UPSC Prelims 2020
Indian Polity Previous Year Questions (PYQs)
Explore 17 solved UPSC Prelims 2020 Indian Polity questions with detailed step-by-step bilingual solutions, option analysis, and answer keys.
In India, Legal Services Authorities provide free legal services to which of the following type of citizens?
- Person with an annual income of less than Rs 1,00,000
- Transgender with an annual income of less than Rs 2,00,000
- Member of Other Backward Classes (OBC) with an annual income of less than Rs 3,00,000
- All Senior Citizens
Detailed Explanation:
Answer: Option 1 — 1 and 2 only
The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 provides free legal services to economically weaker sections and marginalized groups. Persons with annual income below Rs 1,00,000 and transgenders with income below Rs 2,00,000 (in certain states like Delhi) are eligible, while OBCs have no specific income-based provision and senior citizens' eligibility depends on state-specific rules.
✅ Statement 1 – Correct: Persons with annual income less than Rs 1,00,000 are eligible for free legal services under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.
✅ Statement 2 – Correct: Transgenders with annual income less than Rs 2,00,000 are provided free legal aid in states like Delhi, though not uniformly implemented across India.
❌ Statement 3 – Incorrect: OBCs are not provided free legal services based on income criteria; only SC/ST members have specific provisions.
❌ Statement 4 – Incorrect: Not all senior citizens are eligible; eligibility depends on state-specific rules and income limits.
📝 Short Notes: Legal Services Authorities and Free Legal Aid
- Legal Framework: Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 establishes the framework for providing free legal services to eligible citizens.
- Eligible Categories: Women and children, SC/ST members, industrial workmen, persons with disabilities, victims of mass disasters, persons in custody, victims of human trafficking.
- Income Criterion: General category persons with annual income below Rs 1,00,000 are eligible.
- Transgender Provision: States like Delhi provide free legal aid to transgenders up to Rs 2,00,000 annual income.
- Senior Citizens: Eligibility varies by state; not automatically eligible unless they meet state-prescribed income limits.
- State Legal Services Authorities: Each state has its own authority under the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) to implement these provisions.
With reference to the funds under Members of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme (MPLADS), which of the following statements are correct?
- MPLADS funds must be used to create durable assets like physical infrastructure for health, education, etc.
- A specified portion of each MP’s fund must benefit SC/ST populations
- MPLADS funds are sanctioned on yearly basis and the unused funds cannot be carried forward to the next years
- The district authority must inspect at least 10% of all works under implementation every year
Detailed Explanation:
Answer: Option 4 — 1, 2 and 4 only
The MPLADS scheme focuses on creating durable community assets, mandates reservation of funds for SC/ST areas, and requires district-level inspection of works. Statement 3 is incorrect because MPLADS funds are non-lapsable and can be carried forward to subsequent years.
✅ Statement 1 – Correct: MPLADS funds must be used to create durable assets like physical infrastructure for health, education, and other community facilities.
✅ Statement 2 – Correct: At least 15% of MPLADS entitlement must be allocated for SC population areas and 7.5% for ST population areas.
❌ Statement 3 – Incorrect: MPLADS funds are non-lapsable; unused funds can be carried forward to subsequent years.
✅ Statement 4 – Correct: The District Authority must inspect at least 10% of all works under implementation every year.
Consider the following statements:
- According to the Constitution of India a person who is eligible to vote can be made a minister in a State for six months even if he/she is not a member of the Legislature of that State.
- According to the Representation of People Act, 1951, a person convicted of a criminal offence and sentenced to imprisonment for five years is permanently disqualified from contesting an election even after his release from prison.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Detailed Explanation:
Answer: Option 4 — Neither 1 nor 2
Both statements contain inaccuracies regarding constitutional and statutory provisions. Statement 1 incorrectly assumes that any person eligible to vote (18+ years) can become a minister, while the Constitution requires ministers to meet the qualifications for membership of the State Legislature (25 years for Assembly, 30 for Council). Statement 2 incorrectly describes the disqualification as permanent, whereas it is actually for six years after release from prison.
