Its very difficult sometimes to tackle applied questions as all options seem correct or can be justified. But a simple trick here is to understand the crux of the concept. Take an example of secularism which in Indian sense is a positive one. It means the State has no religion and the State shall treat each religion equally. This is the underlying meaning of Secularism in India and all other provisions of the Constitution revolve around it. Hence statement 1 is the most appropriate answer here.
Statement 1 is correct - It was indeed secular though religious elements were present. For example at Kalibangan and Lothal Fire altars have been found. There is a wide consensus among historians that Mohenjodaro was a temple town. The figures on Harappan seals like Pashupati Mahadev seal and terracotta figurines of the phallus, Bulls, etc point towards the religious elements of Harappa. However still it was a secular civilisation because of two factors - a) Different Burial Practices i.e. Burial in circular graves, Cremation and then burial of ashes and Burial in a rectangular grave points toward presence of different faith (It was ultimately accepted after the discovery of Symmetry H in Harappan town) b) Figures on the seal which point towards the Sacrificial religion and Nature Worshippers and Deity Worshippers lived side by side.
Statement 2 is correct - There is evidence of Cotton cloth found from Mohenjodaro. This along with terracotta figurines of males and females in which males wore Lungi or saree type cloth without blouse whereas women wearing a shirt, pants, salwar, blouse, etc confined that cotton was used in textiles.
With reference to the position of Leader of Opposition in the Indian Parliamentary system, consider the following statements.
1. The leader of the largest opposition party having not less than one-tenth seats of the total strength of the House is recognised as the Leader of the Opposition in that House.
2. The position was recognised in Parliament for the first time in 1977.
3. The Leader of Opposition holds status equivalent to that of a Cabinet Minister.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Explanation
Exp) Statement 1 is correct. The Salary and Allowances of Leaders of Opposition in Parliament Act, 1977 defines LoP as the leader of the largest opposition party having not less than one-tenth seats of the total the strength of the House
Statement 2 is incorrect. The leader of Opposition was first recognised in 1969 and in 1977 the position got statutory status via Salary and Allowances of Leaders of Opposition in Parliament Act.
Statement 3 is correct. The Salary and Allowances of Leaders of Opposition in Parliament Act, 1977 extends to Leaders of Opposition in the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha the same official status, allowances and perks that are admissible to Cabinet Ministers.
Doubt: I think Salary and Allowances of Leaders of Opposition in Parliament Act, 1977 is silent about the one-tenth criteria and this criteria was rather given by the speaker of Lok sabha (Referring to statement 1)
Yes, one-tenth numerical strength has been defined by Chairman in the case of RS and Speaker in the case of LS. The answer has to be (B) i.e. 3 only is correct.
Who can file for anti defection complaint to presiding officer , against any member of parliament/assembly , is it
1) member of the parliament2) any citizen
This document
http://164.100.47.194/Loksabha/writereaddata/membersbook/Chapter5.pdf
on page 166 says this
The Supreme Court of India in its judgement dated 17 January, 2013 in Civil Appeal No. 469 of 2013 titled Speaker, Orissa Legislative Assembly Vs. Utkal Keshari Parida held that “....we are not inclined to accept the contention that a member of a Legislative Assembly can alone file the petition.... Therefore, we hold that the disqualification petitions filed by the petitioner, who is the President of NCP, are maintainable under Rule 6 of the Rule
Anyone can file a petition or complain for anti defection to Speaker or Chairman. It is not necessary that only Member of the hose of Whip shall file the complain. Please go through the following para to get more clarity..
Even if a member has committed an act of defection, the Speaker
has no power to initiate action under the Tenth Schedule suo moto.
He has to wait for a petition in accordance with the Members
(Disqualification on Grounds of Defection) Rules, 1985. Paragraph 6
of the Tenth Schedule does not specify the person who is competent
to file the petition for disqualifying the erring member. It simply
provides that "If any question arises as to whether a member has
become subject to disqualification, the question shall be referred for
the decision of the Chairman or the Speaker". Rule 6 (2) of the
Members of Lok Sabha (Disqualification on Ground of Defection) Rules,
1985, however, lays down that a petition seeking disqualification of a
member can be made by "any other member". The relevant rules
made by the UP Speaker make a departure and provide that such a
petition can be filed by "any person".
The photo is from March Factly.
Doubt is regarding Rule 256 of Rajya Sabha. According to Rule 256, the power to suspend is with the Chairman or the Council ? What i understand is Chairman initiates(by naming) and then the House takes up the motion as in Lok Sabha rule 374. Am i reading the rule correctly ? Is there a mistake in factly?
