UPSC Prelims 2022
Indian Polity Previous Year Questions (PYQs)

Detailed Explanation:

Answer: Option 4 — 1 and 4

This question tests knowledge about the Tea Board of India's constitutional status, administrative control, and organizational structure. Statements 1 and 4 are correct, while statements 2 and 3 contain factual errors regarding its ministry affiliation and headquarters location.

✅ Statement 1 – Correct: The Tea Board of India is a statutory body established under the Tea Act, 1953 to regulate the tea industry and promote tea exports.

❌ Statement 2 – Incorrect: The Tea Board functions under the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, not the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare.

❌ Statement 3 – Incorrect: The Tea Board's Head Office is located in Kolkata, West Bengal, not Bengaluru.

✅ Statement 4 – Correct: The Tea Board maintains overseas offices in Dubai, Moscow, Hamburg, London, and New York to promote Indian tea globally.

📝 Short Notes: Tea Board of India

• Establishment: Statutory body constituted under the Tea Act, 1953
• Administrative Control: Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India
• Headquarters: Kolkata, West Bengal
• Regional Offices: Seven regional offices across major tea-growing areas in India
• Overseas Offices: Dubai, Moscow, Hamburg, London, and New York
• Main Functions: Regulation of tea cultivation, processing, trade; promotion of tea exports; quality control; research and development; welfare of tea workers
• Composition: Chairman and members representing tea producers, manufacturers, traders, consumers, and government

Detailed Explanation:

Answer: Option 4 — Neither 1 nor 2

Both statements contain constitutional inaccuracies regarding parliamentary participation rights and the tenure of the Attorney General. Statement 1 incorrectly includes the Solicitor General, while Statement 2 misrepresents the constitutional provisions regarding the Attorney General's resignation.

❌ Statement 1 – Incorrect: Article 88 grants the right to participate in Parliament only to Ministers and the Attorney General of India, not the Solicitor General of India. Additionally, other officers like the Comptroller and Auditor General may also be invited to participate in specific contexts.

❌ Statement 2 – Incorrect: Article 76 states that the Attorney General holds office during the pleasure of the President, not linked to the government's tenure. There is no constitutional requirement for automatic resignation when the government changes.

📝 Short Notes: Attorney General of India (Article 76)

• Appointment: Appointed by the President; must be qualified to be a Supreme Court Judge
• Tenure: Holds office during the pleasure of the President (no fixed term); receives remuneration determined by the President
• Rights (Article 88): Can speak and participate in both Houses, joint sittings, and parliamentary committees but cannot vote
• Duties: Advises the Government on legal matters, performs legal duties assigned by the President, and represents the Government in the Supreme Court
• Solicitor General: Assists the Attorney General but has no constitutional provision for parliamentary participation
• Private Practice: The Attorney General can engage in private practice but cannot advise against the Government or appear against it

Detailed Explanation:

Answer: Option 2 — 2 only

This question tests knowledge about the classification of ministers and the constitutional limits on the size of the Council of Ministers.

❌ Statement 1 – Incorrect: The Constitution of India does not classify ministers into four ranks. The classification into Cabinet Minister, Minister of State with Independent Charge, Minister of State, and Deputy Minister is based on parliamentary convention and practice, not constitutional provisions. The Constitution only mentions 'Ministers' and 'Prime Minister' without prescribing specific ranks.

✅ Statement 2 – Correct: The 91st Constitutional Amendment Act, 2003 inserted Article 75(1A) which states that the total number of ministers, including the Prime Minister, in the Council of Ministers shall not exceed 15% of the total strength of the Lok Sabha.

📝 Short Notes: Council of Ministers

Detailed Explanation:

Answer: Option 1 — 1 and 3 only

This question tests the constitutional and procedural aspects of the office of Deputy Speaker of Lok Sabha. Statements 1 and 3 are correct regarding the election process and powers of the Deputy Speaker, while statements 2 and 4 are incorrect as they refer to non-existent mandatory provisions and practices.

✅ Statement 1 – Correct: As per the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha, the election date of Deputy Speaker is fixed by the Speaker, whereas the Speaker's election date is fixed by the President.

❌ Statement 2 – Incorrect: There is no mandatory constitutional or statutory provision that the Deputy Speaker must be from the opposition or ruling party; it is merely a convention (not always followed) that the position is offered to the opposition.

✅ Statement 3 – Correct: When presiding over the House, the Deputy Speaker enjoys the same powers and dignity as the Speaker, and no appeal lies against his rulings during that period.

❌ Statement 4 – Incorrect: There is no established parliamentary practice that the motion for Deputy Speaker is moved by the Speaker and seconded by the Prime Minister; the Deputy Speaker is elected by the House through a motion moved by members.

