Every UPSC Prelims question on this topic, 2016–2026, newest first. Tap an option to check yourself; the answer and explanation open below it.
Asked in 11 of 11 years · most in 2024 (6)
UPSC syllabus: “Indian Polity and Governance-Constitution, Political System, Panchayati Raj, Public Policy, Rights Issues, etc.” See the full syllabus →
Consider the following statements in respect of questions asked by the Members in the Parliament of India:
1.Unstarred questions are those to which a Member desires an oral answer in the House.
2.Starred questions are those to which a Member desires a written answer.
3.No supplementary question can be asked on an unstarred question.
Which one of the following conclusions based on the above statements is correct?
Answer & explanation▾
Answer: (c) There is only one correct statement.
Statements 1 and 2 swap the two types: a starred question, marked with an asterisk, seeks an oral answer, while an unstarred question seeks a written one. Statement 3 is right because an unstarred question is not called for oral answer, so no supplementary can follow.
✗1.Unstarred questions are meant for a written reply; it is starred questions that seek an oral answer.
✗2.Starred questions, marked with an asterisk, are the ones for which the Member wants an oral answer.
✓3.Written answers are laid on the Table, and because unstarred questions are not called for oral answer, no supplementary question can be asked on them.
Remember · Starred = asterisk, oral answer, supplementaries allowed. Unstarred = written answer laid on the Table, no supplementaries.
Question and answer: UPSC's provisional GS Paper I (2026, Series A) —
paper ↗ · answer key ↗.
Explanation: Minimalist IAS, checked 30 Sept 2026 (how we verify). Permalink ·
Consider the following statements about the Committee on the Welfare of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes of the Parliament of India:
1.Although members of this Committee are elected from both Houses of Parliament, the Chairperson of this Committee is appointed by the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha.
2.Twenty members are elected by the Rajya Sabha and ten members by the Lok Sabha.
3.No Minister, except for the Union Minister of Social Justice and Empowerment, is eligible to be a member of this Committee.
4.Members are elected for a fixed term of two years from the date they enter their office.
Which one of the following conclusions based on the above statements is correct?
Answer & explanation▾
Answer: (d) There is no correct statement.
The Committee has 30 members: twenty elected by the Lok Sabha and ten nominated by the Rajya Sabha. Its Chairperson is appointed by the Speaker, no Minister can be a member, and members serve for a term not exceeding one year. Every statement gets at least one of these facts wrong.
✗1.The Chairperson is appointed by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha from among the Committee's members, not by the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha; Rajya Sabha members are nominated by their House.
✗2.The numbers are reversed: twenty members come from the Lok Sabha and ten from the Rajya Sabha.
✗3.A Minister cannot be a member at all; the rule makes no exception for the Union Minister of Social Justice and Empowerment.
✗4.The term of members shall not exceed one year, not a fixed two years.
Remember · SC/ST Welfare Committee (Rule 331B): 30 members, 20 Lok Sabha + 10 Rajya Sabha; Speaker appoints the Chair; no Minister can serve; term up to one year.
Sources
Practice and Procedure of Parliament, Lok Sabha Secretariat, Chapter III (Parliamentary Committees): composition ↗“It consists of 30 members, twenty from Lok Sabha elected from amongst its members according to the principle of proportional representation by means of single transferable vote and ten from Rajya Sabha … A Minister cannot be a member of the Committee and if a member, after election to the Committee, is appointed to such an office, she/he ceases to be a member of the Committee. … The Chairperson of the Committee is appointed by the Speaker from amongst the members of the Committee. The term of office of members of the Committee shall not exceed one year.”
Question and answer: UPSC's provisional GS Paper I (2026, Series A) —
paper ↗ · answer key ↗.
Explanation: Minimalist IAS, checked 30 Sept 2026 (how we verify). Permalink ·
Which of the following statements about a Zero First Information Report (Zero FIR) under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 is/are correct?