❌ Statement 1 – Incorrect: Article 164(4) allows a non-member to be a minister for six months, but Article 173 requires the person to be qualified for membership of the State Legislature (minimum age 25 for Assembly, 30 for Council), not just eligible to vote (18 years).
❌ Statement 2 – Incorrect: Section 8(3) of RPA 1951 disqualifies a person convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for not less than two years for a period of six years after release, not permanently.
📝 Short Notes: Qualifications and Disqualifications for Ministers and Legislators
| Provision | Details |
|---|---|
| Article 164(4) | A minister who is not a member of the State Legislature for six consecutive months shall cease to be a minister |
| Article 173 - Qualifications | Member of Legislative Assembly: minimum 25 years Member of Legislative Council: minimum 30 years Must be a citizen of India and registered as a voter |
| Article 326 - Right to Vote | Minimum age: 18 years (61st Amendment, 1989) |
| Section 8(3) RPA 1951 | Conviction with imprisonment ≥2 years: disqualified from date of conviction + 6 years after release |
| Section 8(1) & 8(2) RPA 1951 | Conviction for specific electoral/communal offences: disqualified from date of conviction + 6 years after release |
🧐 Not Sure What to Study Next?
Get a personalised study plan based on your goals, time and revision needs.
With reference to the provisions contained in Part IV of the Constitution of India, which of the following statements is/are correct?
- They shall be enforceable by courts.
- They shall not be enforceable by any court.
- The principles laid down in this part are to influence the making of laws by the State.
Select the correct answer using the code given below:
Detailed Explanation:
Answer: Option 4 — 2 and 3 only
Part IV of the Constitution contains the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSs), which are non-justiciable guidelines for governance. According to Article 37, these principles are not enforceable by any court but are fundamental in the governance of the country, and it is the duty of the State to apply them while making laws.
❌ Statement 1 – Incorrect: DPSPs are explicitly non-justiciable and cannot be enforced by courts under Article 37.
✅ Statement 2 – Correct: Article 37 clearly states that provisions in Part IV shall not be enforceable by any court.
✅ Statement 3 – Correct: Article 37 mandates that these principles are fundamental in governance and must guide the State in making laws to establish social and economic democracy.
📝 Short Notes: Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV)
- Nature: Non-justiciable rights (cannot be enforced by courts) but fundamental in governance (Article 37)
- Purpose: To establish social and economic democracy; guide State policy and law-making
- Classification: Socialistic principles (Articles 38-41), Gandhian principles (Articles 40, 43, 46-48), Liberal-intellectual principles (Articles 44, 45, 49-51)
- Contrast with Fundamental Rights: Part III rights are justiciable and enforceable; DPSPs are non-justiciable but supplementary
- Constitutional Status: Added by the Constituent Assembly to balance individual rights with social welfare goals
- Judicial Interpretation: Supreme Court has held that DPSPs and Fundamental Rights are complementary; both must be harmoniously interpreted (Minerva Mills case)
Rajya Sabha has equal powers with Lok Sabha in:
Detailed Explanation:
Answer: Option 2 — amending the Constitution
The Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha have equal powers in the matter of constitutional amendments under Article 368. For any constitutional amendment to be valid, it must be passed by a special majority (majority of total membership and two-thirds of members present and voting) in both Houses of Parliament. In contrast, the Rajya Sabha has limited or no powers in matters of creating All India Services (only recommendatory role), removal of government (only Lok Sabha can pass a no-confidence motion), and making cut motions (exclusively a Lok Sabha privilege on money matters).