📝 Short Notes: Deputy Speaker of Lok Sabha

• Election: Elected by the Lok Sabha members after the Speaker's election; date fixed by the Speaker (not President).
• No Constitutional Provision: The Constitution does not specifically mention the office of Deputy Speaker; it is created under the Rules of Procedure.
• Convention (not mandatory): Usually offered to opposition party as a convention, but not legally binding.
• Powers: Enjoys same powers as Speaker when presiding; performs Speaker's duties in absence.
• Removal: Can be removed by a resolution passed by majority of all then members of Lok Sabha; 14 days' notice required.
• Vacation of Office: Vacates office if ceases to be a member, on resignation, or on removal.
• No Appeal: No appeal lies against rulings given by Deputy Speaker while presiding over the House.

Detailed Explanation:

Answer: Option 2 — 2 only

This question tests the understanding of the Anti-Defection Law as enshrined in the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution. Statement 1 is incorrect because the law allows nominated members to join a political party within six months, not prohibits them. Statement 2 is correct as the law indeed does not prescribe any time limit for the presiding officer to decide defection cases.

❌ Statement 1 – Incorrect: The Anti-Defection Law permits a nominated legislator to join any political party within six months of being appointed to the House, not prohibits such joining. If they join after six months, they will be disqualified.
✅ Statement 2 – Correct: The Tenth Schedule does not specify any time-frame within which the presiding officer must decide a defection case, which has led to several cases of prolonged delays.

📝 Short Notes: Anti-Defection Law (Tenth Schedule)

• Added by: 52nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1985
• Purpose: To curb political defections and provide stability to governments
• Grounds for Disqualification: (a) Voluntary giving up of party membership, (b) Voting or abstaining contrary to party whip without prior permission, (c) Nominated members joining a party after 6 months, (d) Elected members joining another party after election
• Exception (Merger): No disqualification if 2/3rd members of a legislature party decide to merge with another party
• Authority: Presiding officer (Speaker/Chairman) decides on disqualification; subject to judicial review
• Time Limit: No time limit specified in the law for deciding cases (frequently criticized)
• No Bar on Re-election: Disqualified members can contest elections again
• Split abolished: 91st Amendment Act, 2003 deleted the exception for splits, retained only merger provision

Detailed Explanation:

Answer: Option 2 — 2 and 3 only

This question tests knowledge about the procedure for Constitutional Amendment under Article 368. Statement 1 is incorrect because a Constitution Amendment Bill does not require prior recommendation of the President and can be introduced by any member. Statements 2 and 3 are correct regarding Presidential assent being obligatory and the special majority requirement in both Houses without provision for joint sitting.

❌ Statement 1 – Incorrect: A Constitution Amendment Bill can be introduced by a minister or private member without prior recommendation of the President, unlike Money Bills or Bills affecting state powers under Article 368(2).

✅ Statement 2 – Correct: The 24th Constitutional Amendment (1971) made Presidential assent obligatory for Constitution Amendment Bills by amending Article 368, removing Presidential discretion in this matter.

✅ Statement 3 – Correct: Constitution Amendment Bills must be passed by special majority (majority of total membership and 2/3rd of members present and voting) in both Houses separately, with no provision for joint sitting.

📝 Short Notes: Constitutional Amendment Procedure (Article 368)

Detailed Explanation:

Answer: Option 2 — 1, 2 and 4

The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was enacted following the H.N. Sanyal Committee's recommendations. The Constitution empowers the Supreme Court (Article 129) and High Courts (Article 215) to punish for contempt of themselves, and Parliament has legislative competence to make laws on contempt of court under Entry 77 of Union List.

✅ Statement 1 – Correct: The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was passed pursuant to the H.N. Sanyal Committee report which examined the law relating to contempt of courts.

✅ Statement 2 – Correct: Articles 129 and 215 of the Constitution expressly empower the Supreme Court and High Courts respectively to punish for contempt of themselves.

❌ Statement 3 – Incorrect: The Constitution does not define civil contempt and criminal contempt; these definitions are provided in Section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

✅ Statement 4 – Correct: Parliament has the power to legislate on contempt of court under Entry 77 of the Union List (Seventh Schedule), which enabled the enactment of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

📝 Short Notes: Contempt of Court

Detailed Explanation:

Answer: Option 4 — 1, 2 and 3

All three statements are correct regarding the writs issued by Courts in India. Statement 1 correctly describes that Mandamus does not lie against private organisations unless they are entrusted with a public duty. Statement 2 is correct as written because Government ownership alone does not make a company subject to Mandamus without the element of public duty. Statement 3 accurately states that any public-minded person can petition for Quo Warranto to challenge illegal usurpation of public office.

✅ Statement 1 – Correct: Mandamus is issued to compel performance of public duties and does not lie against private organisations unless they are entrusted with a public duty.