1.A Zero FIR can be lodged at a police station, even though the place of commission of a cognizable/non-cognizable offence is outside the territorial jurisdiction of that police station.
2.The Officer-in-Charge of the police station where a Zero FIR has been lodged may, with the permission of the competent authority, initiate a preliminary enquiry.
3.Under Zero FIR, it is obligatory for the informant to furnish information electronically.
Select the answer using the code given below:
Answer & explanation▾
Answer: (d) 2 only
Section 173 of the BNSS allows information about a cognizable offence to be given at any police station, whatever the place of the offence, orally or electronically. A preliminary enquiry is possible only with prior permission of an officer of at least Deputy Superintendent rank. Statement 1 goes wrong by adding non-cognizable offences, and statement 3 wrongly makes electronic filing compulsory.
✗1.Section 173(1) speaks of information relating to a cognizable offence, given irrespective of the area where the offence was committed. It does not extend this to non-cognizable offences, so the statement's wording is incorrect.
✓2.Under section 173(3), for a cognizable offence punishable with three years or more but less than seven, the officer in charge may, with prior permission of an officer not below Deputy Superintendent of Police, conduct a preliminary enquiry.
✗3.Information may be given orally or by electronic communication; the informant is not obliged to file electronically.
Remember · BNSS s.173: information on a cognizable offence can be given at any police station (Zero FIR), orally or electronically; preliminary enquiry only for 3–7 year offences, with DSP-level permission.
Sources
PIB: CrPC and BNSS, A Comparative Analysis (text of BNSS section 173(1)) ↗“Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, irrespective of the area where the offence is committed, may be given orally or by electronic communication to an officer in charge of a police station … the officer in charge of the police station may with the prior permission from an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, considering the nature and gravity of the offence,— (i) proceed to conduct preliminary enquiry”
Question and answer: UPSC's provisional GS Paper I (2026, Series A) —
paper ↗ · answer key ↗.
Explanation: Minimalist IAS, checked 30 Sept 2026 (how we verify). Permalink ·
With reference to the organisations under the Government of India, consider the following details:
Organisation
Function
Controlling Union Ministry
1.
Central Economic Intelligence Bureau (CEIB)
To coordinate between various law enforcement agencies
Ministry of Home Affairs
2.
Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO)
To investigate complex corporate frauds
Ministry of Finance
3.
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)
To preserve values in public life and ensure the health of the national economy
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension
In how many of the above rows are the given details correctly matched?
Answer & explanation▾
Answer: (a) 1
Only row 3 is fully correct. The CEIB and the SFIO have the functions stated, but the CEIB works under the Department of Revenue in the Ministry of Finance (not Home Affairs), and the SFIO is under the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (not Finance). The CBI is under the Department of Personnel and Training.
✗1.CEIB coordinates economic intelligence and enforcement agencies, but it is a subordinate organisation of the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, not the Ministry of Home Affairs.
✗2.The SFIO investigates and prosecutes complex corporate frauds, but it functions under the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, not the Ministry of Finance.
✓3.The CBI functions under the Department of Personnel, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, and describes its role as preserving values in public life and ensuring the health of the national economy.
Remember · CEIB: Dept of Revenue (Finance). SFIO: Ministry of Corporate Affairs. CBI: DoPT (Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions). Match the body, then check the ministry.
Department of Revenue: Central Economic Intelligence Bureau ↗“The Central Economic Intelligence Bureau (CEIB) was set up in September 1985 for coordinating and strengthening the intelligence gathering activities and enforcement action by various agencies concerned with investigation into economic offences and enforcement of economic laws.”
Central Bureau of Investigation: About Us ↗“The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), functioning under Dept. of Personnel, Ministry of Personnel, Pension & Public Grievances, Government of India, is the premier investigating police agency in India. … It is an elite force playing a major role in preservation of values in public life and in ensuring the health of the national economy.”
Question and answer: UPSC's provisional GS Paper I (2026, 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:
I.An Ordinance can amend any Central Act.
II.An Ordinance can abridge a Fundamental Right.