📝 Short Notes: Powers of Rajya Sabha vs Lok Sabha
| Matter | Rajya Sabha Powers | Lok Sabha Powers |
|---|---|---|
| Constitutional Amendments (Article 368) | Equal powers - must pass with special majority | Equal powers - must pass with special majority |
| Money Bills (Article 109) | Can only recommend amendments (14 days); Lok Sabha may accept or reject | Exclusive power to originate; final authority |
| Removal of Government (No-confidence Motion) | Cannot move no-confidence motion | Can move and pass no-confidence motion |
| Cut Motions (Budget) | Cannot move cut motions | Exclusive right to move cut motions |
| Creating All India Services (Article 312) | Must pass resolution by 2/3rd majority supporting creation | Parliament then creates the service by law |
| Impeachment of President | Equal powers - must pass with special majority | Equal powers - either House can initiate |
| Ordinary Bills | Equal powers (except Money Bills) | Equal powers (except Money Bills) |
Other than the Fundamental Rights, which of the following parts of the Constitution of India reflect/reflects the principles and provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)?
- Preamble
- Directive Principles of State Policy
- Fundamental Duties
Detailed Explanation:
Answer: Option 4 — 1, 2 and 3
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) encompasses a wide range of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights. Beyond Fundamental Rights, the Indian Constitution reflects UDHR principles in the Preamble (guaranteeing justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity), Directive Principles of State Policy (ensuring socio-economic rights and welfare), and Fundamental Duties (emphasizing individual responsibilities towards the community and society).
✅ Statement 1 – Correct: The Preamble embodies the ideals of justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity, which are core principles of the UDHR.
✅ Statement 2 – Correct: The Directive Principles of State Policy aim at ensuring social and economic justice, right to work, education, and public assistance, mirroring the economic and social rights enshrined in the UDHR.
✅ Statement 3 – Correct: The Fundamental Duties reflect the individual's responsibilities towards society and the community, consistent with Article 29 of the UDHR which emphasizes duties to the community.
📝 Short Notes: Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Indian Constitution
- UDHR (1948): Adopted by the UN General Assembly on December 10, 1948, it is a milestone document proclaiming the inalienable rights of all human beings.
- Preamble Connection: The Preamble's commitment to justice (social, economic, political), liberty (of thought, expression, belief, faith, worship), equality (of status and opportunity), and fraternity reflects UDHR Articles 1-2 on dignity and equality.
- Directive Principles: Articles 38-51 incorporate socio-economic rights similar to UDHR Articles 22-27, including right to work, education, adequate standard of living, and social security.
- Fundamental Duties: Added by the 42nd Amendment (1976), Article 51A lists 11 duties that complement UDHR Article 29, which states that everyone has duties to the community.
- Holistic Approach: While Fundamental Rights (Part III) directly correspond to civil and political rights in UDHR, the Preamble, DPSPs, and Fundamental Duties together create a comprehensive human rights framework.
Consider the following statements:
- Aadhaar metadata cannot be stored for more than three months.
- State cannot enter into any contract with private corporations for sharing of Aadhaar data.
- Aadhaar is mandatory for obtaining insurance products.
- Aadhaar is mandatory for getting benefits funded out of the Consolidated Fund of India.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Detailed Explanation:
Answer: Option 2 — 2 and 4 only
The Supreme Court's 2018 Aadhaar judgment struck down Section 57 (preventing private entities from using Aadhaar) and upheld Section 7 (allowing Aadhaar for welfare schemes funded by the Consolidated Fund of India). The Court also ruled that metadata storage is limited to six months, not three, and that Aadhaar cannot be made mandatory for services like insurance.
✅ Statement 1 – Incorrect: Aadhaar metadata can be stored for six months, not three months, as per the Supreme Court ruling.
✅ Statement 2 – Correct: Section 57 was struck down, prohibiting the State from contracting with private corporations for sharing Aadhaar data.
❌ Statement 3 – Incorrect: The Supreme Court ruled that Aadhaar is not mandatory for insurance products or other financial services.
✅ Statement 4 – Correct: Section 7 was upheld, making Aadhaar mandatory for benefits funded from the Consolidated Fund of India.
