after trial and conviction in a court.

• Preventive detention, on the other hand, means the detention of a person without trial and conviction by a court. Its purpose is not to punish a person for a past offense but to prevent him from committing an offense in the near future.

• Article 22 has two parts–the first part (clauses 1 & 2) deals with the cases of ordinary law and the second part (4, 5, 6, and 7) deals with the cases of preventive detention law.

• The second part of Article 22 grants protection to persons who are arrested or detained under a preventive detention law. This protection is available to both citizens as well as aliens and includes the following:

  • The detention of a person cannot exceed three months unless the advisory board reports sufficient cause for extended detention. The board is to consist of judges of a high court.

  • The grounds of detention should be communicated as soon as possible to the detained or arrested person. However, the facts considered to be against the public interest need not be disclosed. There is no time limit of 24 hours to disclose the reason for his arrest. Hence, statement 1 is not correct.

  • The detained person should be afforded an opportunity to make representation against the detention order.

• Article 22 also authorizes the Parliament to prescribe

  • the circumstances and the classes of cases in which a person can be detained for more than three months under a preventive detention law without obtaining the opinion of an advisory board

  • the maximum period for which a person can be detained in any classes of cases under a preventive detention law the procedure to be followed by an advisory board in an inquiry.

• The Constitution has divided the legislative power with regard to preventive detention between the Parliament and the state legislatures.

• The Parliament has exclusive authority to make a law of preventive detention for reasons connected with defense, foreign affairs, and the security of India.

• Both the Parliament as well as the state legislatures can concurrently make a law of preventive detention for reasons connected with the security of a state, the maintenance of public order, and the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community. Hence, statement 2 is not correct.

• The procedure for the amendment of the Constitution as laid down in Article 368 is as follows:

• An amendment of the Constitution can be initiated only by the introduction of a bill for the purpose in either House of Parliament and not in the state legislatures. Hence options 1 and 2 are correct and option 3 is not correct.

• The bill can be introduced either by a minister or by a private member and does not require prior permission of the President.

Recently, the Election Commission ordered the delisting of 86 registered unrecognised political parties it found to be “non-existent” and declared 253 others “inactive”.

Statement 1 is correct: The Election Commission of India (ECI) is not empowered to deregister parties on the grounds of violating the Constitution or breaching the undertaking given to it at the time of registration. ECI has the power to register parties under the

Representation of the People Act, (RPA) 1951, but it does not have the power to deregister parties that are inactive.

Statement 2 is correct: A party can only be de-registered if its registration was obtained by fraud; if it is declared illegal by the Central Government; or if a party amends its internal Constitution and notifies the ECI that it can no longer abide by the Indian Constitution

The correct statement is: It prevents individuals from adopting hereditary titles like Maharaja.

Explanation:

Article 18 of the Indian Constitution deals with the abolition of titles. According to this article:

1. No citizen of India shall accept any title from any foreign state.
2. No person holding any office of profit or trust under the State shall, without the consent of the President, accept any present, emolument, or office of any kind from or under any foreign state.
3. No title, not being a military or academic distinction, shall be conferred by the State.
4. No person holding any office of profit or trust under the State shall, without the consent of the President, accept any title from any foreign state.

Thus, Article 18 prevents individuals from adopting hereditary titles like Maharaja and prohibits Indian citizens from accepting any title from a foreign state. However, a foreigner holding an office of profit under an Indian state can accept emoluments with the President's prior consent.

• In the Maneka Gandhi case (1978), the Supreme Court took a wider interpretation of Article 21 and held that the ‘right to life’ as embodied in Article 21 is not merely confined to animal existence or survival but it includes within its ambit the right to live with human dignity and all those aspects of life which go to make a man’s life meaningful, complete and worth living.

• It also ruled that the expression ‘Personal Liberty’ in Article 21 is of the widest amplitude and it covers a variety of rights that go to constitute the personal liberties of a man.

• Regarding the issue of the right to travel abroad in the case of Satwant Singh Sawhney vs D. Ramarathnam, the Supreme Court established the “expression” personal liberty takes the right of locomotion and to travel abroad.

• Supreme Court in the case of Satish Chandra Verma vs. Union of India 2019, reiterated that the right to travel abroad is a genuine and basic human right like marriage and family

  • The right to travel abroad is an important basic human right for it nourishes the independent and self-determining creative character of the individual, not only by extending his freedoms of action but also by extending the scope of his experience

• Right to reputation has been an integral part of Article 21 of the Constitution. Every individual has a right to live a dignified life. Reputation and honor are connected with dignity and thus, constitute an inalienable part of human life.

• In the recent judgment of Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, the apex court held that the reputation of an individual is a basic element under Article 21 of the Constitution

• Supreme Court in Attorney General of India v. Lachma Devi held that the direction for the public execution of the death sentence by Rajasthan High Court was unconstitutional and violative of Article 21.

• It was further made clear that death by public hanging would be a barbaric practice. Even if the crime for which the accused has been found guilty is barbaric it would be a shame on the civilized society to reciprocate the same.

• In the case of Prem Shankar v. Delhi Administration 1980, the Supreme Court struck down the rules which stated that every person who is under trial for a non-bailable offense punishable with more than three years imprisonment has to be routinely handcuffed.

Hence option (d) is the correct answer.

• Quo Warranto means ‘by what authority or warrant’. It is issued by the court to enquire into the legality of the claim of a person to a public office. Hence, it prevents illegal usurpation of public office by a person.

