Minimalist IAS
Polity & governance

Prelims · Polity & governance · 30 questions

Federalism, states & centre–state relations

Every UPSC Prelims question on this topic, 2016–2026, newest first. Tap an option to check yourself; the answer and explanation open below it.

Federalism, states & centre–state relations questions per year: 2016: 2, 2017: 2, 2018: 3, 2019: 3, 2020: 0, 2021: 1, 2022: 1, 2023: 2, 2024: 2, 2025: 4, 2026: 0 Asked in 9 of 11 years · most in 2025 (4)

UPSC syllabus: “Indian Polity and Governance-Constitution, Political System, Panchayati Raj, Public Policy, Rights Issues, etc.” See the full syllabus →

Consider the following pairs:

StateDescription
I.Arunachal PradeshThe capital is named after a fort, and the State has two National Parks
II.NagalandThe State came into existence on the basis of a Constitutional Amendment Act
III.TripuraInitially a Part ‘C’ State, it became a centrally administered territory with the reorganization of States in 1956 and later attained the status of a full-fledged State

How many of the above pairs are correctly matched?

Answer & explanation

Answer: (c) All the three

UPSC's official answer: (c) · the answer UPSC accepted, and the one that counts in the exam

Also defensible: (b)

  • Pairs I and III are plainly right: Itanagar is named after Ita Fort and Arunachal has two National Parks (Namdapha and Mouling); Tripura went from Part C State to Union Territory in 1956 and to full statehood in 1972.
  • Pair II says Nagaland 'came into existence on the basis of a Constitutional Amendment Act'. The State was in fact formed by an ordinary law under Article 3, the State of Nagaland Act, 1962: 'An Act to provide for the formation of the State of Nagaland and for matters connected therewith'.
  • The Constitution (Thirteenth Amendment) Act, 1962 did something else: it inserted Article 371A's special provisions for the new State, and its own Statement of Objects says 'A separate Bill for the formation of the new State relatable to article 3 is also being introduced'. On this strict reading pair II is wrong and the answer is (b).
  • UPSC's key links Nagaland's creation to the Thirteenth Amendment, passed in the same session to give effect to the 16-point agreement and commonly listed as the amendment that made Nagaland a State, so it counts all three: (c).

UPSC's key counts pair II, linking Nagaland's statehood to the Thirteenth Amendment; strictly, the State was formed by the State of Nagaland Act under Article 3, which gives (b). In the exam, treat Nagaland's statehood as resting on the Thirteenth Amendment, as UPSC does.

This box is Minimalist IAS's analysis, with its sources; it does not change UPSC's answer.

UPSC's key counts all three pairs as correct. Itanagar is named after Ita Fort and Arunachal has two National Parks; Nagaland's statehood rests on the Constitution (Thirteenth Amendment) Act, 1962, which gave the new State its special provisions; and Tripura went from a Part C State to a Union Territory in 1956 and a full State in 1972.

  • ✓ I Itanagar takes its name from Ita Fort ('the fort of bricks'). Arunachal's two National Parks are Namdapha (1972) and Mouling (1986).
  • ✓ II Nagaland became a State on 1 December 1963. The Constitution (Thirteenth Amendment) Act, 1962 was passed with the State of Nagaland Act, 1962 to give effect to the 16-point agreement with the Naga People's Convention, inserting Article 371A for the new State; UPSC treats this amendment as the basis on which the State came into being.
  • ✓ III Tripura was a Part C State after 1950, became a Union Territory with the reorganisation of States in 1956, and became a full State on 21 January 1972 through the North-Eastern Areas (Reorganisation) Act, 1971.

Remember · Itanagar = Ita Fort; Nagaland statehood 1963 (Art. 371A via 13th Amendment); Tripura: Part C State, then UT in 1956, then State on 21 January 1972.

Sources

Question and answer: UPSC's official GS Paper I (2025, Series A) — paper ↗ · answer key ↗. Explanation: Minimalist IAS, checked 1 Oct 2026 (how we verify). Permalink ·

With reference to India, consider the following:

  1. I.The Inter-State Council
  2. II.The National Security Council
  3. III.Zonal Councils

How many of the above were established as per the provisions of the Constitution of India?

Answer & explanation

Answer: (a) Only one

Only the Inter-State Council was set up as per a provision of the Constitution, namely Article 263. Zonal Councils exist under a law of Parliament, the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, and the National Security Council is an executive body with no place in the Constitution's text.

  • ✓ I Article 263 lets the President establish an inter-State Council by order. The Inter-State Council was set up on that basis by a Presidential Order dated 28 May 1990.
  • ✗ II The Constitution contains no provision for a National Security Council. It is an apex body headed by the Prime Minister, formed by the Government.
  • ✗ III The five Zonal Councils were created under Part III of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, so they are statutory, not constitutional, bodies.