📝 Short Notes: Supreme Court Aadhaar Judgment (2018)
| Provision/Aspect | Supreme Court Ruling |
|---|---|
| Constitutional Validity | Aadhaar Act upheld as constitutionally valid |
| Section 7 | Upheld – Aadhaar can be made mandatory for welfare schemes funded by Consolidated Fund of India |
| Section 57 | Struck down – Private entities cannot demand Aadhaar for verification |
| Metadata Storage | Limited to 6 months (earlier provision allowed 5 years) |
| Banking Services | Not mandatory for opening bank accounts |
| Mobile SIM Cards | Not mandatory for obtaining mobile connections |
| School Admissions | Not mandatory for school admissions |
| Right to Privacy | Recognized as a fundamental right; Aadhaar does not violate privacy with safeguards |
A constitutional government by definition is a
Detailed Explanation:
Answer: Option 4 — limited government
A constitutional government is, by definition, a limited government where the powers of the state are restricted and regulated by a constitution. The constitution establishes a legal framework that defines the scope and limits of governmental authority, ensuring that the government operates within prescribed boundaries. This system prevents arbitrary exercise of power through mechanisms like separation of powers, checks and balances, and protection of fundamental rights, thereby upholding the rule of law.
📝 Short Notes: Constitutional Government
- Definition: A government whose powers are defined and limited by a constitution, operating under the rule of law rather than arbitrary rule.
- Separation of Powers: Division of governmental authority into three distinct branches—Legislature (makes laws), Executive (implements laws), and Judiciary (interprets laws)—to prevent concentration of power.
- Checks and Balances: Each branch has mechanisms to check the powers of the other branches, ensuring no single branch becomes supreme.
- Fundamental Rights: Constitutional guarantees that protect individual liberties against governmental encroachment.
- Rule of Law: The principle that government authority must be exercised in accordance with established laws, and no one is above the law.
- Judicial Review: The power of courts to examine the constitutionality of legislative and executive actions.
- Written or Unwritten: Constitutions may be written (like India, USA) or unwritten/partly written (like UK), but they all limit governmental power.
Consider the following statements:
- The President of India can summon a session of the Parliament at such place as he/she thinks fit.
- The Constitution of India provides for three sessions of the Parliament in a year, but it is not mandatory to conduct all three sessions.
- There is no minimum number of days that the Parliament is required to meet in a year.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Detailed Explanation:
Answer: Option 3 — 1 and 3 only
Statement 1 is correct as Article 85(1) empowers the President to summon Parliament at such time and place as deemed fit. Statement 3 is correct since neither the Constitution nor the Rules of Procedure mandate a minimum number of sitting days for Parliament. Statement 2 is incorrect because the Constitution does not explicitly provide for three sessions; it only requires that the gap between sessions should not exceed six months.
✅ Statement 1 – Correct: Article 85(1) grants the President the power to summon each House of Parliament to meet at such time and place as he/she thinks fit.
❌ Statement 2 – Incorrect: The Constitution does not provide for three sessions; it only mandates that six months shall not intervene between sessions (Article 85). The practice of three sessions (Budget, Monsoon, Winter) is based on convention, not constitutional provision.
✅ Statement 3 – Correct: There is no constitutional or procedural requirement for a minimum number of sitting days for Parliament in a year.
📝 Short Notes: Parliamentary Sessions
- Article 85(1): President summons each House of Parliament at such time and place as deemed fit.
- Article 85(2): President may prorogue the Houses from time to time.
- Six-Month Rule: Maximum gap between two sessions cannot exceed six months (Article 85).
- Sessions by Convention: Three sessions are held traditionally—Budget Session (February-May), Monsoon Session (July-August), and Winter Session (November-December).
- No Minimum Days: Constitution does not prescribe minimum sitting days or number of sessions per year.
- Quorum: One-tenth of total members is required for conducting proceedings (Article 100).
