Indian Politics Questions and Answers

Answer: B

Correct answer: During the pleasure of the President

Article 156 provides that the Governor holds office during the pleasure of the President, with a normal term of five years. Because pleasure can be withdrawn at any time, the five years is not security of tenure but only a maximum. In practice the power is exercised on the advice of the Union Council of Ministers, so governors have often been replaced when the government at the centre changed. The Supreme Court held in B. P. Singhal in 2010 that although reasons need not be given, the power cannot be exercised arbitrarily, capriciously or for extraneous reasons, and that a change of government at the centre is not by itself a valid ground. The Sarkaria and Punchhi Commissions both recommended a fixed tenure and consultation with the Chief Minister before appointment; neither recommendation has been implemented. A Governor continues in office until a successor takes charge, may be transferred to another state, and may hold charge of two states at once.

Answer: D

Correct answer: The state level

The Lokayukta is the anti-corruption ombudsman at the state level; its counterpart at the Union level is the Lokpal. States began creating Lokayuktas long before the centre acted: Maharashtra was first in 1971, followed by Odisha, Rajasthan, Bihar and others, each under its own statute, so their powers, tenure and jurisdiction have varied considerably. Karnataka’s was for a period the most active, with its own investigating police wing. The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act of 2013 created the Lokpal and required every state to establish a Lokayukta within a year, though it left the details to state legislation. The institution derives from the Scandinavian Ombudsman, recommended for India by the first Administrative Reforms Commission in 1966, which proposed both a Lokpal and Lokayuktas. Neither is a constitutional body; both are statutory, which is one reason their independence and effectiveness have been questioned.

Answer: C

Correct answer: Article 12

Article 12 defines the State for the purposes of Part III as including the Government and Parliament of India, the government and legislature of each state, and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India. The definition matters because most fundamental rights are enforceable only against the State. The phrase other authorities has been interpreted expansively by the courts to cover statutory corporations, government companies and any body that is an instrumentality or agency of the government - the tests set out in Ajay Hasia turning on financial control, deep and pervasive state control, and whether the functions are of public importance. On that reasoning LIC, ONGC, and several universities have been held to be the State, and so amenable to writ jurisdiction. The judiciary’s position is unsettled: it is the State when performing administrative functions, but its judicial decisions are generally not challengeable as violating fundamental rights. Articles 17, 23 and 24 are the exceptions enforceable against private persons too.

Answer: B

Correct answer: 15 per cent of the strength of the Lok Sabha

The 91st Amendment of 2003 capped the total number of ministers, including the Prime Minister, at 15 per cent of the total strength of the Lok Sabha. The same cap applies in the states, with a floor of twelve ministers so that small states are not left with an unworkably tiny ministry. The purpose was to curb the practice of enlarging ministries to reward or retain supporters, which had become a common way of managing coalitions and of evading the spirit of the anti-defection law. The same amendment tightened that law from the other side, removing the exemption for a split by one third of a party - leaving only a merger by two thirds as a defence - and disqualifying a defecting member from holding ministerial office for the remainder of the term. In a Lok Sabha of 543 the cap works out at 81 ministers.

Answer: C

The Constituent Assembly worked from December 1946 to November 1949.

It first met on 9 December 1946 and adopted the Constitution on 26 November 1949 - two years, eleven months and eighteen days, over eleven sessions and 165 sitting days.

Answer: A

True. An ordinance issued by the president under Article 123 has the same force and effect as an Act of Parliament.

It can be issued only when Parliament is not in session and the president is satisfied that immediate action is needed. It must be laid before both Houses when they reassemble and lapses six weeks later unless approved.

Answer: B

The chairman of the Public Accounts Committee is appointed by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha.

Since 1967 the post has by convention gone to a member of the opposition, which is what allows the committee to scrutinise government spending with real independence. It examines the CAG's reports.

Answer: C

Correct answer: Article 51-A

The Fundamental Duties are set out in Article 51-A, the sole article of Part IV-A, inserted by the 42nd Amendment in 1976 on the recommendation of the Swaran Singh Committee. Ten duties were listed originally, and an eleventh - requiring a parent or guardian to provide educational opportunity to a child between six and fourteen - was added by the 86th Amendment in 2002. They include abiding by the Constitution and respecting the national flag and anthem, cherishing the ideals of the freedom struggle, upholding the sovereignty and integrity of India, promoting harmony, protecting the environment, developing a scientific temper, and safeguarding public property. They apply to citizens only, and unlike the Fundamental Rights they are not directly enforceable by any court - though Parliament may legislate to enforce them, and the courts have used them in interpreting statutes and rights. The other articles named are 32, the right to constitutional remedies; 44, the directive on a uniform civil code; and 21-A, the right to education.

Answer: B

Correct answer: Constitutional body under Article 338

The National Commission for Scheduled Castes is a constitutional body established under Article 338. Its counterpart for Scheduled Tribes is under Article 338-A, and the National Commission for Backward Classes under Article 338-B. It began as a Special Officer for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, provided for in the original Constitution and commonly called the Commissioner. The 65th Amendment of 1990 replaced that with a multi-member Commission for both groups, and the 89th Amendment of 2003 split it into two separate commissions. The 102nd Amendment of 2018 gave the backward classes commission constitutional status in the same way. The distinction the question tests is between constitutional bodies, created by the Constitution itself - the Election Commission, the CAG, the Finance Commission, the UPSC, the Attorney General - and statutory bodies created by ordinary legislation, such as the National Human Rights Commission and the National Commission for Women. A constitutional body can be altered only by amendment, which gives it far greater security.

Answer: B

Correct answer: 1993

The Election Commission became a permanently multi-member body in 1993, since when it has consisted of a Chief Election Commissioner and two Election Commissioners, all with equal decision-making power and disputes settled by majority. It had functioned as a single-member body from its establishment in 1950 for most of its history. Two Election Commissioners were appointed in 1989, the arrangement was reversed in 1990, and it was restored in 1993 - a change contested by the then Chief Election Commissioner and upheld by the Supreme Court. Article 324 provides for it and vests in it the superintendence, direction and control of elections to Parliament, the state legislatures, and the offices of President and Vice President. Elections to local bodies are conducted by separate State Election Commissions. The Chief Election Commissioner can be removed only in the same manner as a Supreme Court judge; the other Commissioners can be removed on his recommendation, a difference in tenure protection that has been criticised.