Remember · Inter-State Council: constitutional (Art. 263). Zonal Councils: statutory (States Reorganisation Act, 1956). National Security Council: executive body, not in the Constitution.

Sources

Question and answer: UPSC's official GS Paper I (2025, Series A) — paper ↗ · answer key ↗. Explanation: Minimalist IAS, checked 30 Sept 2026 (how we verify). Permalink ·

Consider the following statements:

  1. I.The Constitution of India explicitly mentions that in certain spheres the Governor of a State acts in his/her own discretion.
  2. II.The President of India can, of his/her own, reserve a bill passed by a State Legislature for his/her consideration without it being forwarded by the Governor of the State concerned.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Answer & explanation

Answer: (a) I only

Statement I is right: Article 163(1) makes the Governor act on the advice of his Ministers except where the Constitution itself requires him to act in his discretion. Statement II is wrong: a State Bill reaches the President only when the Governor reserves it, so the President cannot call it up on his own.

  • ✓ I Article 163(1) carves out the matters in which the Governor is required 'by or under this Constitution' to act in his discretion, and Article 163(2) makes his own decision on whether a matter falls there final.
  • ✗ II Article 201 deals with a Bill 'reserved by a Governor for the consideration of the President'. The route to the President starts with the Governor's reservation; the Constitution gives the President no power to reserve a State Bill himself.

Remember · Governor acts on ministerial advice except where the Constitution requires his discretion (Art 163). A State Bill reaches the President only if the Governor reserves it (Arts 200–201).

Sources

Question and answer: UPSC's official GS Paper I (2025, Series A) — paper ↗ · answer key ↗. Explanation: Minimalist IAS, checked 30 Sept 2026 (how we verify). Permalink ·

Consider the following statements:

With reference to the Constitution of India, if an area in a State is declared as Scheduled Area under the Fifth Schedule

  1. I.the State Government loses its executive power in such areas and a local body assumes total administration
  2. II.the Union Government can take over the total administration of such areas under certain circumstances on the recommendations of the Governor

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Answer & explanation

Answer: (d) Neither I nor II

Neither statement is correct. Scheduled Areas remain under the State's own administration: the Governor reports on them to the President, and the Union's executive power extends only to giving directions to the State about their administration.

  • ✗ I Paragraph 3 of the Fifth Schedule has the Governor report on the administration of the Scheduled Areas 'in that State', and the Union then directs the State. The State keeps its executive power; the Schedule provides a Tribes Advisory Council, not a local body that takes over.
  • ✗ II The Union's power under paragraph 3 is to give directions to the State on administering these areas. It is not a power to take over the administration, and the Governor's recommendation does not trigger any takeover.

Remember · Fifth Schedule: State administers Scheduled Areas, Governor reports annually to the President, Union can only direct the State (Para 3). District councils belong to the Sixth Schedule.

Sources

Question and answer: UPSC's official GS Paper I (2025, Series A) — paper ↗ · answer key ↗. Explanation: Minimalist IAS, checked 30 Sept 2026 (how we verify). Permalink ·

With reference to the Indian polity, consider the following statements:

  1. I.The Governor of a State is not answerable to any court for the exercise and performance of the powers and duties of his/her office.
  2. II.No criminal proceedings shall be instituted or continued against the Governor during his/her term of office.
  3. III.Members of a State Legislature are not liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said within the House.

Which of the statements given above are correct?

Answer & explanation

Answer: (d) I, II and III

All three statements follow the Constitution's text. Article 361 shields the Governor from answering to any court for his official acts and bars criminal proceedings during his term, and Article 194(2) protects a State legislator from court proceedings over what he says in the House.

  • ✓ I Article 361(1): the Governor is not answerable to any court for exercising and performing the powers and duties of his office.
  • ✓ II Article 361(2): no criminal proceedings whatsoever can be instituted or continued against the Governor in any court during his term of office.
  • ✓ III Article 194(2): no member of a State Legislature is liable to any court proceedings for anything said or any vote given in the Legislature or a committee of it.

Remember · Governor: no court answerability for official acts (Art 361(1)) and no criminal proceedings during the term (Art 361(2)). Legislators: no court liability for House speech or votes (Art 194(2)).

Sources

  • Constitution of India (Government of India, Legislative Department), Article 361(1): Protection of President and Governors ↗ “The President, or the Governor or Rajpramukh of a State, shall not be answerable to any court for the exercise and performance of the powers and duties of his office … No criminal proceedings whatsoever shall be instituted or continued against the President, or the Governor 1*** of a State, in any court during his term of office. … No member of the Legislature of a State shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in the Legislature or any committee thereof”

Question and answer: UPSC's official GS Paper I (2025, Series A) — paper ↗ · answer key ↗. Explanation: Minimalist IAS, checked 30 Sept 2026 (how we verify). Permalink ·

The same topic in Mains