UPSC CSE Prelims
Legislative Relations Previous Year Questions (PYQs)
Practice solved questions for Legislative Relations with detailed step-by-step solutions, key insights, and trend analysis for UPSC CSE PRELIMS.
Solved Previous Year Questions
Filter & practice questions topic-wise
Consider the following statements:
Statement I: In India, State Governments have no power for making rules for grant of concessions in respect of extraction of minor minerals even though such minerals are located in their territories.
Statement II: In India, the Central Government has the power to notify minor minerals under the relevant law.
Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above statements?
Detailed Explanation:
Under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act), State Governments have the power to make rules regarding the grant of quarry leases, mining leases, and other concessions for minor minerals.
However, the Central Government has the authority to notify which minerals will be classified as minor minerals under the Act.
Why the statements are correct/incorrect:
| Statement | Status | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| I | ❌ Incorrect | State Governments can make rules for granting concessions related to minor minerals. |
| II | ✅ Correct | Central Government notifies and classifies minerals as minor minerals under the MMDR Act. |
📝 Short Notes: Minor Minerals under MMDR Act
| Point | Details |
|---|---|
| Governing Law | MMDR Act, 1957 |
| Classification Power | Central Government |
| Regulation of Concessions | State Governments |
| Examples | Sand, gravel, clay, ordinary stone |
| Purpose | Local construction and small-scale mining activities |
Key Fact:
Minor minerals are regulated mainly by State Governments, but their classification as "minor minerals" is decided by the Central Government.
Which one of the following in Indian polity is an essential feature that indicates that it is federal in character?
Detailed Explanation:
Answer: Option 1 — The independence of judiciary is safeguarded.
An independent judiciary is a defining feature of federalism as it acts as an impartial arbiter to resolve disputes between the Union and States regarding the division of powers and interpretation of the Constitution. In a federal system, the judiciary ensures that both levels of government operate within their constitutional limits, maintaining the federal balance.
Let's evaluate each option:
✅ Option 1 – Correct: An independent judiciary is essential to federalism as it resolves Centre-State disputes and protects the constitutional distribution of powers, serving as the guardian of the federal structure.
❌ Option 2 – Incorrect: Having elected representatives from constituent units in the Union Legislature is common in both federal and unitary systems with devolved powers; it is not exclusively a federal feature.
❌ Option 3 – Incorrect: The presence of regional party representatives in the Union Cabinet is a political phenomenon, not a constitutional feature that defines federalism.
❌ Option 4 – Incorrect: While Fundamental Rights enforceable by courts are crucial for democracy and rule of law, they exist in both federal and unitary states and are not exclusive indicators of federalism.
📝 Short Notes: Essential Features of Federalism
- Dual Polity: Distribution of powers between the Centre and States with each having distinct spheres of authority.
- Written Constitution: A supreme written constitution that delineates powers and cannot be easily amended unilaterally.
- Independent Judiciary: An impartial judiciary to interpret the Constitution and adjudicate disputes between the Centre and States.
- Rigid Constitution: Amendment process requiring special procedures to protect the federal structure from arbitrary changes.
- Bicameralism: A bicameral legislature where the upper house represents constituent units (like Rajya Sabha representing States).
- Supremacy of Constitution: Both levels of government derive authority from and are bound by the Constitution.
With reference to the management of minor minerals in India consider the following statements:
- Sand is a ‘minor mineral’ according to the prevailing law in the country.
- State Governments have the power to grant mining leases of minor minerals, but the powers regarding the formation of rules related to the grant of minor minerals lie with the Central Government.
- State Governments have the power to frame rules to prevent illegal mining of minor minerals.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Detailed Explanation:
Answer: Option 1 — 1 and 3 only
This question tests the understanding of the constitutional and legal framework governing minor minerals in India, particularly the division of powers between the Centre and States under the MMDR Act, 1957.
✅ Statement 1 – Correct: Sand is classified as a 'minor mineral' under Section 3(e) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, along with other minerals like gravel, clay, marble, and limestone.
❌ Statement 2 – Incorrect: The power to frame rules regarding the grant of minor minerals lies with State Governments, not the Central Government. Section 15 of the MMDR Act empowers State Governments to make rules for regulating the grant of quarry leases, mining leases, and other mineral concessions in respect of minor minerals.
✅ Statement 3 – Correct: State Governments have the power to frame rules to prevent illegal mining of minor minerals under Section 15 of the MMDR Act, which includes measures for regulation, enforcement, and prevention of unauthorized extraction.
📝 Short Notes: Minor Minerals Management in India
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Legal Framework | Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act) |
| Classification | Minerals are classified into Major Minerals (Schedule 1) and Minor Minerals (Schedule 2) |
| Examples of Minor Minerals | Sand, gravel, clay, marble, limestone, laterite, kankar, murrum |
| Central Government Powers | Regulation of major minerals; power to amend schedules; overall policy framework |
| State Government Powers | Grant mining leases for minor minerals; frame rules for extraction, leasing, and transportation; prevent illegal mining; levy royalty and taxes |
| Constitutional Basis | Entry 23 (List II - State List) covers regulation and development of mines and mineral development subject to provisions of List I |
| 2015 Amendment | MMDR Amendment Act, 2015 gave more autonomy to states in minor mineral administration |
🧐 Not Sure What to Study Next?
Get a personalised study plan based on your goals, time and revision needs.
Which one of the following suggested that the Governor should be an eminent person from outside the State and should be a detached figure without intense political links or should not have taken part in politics in the recent past?
Detailed Explanation:
Answer: Option 3 — Sarkaria Commission 1983
The Sarkaria Commission (1983-88) was established to examine Centre-State relations and made specific recommendations regarding the appointment of Governors. It suggested that the Governor should be an eminent person from outside the State, should be a detached figure without intense political links, and should not have taken part in active politics in the recent past. This recommendation aimed to ensure the Governor's neutrality and impartiality in State administration.
📝 Short Notes: Recommendations on Governor's Appointment by Various Commissions
| Commission/Committee | Year | Key Recommendations on Governor |
|---|---|---|
| First Administrative Reforms Commission | 1966 | Focused on administrative reforms; did not make specific recommendations on Governor's political background |
| Rajamannar Committee | 1969 | Tamil Nadu committee on Centre-State relations; suggested abolition of Governor's office |
| Sarkaria Commission | 1983-88 | • Eminent person from outside the State • Detached figure without intense political links • Should not have participated in active politics recently • Consultation with Chief Minister before appointment • Five-year tenure security |
| National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (NCRWC) | 2000-02 | • Fixed tenure of five years • Removal only through impeachment-like process • Should be appointed in consultation with State CM and Speaker |
| Punchhi Commission | 2007-10 | • Endorsed Sarkaria Commission recommendations • Suggested that Governor should not be from the State of appointment • Appointment through committee including PM, Speaker, CM, and Leader of Opposition |
The Parliament can make any law for whole or any part of India for implementing international treaties
Detailed Explanation:
Article 253 of the Constitution empowers Parliament to make laws for the whole or any part of India to implement international treaties, agreements, or conventions.
This power is exercised without requiring consent of any state, as it falls under Parliament's legislative competence to fulfill India's international obligations. This is one of the five extraordinary circumstances under which Parliament can legislate on matters in the State List.
Related Topics in Indian Polity
Frequently Asked Questions
Common questions about Legislative Relations in UPSC CSE PRELIMS