• The writ can be issued only in case of a substantive public office of a permanent character created by a statute or by the Constitution. It cannot be issued in cases of ministerial office or private office.

• Any interested person and not necessarily the aggrieved person can seek Quo Warranto writ. Hence, statement 1 is not correct.

• Mandamus literally means ‘we command’. It is a command issued by the court to a public official asking him to perform the official duties that he has failed or refused to perform.

• It can also be issued against any public body, a corporation, an inferior court, a tribunal, or government for the same purpose.

• The writ of mandamus cannot be issued

  • against a private individual or body. Hence statement 2 is correct.

  • to enforce departmental instruction that does not possess statutory force

  • when the duty is discretionary and not mandatory

  • to enforce a contractual obligation

  • against the president of India or the state governors

  • against the chief justice of a high court acting in a judicial capacity

• Certiorari means ‘to be certified’ or ‘to be informed’. It is issued by a higher court to a lower court or tribunal either to transfer a case pending with the latter to itself or to squash the order of the latter in a case.

• It is issued on the grounds of excess of jurisdiction or lack of jurisdiction or error of law. Thus, unlike prohibition, which is only preventive, certiorari is both preventive as well as curative.

• Previously, the writ of certiorari could be issued only against judicial and quasi-judicial authorities and not against administrative authorities. However, in 1991, the Supreme Court ruled that the certiorari can be issued even against administrative authorities affecting the rights of individuals.

Hence, statement 3 is correct.

• A bill contemplating the changes under Article 3 has to satisfy two conditions:

  • such a bill can be introduced in the Parliament only with the prior recommendation of the President;

  • before recommending the bill, the President has to refer the same to the state legislature concerned for expressing its views within a specified period.

• The President is not bound by the views of the state legislature and may either accept or reject them, even if the views are received in time.

• Moreover, the Constitution (Article 4) itself declares that laws made for admission or establishment of new states (under Article 2) and formation of new states and alteration of areas, boundaries or names of existing states (under Articles 3) are not to be considered as amendments of the Constitution under Article 368. This means that such laws can be passed by a simple majority and by the ordinary legislative process.

• Hence option (c) is the correct answer.

• In 1976, Sardar Swaran Singh Committee was set up to make recommendations about Fundamental Duties. The committee suggested the incorporation of eight Fundamental Duties in the constitution but ten fundamental duties were added to it by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976.

• Some of the recommendations of the Swaran Singh Committee were not accepted by the government.

• These include:

  • The parliament may provide for the imposition of penalty for non-compliance with any of the Fundamental Duties. Hence statement 2 is correct.

  • No law imposing such penalty shall be challengable in the court on grounds of infringement of Fundamental Rights or any other grounds of incompatibility with any other provision of the constitution.

  • Duty to pay taxes should also be a Fundamental Duty of the citizens. Hence statement 1 is correct.

• The fundamental duties were not part of the original constitution. It was added in 1976 through the 42nd amendment act. Originally, ten duties were added as fundamental duties as part IV-A of the constitution which consists of article 51-A. However, in 2002, another duty was added through the 86th Constitutional Amendment Act.

• The fundamental duties were added to the constitution based on the recommendations of the Sardar Swaran Singh Committee. These are inspired by the constitution of the erstwhile USSR. Hence statement 1 is correct.

• Swaran Singh committee also recommended the provisions of the punishment for non-compliance with duties. However, it was not added to the constitution. Constitution says nothing about enforcing these duties. Hence statement 2 is correct. The Fundamental Duties could be used by the courts in examining the constitutional validity of a law. Parliament can also enforce it through law.

• Constitution does not make the enjoyment of rights dependent or conditional upon the fulfilment of duties. Hence statement 3 is not correct. This represents that the inclusion of fundamental duties has not changed the status of our fundamental rights.

• A proclamation of national emergency may be applicable to the entire country or only a part of it. The 42nd Amendment Act of 1976 enabled the President to limit the operation of a National Emergency to a specified part of India. Hence statement 1 is correct.

• The President, however, can proclaim a national emergency only after receiving a written recommendation from the cabinet. This means that the emergency can be declared only on the concurrence of the cabinet and not merely on the advice of the prime minister. Hence statement 2 is not correct.

• In 1975, the then Prime Minister, Indira Gandhi advised the president to proclaim an emergency without consulting her cabinet. The cabinet was informed of the proclamation after it was made, as a fait accompli. The 44th Amendment Act of 1978 introduced this safeguard to eliminate any possibility of the prime minister alone taking a decision in this regard.

• Article 280 of the Constitution provides for the Finance Commission as a balancing wheel of Fiscal Federalism in India. It is a quasi-judicial body constituted by the President every fifth year or such earlier time as he considers necessary.

• Statement 1 is correct: Article 280 of the Constitution fixes the composition of the commission. It provides that the Finance Commission consists of a chairman and four other members to be appointed by the President. They hold the office under the pleasure of the President and are eligible for reappointment.

• Statement 2 is correct: The Parliament under the Finance Commission (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1951 specifies the qualifications of the Chairman and members of the Commission. As per the act, the Chairperson should be a person having experience in public affairs. So persons under the three organs of state whether Executive, Legislative or Judiciary are eligible for appointment. P. V. Rajamannar who was Chief Justice of Madras High court was Chairman of the 4th Finance Commission.

• Statement 3 is correct: Though Finance Commission is a Quasi-Judicial body but its recommendations are not binding on the government. recommendations are only advisory in nature and it is up to the government whether to implement recommendations or not.