Yes, your interpretation is right:
1) In Lok Sabha speaker can directly suspend the member.
2) In Rajya Sabha Chairman can name a member to be suspended and then the house decides upon the suspension via motion.
What is in 5th schedule which have bearing on education except the fact that there should be tribes advisory council and safeguard interest of scheduled Tribes and administer scheduled areas.
W.r.t. 6th schedule, there is specific mention about creation, construction and management of primary schools.
Yes, the answer needs to be D) i.e. all the statements can have bearing on education.
1) Under 5th Schedule areas Governor can decide whether the laws of parliament can apply to the Scheduled areas in the state. Under this provision, various states have tweaked the provisions of the Right to Education Act as far as its applicability to scheduled areas under Scheduled 5 is concerned.
I have doubt w.r.to. option 3. The dispute b/w GoI and UT like NCT of Delhi gone to SC and in case of Puducherry in Madras HC, are these not come under original jurisdiction of SC, though Laxmikant doesn't have that mention.
The original jurisdiction of SC under article 131 is provided only for dispute between the Center and States. The Union Territories by definition don't fall under the category of states and hence UTs can not approach SC under its original jurisdiction under article 131. However, time and again it is found that Union Territories approach SC against Centre, but such an approach is made under the Special Leave Petition of SC under article 136 and not under the original jurisdiction.
Correct Answer : c
Your Answer : d
For elections/nomination to the Parliament, which of the following is correct?
Explanation
Exp) Option a is incorrect. Nomination to Rajya Sabha requires a person to have special knowledge or practical experience in matters like literature, science, art and social service. Recently, retired Chief Justice of India, Ranjan Gogoi has been nominated to the Rajya Sabha.
Option b is incorrect. A candidate filing for candidature needs one proposer from his/ her constituency when the candidate belongs to a recognized national or State party.
Option c is correct. A candidate gets six year of disqualification if he/ she gets convicted for an offence of bribery under Representation of People’s Act 1951.
Doubt: Is Statement (c) correct? Even the explanation is not in sync with the option asked.
The statement c) here is right. Plz, refer to Section 62 of RPA 1951 and Section 16 of RPA 1950.
http://legislative.gov.in/sites/default/files/04_representation%20of%20the%20people%20act%2C%201951.pdf
Doubt is regarding Rule 256 of Rajya Sabha. According to Rule 256, the power to suspend is with the Chairman or the Council ? What i understand is Chairman initiates(by naming) and then the House takes up the motion as in Lok Sabha rule 374. Am i reading the rule correctly ? Is there a mistake in factly?
Yes, your interpretation is right:
1) In Lok Sabha speaker can directly suspend the member.
2) In Rajya Sabha Chairman can name a member to be suspended and then the house decides upon the suspension via motion.
@Thinker Sir, but according to Rule 374 of Lok Sabha, Speaker can name a member and then House decides on it via a motion.. Speaker can.t directly suspend, right ?
During 13th Lok Sabha in 2001, the Rule book was amended to add Section 374A to provide for automatic suspension of a member of LS on naming by Speaker. No such provision exists for RS though. Please refer to Rule Book to get more clarity.
http://164.100.47.194/loksabha/rules/RULES-2010-P-FINAL_1.pdf
37) Consider the following statements about Dadabhai Naoroji: 1. He propounded the theory of Drain of Wealth for the first time in his book Poverty and UnBritish rule in India. 2. He presided over Indian National Congress sessions three times. Which of the statements given above is/are correct? a) 1 only b) 2 only c
how ans is b.
Both seem to be true
But the catch here is the phrase- "for the first time". So poverty and unBritish rule was published in 1901. He must have propounded theory before that maybe around the 1890s (during the moderate phase of independence struggle).
The drain of wealth theory was propounded by Dadabhai Nauroji first if 1866 and later on he elaborated on it in his book Poverty and Un-British Rule in India.
Hello!
Who acts as the Vice-President of India, when a vacancy occurs in the office of the Vice-President, when the Vice-President acts as the President of India?
The Constitution is silent on this matter. However the only significant duty of V-P is to act as Chairperson of the RS, nobody technically works as VP when there is a vacancy and till the absence of VP, the functions of Rajya Sabha are performed by the Deputy Chairman of RS.
Can governor reserve any bill for consideration of President?
Governor has wide discretionary powers under the Constitution (read Article 163). As far as reservation of a Bill is concerned following shall be taken into consideration -
1) Constitution Amendment Bill - Can not be introduced in State Legislature hence out of our discussion here.
2) Money Bill - The governor can give assent or withhold the bill. However, since it is a money bill and introduced with prior assent of the President it can not be returned by the Governor for the reconsideration of the legislature. But governor can reserve the bill for the consideration of the president.
