UPSC CSE Prelims
Elections and Electoral System Previous Year Questions (PYQs)

Detailed Explanation:

Both statements are incorrect. Under the Tenth Schedule (Anti-Defection Law), the decision on disqualification of MPs is made by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha (or Chairman in the case of Rajya Sabha), not by the President.

Also, the term "political party" is explicitly mentioned in the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution, which deals with defection and party membership.

Why the statements are wrong:

📝 Short Notes: Anti-Defection Law

Key Fact:
The Anti-Defection Law was introduced to curb political instability caused by frequent party switching by elected representatives.

Detailed Explanation:

Correct Answer: Option 4 (Four)

The Government of India had constituted four Delimitation Commissions up to December 2023—in 1952, 1963, 1973, and 2002. These commissions were set up to redraw the boundaries of Lok Sabha and State Assembly constituencies based on census data to ensure fair representation.

✅ Delimitation Commission 1952: Constituted after the first Census following Independence.

✅ Delimitation Commission 1963: Based on the 1961 Census.

✅ Delimitation Commission 1973: Based on the 1971 Census.

✅ Delimitation Commission 2002: Based on the 2001 Census; its recommendations were implemented in 2008.

Short Notes: Delimitation Commission

• Delimitation means redrawing the boundaries of electoral constituencies.

• It is constituted by the President of India under a Delimitation Commission Act passed by Parliament.

• Delimitation Commissions were set up in 1952, 1963, 1973, and 2002.

• The Commission usually consists of a retired Supreme Court judge (Chairperson), the Chief Election Commissioner, and the concerned State Election Commissioners.

• Its orders have the force of law and cannot ordinarily be challenged in court.

• The 42nd Constitutional Amendment (1976) froze delimitation based on population until 2001.

• The 84th Constitutional Amendment (2001) extended the freeze on seat allocation until 2026.

• The latest delimitation exercise was based on the 2001 Census and came into effect in 2008.

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 Only

This question tests knowledge about the rules governing the number of constituencies from which a candidate can contest in Lok Sabha elections. The correct answer is Statement 2 only, as Shri Devi Lal did contest from three constituencies in 1991, which was permissible before the 1996 amendment that restricted candidates to a maximum of two constituencies.

❌ Statement 1 – Incorrect: Section 33(7) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, was amended in 1996 to restrict candidates from contesting from more than two constituencies (not three) in a single general election or bye-elections held simultaneously.

✅ Statement 2 – Correct: In the 1991 Lok Sabha elections, Shri Devi Lal contested from three constituencies: Rohtak (Haryana), Sikar (Rajasthan), and Ferozepur (Punjab). This was permissible at that time as the two-constituency limit was only introduced in 1996.

❌ Statement 3 – Incorrect: There is no provision in the Representation of the People Act or election rules requiring a candidate or their party to bear the cost of bye-elections. The expenditure for conducting bye-elections is borne by the respective State Governments and the Central Government through the Election Commission.

📝 Short Notes: Contesting from Multiple Constituencies

Detailed Explanation:

Answer: Option 1 — 1 and 2 only

The Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959 exempts certain offices from disqualification under Article 102(1)(a), and has been amended five times to expand this list. However, the term 'Office of Profit' is not defined in the Constitution and its meaning has evolved through judicial interpretation.

✅ Statement 1 – Correct: The Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959 exempts several posts (like Ministers of State, Deputy Ministers, etc.) from disqualification on grounds of holding an 'Office of Profit' under the Government.
✅ Statement 2 – Correct: The Act has been amended five times (in 1960, 1993, 1999, 2000, and 2006) to expand the list of exempted offices.
❌ Statement 3 – Incorrect: The term 'Office of Profit' is mentioned in Articles 102 and 191 but is not defined in the Constitution; its interpretation has been left to judicial pronouncements.

📝 Short Notes: Office of Profit

• Constitutional Provisions: Articles 102(1)(a) for MPs and 191(1)(a) for MLAs disqualify persons holding an 'Office of Profit' under the Government from being members of Parliament or State Legislature respectively.
• No Statutory Definition: Neither the Constitution nor the Representation of the People Act, 1951 defines 'Office of Profit'; the concept has evolved through judicial interpretation.
• Key Judicial Tests: Courts consider factors like whether the office carries remuneration, whether it is held at the pleasure of the government, and whether the government exercises control over the office.
• Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959: This Act lists offices that are exempted from disqualification, such as Ministers, Deputy Ministers, and various other specified posts under the Union and State Governments.
• Amendments: The Act has been amended in 1960, 1993, 1999, 2000, and 2006 to include more offices in the exemption list as per evolving needs.

Detailed Explanation:

Answer: Option 3 — Constitutional Right

The right to vote and to be elected in India is a constitutional right derived from Article 326 of the Indian Constitution, which provides for universal adult suffrage for elections to the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies. Unlike fundamental rights which are justiciable and enforceable through courts under Article 32, the right to vote is a statutory right created by the Constitution and regulated by the Representation of the People Act. The Constitution (Sixty-first Amendment) Act, 1988, lowered the voting age from 21 to 18 years to enhance democratic participation, though this right remains subject to reasonable restrictions such as non-residence, unsoundness of mind, crime, or corrupt practices.

Detailed Explanation:

Answer: Option 4 — Neither 1 nor 2

Both statements contain incorrect information about India's electoral and parliamentary procedures. India follows the First-Past-The-Post (FPTP) system where a simple plurality (highest votes) determines the winner, not an absolute majority (50%+). The Constitution does not mandate the allocation of Speaker and Deputy Speaker posts between majority and opposition parties; both are elected by members of the House.

❌ Statement 1 – Incorrect: India uses the FPTP system where the candidate with the highest number of votes wins, regardless of whether they secure 50% or more of the total votes polled.
❌ Statement 2 – Incorrect: The Constitution does not prescribe that the Speaker's post goes to the majority party and Deputy Speaker's to the Opposition; both positions are elected by Lok Sabha members, though by convention the Deputy Speaker is often from the opposition.

Detailed Explanation:

Answer: Option 3 — Any citizen of India whose name appears in the electoral roll of a constituency.

According to Article 84 of the Indian Constitution and the Representation of the People Act, 1951, to file a nomination paper for Lok Sabha elections, a person must be a citizen of India, at least 25 years of age, and their name must be enrolled in the electoral roll of any parliamentary constituency in India. The candidate need not be a resident of the constituency from which they wish to contest; they can contest from any constituency as long as they are registered as a voter somewhere in India. This ensures that only registered voters with a stake in the electoral process can contest elections.

Detailed Explanation:

The Tenth Schedule of the Constitution contains provisions regarding anti-defection.

Added by the 52nd Amendment Act, 1985, it provides for disqualification of legislators on grounds of defection by voluntarily giving up party membership or disobeying party whip (except in cases like splits and mergers as per rules).

Detailed Explanation:

✅ Statement 1 – Correct: Under Article 329(a) of the Constitution and the Delimitation Commission Act, the orders of the Delimitation Commission cannot be challenged in any court of law. They have the force of law and are final to prevent judicial delays in the electoral process.

✅ Statement 2 – Correct: When the orders are laid before the Lok Sabha or State Legislative Assembly, these bodies cannot modify them. The orders are placed for information only, ensuring the independence and finality of the delimitation process, free from political interference.