In the context of India, which one of the following is the characteristic appropriate for bureaucracy?
Detailed Explanation:
Answer: Option 4 — An agency for the implementation of public policy
Bureaucracy in India refers to the permanent civil service machinery that executes government policies, laws, and programs on a day-to-day basis. While political executives formulate policies, the bureaucracy translates these policies into action through administrative mechanisms. It serves as the implementing arm of the government, ensuring continuity and stability in administration regardless of changes in political leadership.
Why other options are incorrect:
• Option 1: Widening parliamentary democracy is primarily the role of political institutions, electoral reforms, and civil society—not bureaucracy.
• Option 2: Strengthening federalism involves constitutional provisions and inter-governmental relations, not the characteristic function of bureaucracy.
• Option 3: While bureaucracy may indirectly contribute to stability and growth, its defining characteristic is policy implementation, not facilitation of political stability.
A Parliamentary System of Government is one in which
Detailed Explanation:
Answer: Option 2 — the Government is responsible to the Parliament and can be removed by it
A parliamentary system is characterized by the principle of executive accountability to the legislature. The government (executive) remains in power only as long as it enjoys the confidence of the Parliament, and can be removed through mechanisms like a no-confidence motion. This collective responsibility to Parliament is the defining feature that distinguishes parliamentary systems from presidential systems.
❌ Option 1 – Incorrect: Representation of all political parties in government is not a requirement of parliamentary systems; governments are typically formed by the party or coalition with majority support.
❌ Option 3 – Incorrect: In a parliamentary system, the government is indirectly elected through representatives in Parliament, not directly by the people; direct election and removal by citizens is a feature of presidential or direct democracy systems.
❌ Option 4 – Incorrect: The ability to remove the government before a fixed term is fundamental to parliamentary democracy; a fixed term without removal provision characterizes presidential systems.
📝 Short Notes: Parliamentary vs Presidential Systems
| Feature | Parliamentary System | Presidential System |
|---|---|---|
| Executive Accountability | Responsible to legislature; can be removed by no-confidence motion | Not responsible to legislature; fixed term |
| Separation of Powers | Fusion of executive and legislature | Clear separation between executive and legislature |
| Head of Government | Prime Minister (leader of majority party/coalition) | President (directly or indirectly elected) |
| Stability vs Responsiveness | More responsive but less stable (government can fall anytime) | More stable (fixed term) but less responsive |
| Examples | India, UK, Canada, Japan | USA, Brazil, Mexico |
The Preamble to the Constitution of India is
Detailed Explanation:
Answer: Option 4 — a part of the Constitution but has no legal effect independently of other parts.
The Preamble is an integral part of the Indian Constitution as established by the Supreme Court in the Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) case. However, it is not directly enforceable in a court of law and cannot be used independently to challenge the validity of any law. The Preamble serves as a key to interpret ambiguous provisions of the Constitution and reflects its underlying philosophy, but it derives its legal effect only when read in conjunction with other substantive provisions of the Constitution.
📝 Short Notes: Legal Status of the Preamble
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Nature | Integral part of the Constitution (Kesavananda Bharati case, 1973) |
| Legal Effect | Not independently enforceable; cannot be used alone to strike down laws |
| Function | Interpretive tool for ambiguous constitutional provisions; embodies the spirit and philosophy of the Constitution |
| Amendability | Can be amended under Article 368 (42nd Amendment, 1976 added 'Socialist', 'Secular', and 'Integrity') |
| Key Judgment | Berubari Union case (1960) - initially held not part of Constitution; overruled by Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) |
| Components | WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA → Sovereign, Socialist, Secular, Democratic, Republic → Justice, Liberty, Equality, Fraternity |
One common agreement between Gandhism and Marxism is
Detailed Explanation:
Answer: Option 1 — the final goal of a stateless society
Both Gandhism and Marxism, despite their fundamentally different approaches, share the ultimate vision of a stateless society. Gandhism envisions a decentralized, self-governing society based on non-violence, cooperation, and village-level autonomy (often referred to as Ramarajya), where the state becomes unnecessary. Marxism advocates for a classless, communist society where the state eventually "withers away" after the abolition of class distinctions and private property, leaving a self-governing collective society.