4) Finance Bill - Article 207 provides for the Finance Bill in the State Legislature and it also nowhere prohibits the Governor from reserving the bill for the consideration of the President.
4) Ordinary Bill - Governor can exercise an absolute veto, suspension veto, and a pocket veto over it. It can also be reserved for the consideration of the President.
Now coming to Article 200 and 201 which provides for the reservation of the Bill for the consideration fo the President, this two article too didn't mention any categories of bills on which governor is required to give his assent or which prevent Governor from reserving the bill for the consideration of the President. The only positive exception is that the Governor is mandated to reserve a bill introduced in the State Legislature for the Consideration of the President if that bill endangers the position of High Court in the States.
Hence in my opinion Governor can reserve any bill introduced in the State Legislature for the consideration of the President by virtue of Article 163 (Discretionary powers of the Governor) and also under Article 200 and 201. At least technically he can reserve any bill introduced in the State Legislature for the consideration of the President.
Which of the following Acts gave representation to Indians for the first time in legislatures?
The framing of the question is bit bad.
Indian Councils Act 1861 had provided for the presentation of Indians for the first time in the Indian Legislative Council of the Viceroy. Accordingly, 3 members were nominated by the Governor-General Canning in Indian Legislative Council in 1861 itself.
The Indian Council Act 1891 had provided for indirect election for the Indian Legislative Council i.e. certain members in the Legislative Council were to be nominated by the Viceroy on the recommendation of the local bodies.
The Indian Council Act 1909 had provided for direct election for the first time and also for the separate electorates to Muslims.
Thus the answer here shall be D i.e. none of the above.
Is statement C correct?
I doubt it to be wrong but the answerkey mentions otherwise. :(
Same doubt. Someone please clarify. Is there a ban on voting for 6 years?
yes, it is true. plz, refer to section IV of RPA 1951.
http://legislative.gov.in/sites/default/files/04_representation%20of%20the%20people%20act%2C%201951.pdf
Consider the following statements about Neolithic age
1. They were first food producers and animal keepers.
2. They did not know about Potter’s wheel.
3. The Neolithic age on Indian subcontinent began earlier than the other parts of the world.
Which of the above statements is/are correct?
a 1 only
b 1 and 2 only
c 2 and 3 only
d 1, 2 and 3
The Neolithic people were the first producer as agriculture was invented but they were certainly not the first animal keeper. The Mesolithic people were first to start the domestication of the animal. (Hence Statement 1 is disputable)
Neolithic people were acquainted with the potter's wheel. In fact, it is widely acknowledged now that the potter's the wheel was invented in 5000 BC. The surplus production gave rise to the need of pottery for storage. (Hence Statement 2 is incorrect)
Mehargarh (of 7000 BC) was the earliest Neolithic site in India. Hence Neolithic age in India was late as compared to the Neolithic age of other parts of the world which started to appear around 12000 BC onwards. (Hence Statement 3 is incorrect)
Ultimately the most appropriate answer here is a) i.e. 1 only.
what should be the answer?
In my opinion, the first two shall be mandatory documents. Since the Constitution, itself mentions the Annual Financial statement has to be laid before parliament and without demands for grants money can not be withdrawn from the Consolidated Fund of India.
The rest two are presented in the budget but it's not mandatory for the government to presents them.
However, I am not sure of this and need options to eliminate and arrive at the answer.
Wts the final answer?
» hide previous quotes
Is it just me or shankar's yesterday's test actually wasn't up to the mark?
It's correct. The answer will be none of the above.
Article 17 can be amended by the Parliament. There's no bar. In case of emergency, only 20,21 cannot be suspended in any case. The enforcement of Article 17 is suspended in such a scenario. So, it's not absolute.
It's also applicable against individuals. Further, it is not self-executory because the Article clearly states that a law to that effect must be made defining it as an offence for the said purpose.
Art 17 is not absolute. So shouldn't the first statement be right?
Art 17 is absolute in the sense that there are no reasonable restrictions on it I guess?
Sorry I misread.
Article 17 is not absolute. So, C should be correct.
Obviously not if question is picked up from the popular book. They say it is absolute.
It's very gray actually because not much discussion has been done on this Article.
However, the SC in many judgements has iterated that fundamental rights are not absolute. So, it applies to Article 17 as well.
The framing of the question is ambiguous. As far as statement 1 is concerned it is indeed a gray area so I will not comment about it.
However Article 17 is self executory in nature. The constitution itself mentions Untouchability is abolished and its practice in any form is forbidden. Only quantum of punishment is to be decided by law. So it has to be self executory in nature. Isnt it?