✅ Statement 2 – Correct: Mandamus will not lie against a company merely because it is a Government Company; the company must be discharging a public duty for Mandamus to be applicable.

✅ Statement 3 – Correct: Quo Warranto can be sought by any public-minded person to inquire into the legality of a person's claim to a public office, unlike other writs which require an aggrieved party.

📝 Short Notes: Writs under Articles 32 and 226

• Article 32: Right to Constitutional Remedies - Supreme Court can issue writs for enforcement of Fundamental Rights (cannot be suspended except under Article 359 during Emergency)
• Article 226: High Courts have wider power to issue writs for any purpose, not just Fundamental Rights violations
• Mandamus Key Point: Cannot be issued against President or Governor (Article 361 immunity), against private individuals (unless public duty involved), or to enforce a contract
• Government Company Exception: A company does not automatically become subject to Mandamus merely because government owns it; it must be performing public/statutory functions
• Quo Warranto Uniqueness: Only writ that can be filed by any interested citizen, not necessarily the aggrieved party; promotes public accountability

Detailed Explanation:

Answer: Option 2 — 2 only

This question tests the understanding of provisions under the Advocates Act, 1961, regarding recognition of advocates and powers of Bar Councils. Statement 1 is incorrect as it makes sweeping generalizations that are not accurate, while Statement 2 correctly reflects the statutory powers of the Bar Council of India.

❌ Statement 1 – Incorrect: Under the Advocates Act, 1961, only individuals can be enrolled as advocates, not legal firms or corporate entities. However, corporate lawyers and patent attorneys are NOT excluded from recognition as advocates—if they are individually enrolled with a State Bar Council, they are recognized as advocates regardless of their employment status.

✅ Statement 2 – Correct: Section 7 of the Advocates Act, 1961, explicitly empowers the Bar Council of India to lay down standards of legal education in consultation with Universities and State Bar Councils, recognize Universities whose law degrees qualify for enrollment, and inspect law colleges.

📝 Short Notes: Advocates Act, 1961

Detailed Explanation:

Answer: Option 1 — This would prevent the transfer of land of tribal people to non-tribal people.

The Fifth Schedule of the Constitution deals with the administration and control of Scheduled Areas and Scheduled Tribes in states (except Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura, and Mizoram). The Governor is empowered to make regulations for the peace and good government of Scheduled Areas after consulting the Tribes Advisory Council, including regulations that prohibit or restrict the transfer of land by tribal people to non-tribal people, thereby protecting tribal land rights.

❌ Option 2 – Incorrect: The Tribes Advisory Council (TAC) established under the Fifth Schedule is an advisory body to the Governor, not a self-governing body with administrative powers.

❌ Option 3 – Incorrect: The Fifth Schedule provisions do not convert any area into a Union Territory; they provide a special administrative framework within existing states.

❌ Option 4 – Incorrect: Bringing an area under the Fifth Schedule does not result in the state being declared a Special Category State, which is based on different criteria related to economic and geographical disadvantages.

📝 Short Notes: Fifth and Sixth Schedules

Detailed Explanation:

Answer: Option 2 — 2 only

The question asks about the exclusive powers of the Lok Sabha. Among the three statements given, only the power to pass a motion of no-confidence against the Council of Ministers is exclusive to the Lok Sabha, as the Council of Ministers is collectively responsible only to the Lok Sabha under Article 75(3).

❌ Statement 1 – Incorrect: The power to ratify the declaration of Emergency is not exclusive to the Lok Sabha; both Houses of Parliament (Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha) must approve any proclamation of Emergency within one month of its issue, as per Article 352.

✅ Statement 2 – Correct: Passing a motion of no-confidence against the Council of Ministers is an exclusive power of the Lok Sabha, since the Council of Ministers is collectively responsible only to the Lok Sabha (Article 75(3)), and the Rajya Sabha has no such power.

❌ Statement 3 – Incorrect: Impeachment of the President is not an exclusive power of the Lok Sabha; either House of Parliament can initiate the impeachment process under Article 61, and the charge must be sustained by both Houses with special majorities.

📝 Short Notes: Exclusive Powers of Lok Sabha

• Motion of No-Confidence: Only Lok Sabha can move a no-confidence motion against the Council of Ministers (Article 75(3)); Rajya Sabha cannot do so.
• Money Bills: Money Bills can be introduced only in Lok Sabha (Article 110); Rajya Sabha can only recommend amendments within 14 days.
• Demands for Grants: Only Lok Sabha has the power to vote on demands for grants and pass the annual budget.
• Confidence of the House: The Council of Ministers holds office only as long as it enjoys the confidence of the Lok Sabha.
• Control over Executive: Primary control over the executive rests with Lok Sabha through collective responsibility provisions.