❌ Option 2 – Incorrect: Gandhism rejects class struggle and advocates for class cooperation and trusteeship, whereas Marxism is fundamentally based on class struggle.
❌ Option 3 – Incorrect: While Marxism calls for the abolition of private property, Gandhism supports the concept of trusteeship where property owners act as trustees of wealth for societal welfare, not complete abolition.
❌ Option 4 – Incorrect: Gandhism does not accept economic determinism; it emphasizes moral and spiritual values as the primary drivers of social change, unlike Marxism which views economic factors as the base of social structure.
📝 Short Notes: Gandhism vs Marxism
| Aspect | Gandhism | Marxism |
|---|---|---|
| Ultimate Goal | Stateless, decentralized society (Ramarajya) | Stateless, classless communist society |
| Means to Achieve | Non-violence (Ahimsa), Satyagraha, moral transformation | Class struggle, revolution, dictatorship of proletariat |
| View on Class | Class cooperation, trusteeship | Class conflict and struggle |
| Private Property | Trusteeship - owners as trustees for society | Complete abolition of private property |
| Driving Force | Moral and spiritual values | Economic determinism (material conditions) |
| State | Minimal state, village self-governance (Gram Swaraj) | State withers away after revolution |
In India, separation of judiciary from the executive is enjoined by
Detailed Explanation:
Answer: Option 2 — a Directive Principle of State Policy.
Article 50 of the Indian Constitution, which falls under the Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV), explicitly directs the State to take steps to separate the judiciary from the executive in the public services of the State. This provision aims to ensure judicial independence and impartial administration of justice.
📝 Short Notes: Separation of Judiciary from Executive
- Article 50: Part of Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV), mandates separation of judiciary from executive in public services
- Nature: Not legally enforceable but fundamental in governance (Article 37)
- Purpose: Ensures judicial independence, prevents executive interference, promotes impartial justice delivery
- Implementation: Most states have separated judiciary from executive at district and subordinate levels
- Contrast with Legislature: Separation from legislature is ensured through specific Constitutional provisions (Articles 121, 122, 211, 212)
- Historical Context: Borrowed from Irish Constitution; reflects commitment to rule of law
Consider the following statements:
- The Constitution of India defines its ‘basic structure’ in terms of federalism, secularism, fundamental rights and democracy.
- The Constitution of India provides for ‘judicial review’ to safeguard the citizens’ liberties and to preserve the ideals on which the Constitution is based.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Detailed Explanation:
Answer: Option 4 — Neither 1 nor 2
Both statements are incorrect because they use the word 'defines' and 'provides', suggesting explicit mention in the Constitution, which is not the case. The basic structure doctrine and judicial review are both judicially evolved concepts derived from constitutional interpretation, not explicitly defined provisions.
❌ Statement 1 – Incorrect: The Constitution does not define its 'basic structure' anywhere in its text. The basic structure doctrine was judicially evolved by the Supreme Court in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), identifying unamendable core features like federalism, secularism, and democracy.
❌ Statement 2 – Incorrect: The Constitution does not explicitly 'provide for' judicial review as a named power. Judicial review is an implicit power derived from Articles 13, 32, 226, and other provisions, enabling courts to examine the constitutionality of laws and executive actions.
