Doubt Clearance Thread: UPSC 2021
"When in doubt, observe and ask questions. When certain, observe at length and ask many more questions."
Created this thread as a one stop solution for all members so that all the doubts wherein any conceptual clarification is required can be solved here.
“To protect monuments, places, and objects of artistic or historic interest” is a provision made under
: (a) Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy
(b) Directive Principles of State Policy only
(c) Fundamental Duties only
(d) Directive Principles of State Policy and Fundamental Duties
I need a little help here... I think answer should be (d)
But it is wrong as per key. why?
“To protect monuments, places, and objects of artistic or historic interest” is a provision made under
: (a) Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy
(b) Directive Principles of State Policy only
(c) Fundamental Duties only
(d) Directive Principles of State Policy and Fundamental Duties
I need a little help here... I think answer should be (d)
But it is wrong as per key. why?
b)
“To protect monuments, places, and objects of artistic or historic interest” is a provision made under
: (a) Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy
(b) Directive Principles of State Policy only
(c) Fundamental Duties only
(d) Directive Principles of State Policy and Fundamental Duties
I need a little help here... I think answer should be (d)
But it is wrong as per key. why?
The fundamental duty you are confusing it with says- to value and preserve the rich heritage of our composite culture;
protection is a duty of state; citizens have to value and preserve the monument.
Can ministers be held liable in courts for their official acts? (abyaas 1 question 85)
the solution says no, they can't be held liable. But I think otherwise. The cases of misappropriation in official capacity does lead to legal liability. for example, prosecution in 2G scam, common wealth games scam and more recently Chidambaram case.
someone please throw some light on it!
HotBloodPrince,
HotBloodPrince,
Spry_Star,For instance, suppose minister of finance takes a policy decision which results in huge loss to public exchequer but he/she didn't commit any crime under any act(PMLA,FEMA etc). Then he/she can't be held accountable for the decision until and unless he/she counter sign the decision which is not the case in Indian democracy.
Note - he/she can't be held accountable in a court of law, but parliament is free to censure the minister or council of ministers.
chamomile,"Appreciation in the real exchange rate have contributed to the declining exports to GDP ratio in recent times."
Can someone please explain this?
According to NCERT Real Exchange Rate = Nominal exchange rate * (Price of commodity in Foreign in Domestic Market / Price of commodity in Domestic Market)
This is from the Survey right ? You need to view this statement the table that follows.
Appreciation has been due to an outcome of increasing integration of India’s exports with global value chain. The integration with the global value chain has increased following a relatively higher growth in manufacturing exports.
Are you clear with REER? Let me know if the concept isn't clear.
essential practice of Islaam so art. 26 does not apply and section 144 applies, will that be right?
@AlexanderSupertramp in all the examples u gave, office holders did not act in accordance with their official duties ...they engaged or alleged to be engaged in quid pro quo.For instance, suppose minister of finance takes a policy decision which results in huge loss to public exchequer but he/she didn't commit any crime under any act(PMLA,FEMA etc). Then he/she can't be held accountable for the decision until and unless he/she counter sign the decision which is not the case in Indian democracy.
Note - he/she can't be held accountable in a court of law, but parliament is free to censure the minister or council of ministers.
thanks buddy!
chamomile,
simulator 1, question number 57, option c which is marked to be correct.
it states that- "If any person is convicted of an offence of bribery, he/she shall be disqualified from voting at any electionfor a period of six years''.
however the disqualification rpa, 1951 talks about is for contesting the elections and not for voting. Is the question wrong or am i missing something here?
Write your comment…