📝 Short Notes: Basic Structure Doctrine and Judicial Review
| Concept | Key Details |
|---|---|
| Basic Structure Doctrine | Evolved in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973); holds that certain fundamental features of the Constitution cannot be amended by Parliament under Article 368 |
| Core Elements | Supremacy of Constitution, Rule of law, Independence of judiciary, Federalism, Secularism, Separation of powers, Sovereign democratic republic |
| Judicial Review | Power of courts to examine constitutional validity of legislative enactments and executive orders |
| Constitutional Basis | Articles 13 (laws inconsistent with fundamental rights void), 32 (SC jurisdiction), 226 (HC jurisdiction), 131-136, 143, 246 |
| Types | Judicial review of constitutional amendments, legislative actions, and executive actions |
Which one of the following categories of Fundamental Rights incorporates protection against untouchability as a form of discrimination?
Detailed Explanation:
Answer: Option 4 — Right to Equality
The Right to Equality (Articles 14-18) includes Article 17, which specifically abolishes untouchability and prohibits its practice in any form. Untouchability is fundamentally a form of social discrimination that violates the basic principle of equality guaranteed to all citizens under the Constitution.
📝 Short Notes: Right to Equality (Articles 14-18)
| Article | Provision |
|---|---|
| Article 14 | Equality before law and equal protection of laws |
| Article 15 | Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth |
| Article 16 | Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment |
| Article 17 | Abolition of untouchability and prohibition of its practice in any form |
| Article 18 | Abolition of titles (except military and academic distinctions) |
Which part of the Constitution of India declares the ideal of Welfare State?
Detailed Explanation:
Answer: Option 1 — Directive Principles of State Policy
The Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) declare the ideal of a Welfare State in the Indian Constitution. Article 38(1) mandates that the State shall strive to promote the welfare of the people by securing and protecting a social order in which social, economic, and political justice shall inform all institutions of national life. These principles guide the State in establishing policies aimed at socio-economic welfare, making them the constitutional foundation of the Welfare State concept.
📝 Short Notes: Welfare State and Constitutional Provisions
- Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV): Non-justiciable guidelines for the State to establish a just society and welfare state
- Article 38: State to secure a social order for the promotion of welfare of the people with justice (social, economic, political)
- Article 39: Directs the State to ensure adequate means of livelihood, equal pay for equal work, and prevent concentration of wealth
- Article 41: Right to work, education, and public assistance in cases of unemployment, old age, sickness, and disablement
- Article 42: Provision for just and humane conditions of work and maternity relief
- Article 43: Living wage and conditions of work ensuring a decent standard of life
- Welfare State Concept: State actively intervenes to promote social and economic welfare of citizens, ensuring equitable distribution of resources and opportunities
- Contrast with Fundamental Rights: While Fundamental Rights are justiciable individual rights, DPSPs are programmatic goals for state policy to achieve welfare objectives
UPSC Prelims 2020 - Indian Polity Chapter-wise Distribution
Preamble of the Constitution
4 Qs (23.5%)Directive Principles of State Policy
3 Qs (17.6%)Rights Issues and Governance
2 Qs (11.8%)Parliament
2 Qs (11.8%)Fundamental Rights
1 Qs (5.9%)Amendment of the Constitution
1 Qs (5.9%)Salient Features of the Constitution
1 Qs (5.9%)Union Executive
1 Qs (5.9%)Constitutional and Political Developments
1 Qs (5.9%)State Government
1 Qs (5.9%)UPSC Prelims 2020 - Indian Polity Questions FAQs
Q1 How many Indian Polity questions were asked in UPSC Prelims 2020?
Q2 What is the chapter-wise question distribution for Indian Polity in UPSC Prelims 2020?
- Preamble of the Constitution: 4 questions (23.5%)
- Directive Principles of State Policy: 3 questions (17.6%)
- Rights Issues and Governance: 2 questions (11.8%)
- Parliament: 2 questions (11.8%)
- Fundamental Rights: 1 questions (5.9%)
- Amendment of the Constitution: 1 questions (5.9%)
- Salient Features of the Constitution: 1 questions (5.9%)
- Union Executive: 1 questions (5.9%)
- Constitutional and Political Developments: 1 questions (5.9%)
- State Government: 1 questions (5.9%)