III.An Ordinance can come into effect from a back date.
Which of the statements given above are correct?
Answer & explanation▾
Answer: (c) I and III only
Statements I and III are correct; Statement II is wrong. An Ordinance has the same force as an Act of Parliament, so it can amend Central Acts and can be given effect from an earlier date, but it is void if it goes beyond what Parliament may enact, and Parliament cannot make a law that abridges a Fundamental Right.
✓IArticle 123(2) gives an Ordinance 'the same force and effect as an Act of Parliament'. The Enemy Property (Amendment and Validation) Second Ordinance, 2016, for example, amended the Enemy Property Act, 1968 and another Central Act.
✗IIArticle 123(3) makes an Ordinance void if it contains anything Parliament cannot enact. Article 13(3)(a) says 'law' includes an Ordinance, and Article 13(2) bars the State from making any law that takes away or abridges a Fundamental Right.
✓IIIAn Ordinance can carry a retrospective date. The 2016 Enemy Property Second Ordinance, promulgated on 2 April 2016, was itself deemed to have come into force on 7 January 2016.
Remember · Ordinance (Art. 123) = same force as an Act, can amend Acts and be retrospective, but cannot go beyond Parliament's powers or abridge Fundamental Rights (Art. 13).
Sources
Constitution of India, Article 123 (Legislative Department, 2024 edition) ↗“An Ordinance promulgated under this article shall have the same force and effect as an Act of Parliament … If and so far as an Ordinance under this article makes any provision which Parliament would not under this Constitution be competent to enact, it shall be void. … The State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the rights conferred by this Part and any law made in contravention of this clause shall, to the extent of the contravention, be void.”
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 regard to pardoning power of the President of India:
I.The exercise of this power by the President can be subjected to limited judicial review.
II.The President can exercise this power without the advice of the Central Government.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Answer & explanation▾
Answer: (a) I only
Article 72 gives the President the pardoning power, but Article 74 makes him act on the advice of the Council of Ministers, so he cannot use it on his own. The Supreme Court has held that its exercise is open to judicial review, though only in a limited form.
✓IThe Law Commission of India records that, in Epuru Sudhakar (2006), the Supreme Court held the President's power under Article 72 subject to a limited form of judicial review. NCERT likewise notes that courts have brought the powers of the President and Governor within judicial review.
✗IIArticle 74(1) says the President shall, in exercising his functions, act in accordance with the advice of the Council of Ministers headed by the Prime Minister. He may ask the Council to reconsider once, but must then follow the advice given.
Remember · Pardon (Article 72) is exercised on Council of Ministers' advice (Article 74), and is open to limited judicial review.
The Constitution of India (Legislative Department, Government of India), Article 72(1) ↗“The President shall have the power to grant pardons, reprieves, respites or remissions of punishment or to suspend, remit or commute the sentence of any person convicted of any offence … There shall be a Council of Ministers with the Prime Minister at the head to aid and advise the President who shall, in the exercise of his functions, act in accordance with such advice:”
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 ·
I.On the dissolution of the House of the People, the Speaker shall not vacate his/her office until immediately before the first meeting of the House of the People after the dissolution.
II.According to the provisions of the Constitution of India, a Member of the House of the People on being elected as Speaker shall resign from his/her political party immediately.
III.The Speaker of the House of the People may be removed from his/her office by a resolution of the House of the People passed by a majority of all the then Members of the House, provided that no resolution shall be moved unless at least fourteen days' notice has been given of the intention to move the resolution.
Which of the statements given above are correct?
Answer & explanation▾
Answer: (c) I and III only
Statements I and III match Article 94: the Speaker stays in office after dissolution until just before the new House first meets, and can be removed only by a majority of all its then members after fourteen days' notice. Statement II is wrong, because the Constitution does not compel a Speaker to leave his party.
✓IThe second proviso to Article 94 says that when the House of the People is dissolved the Speaker does not vacate office until immediately before the first meeting of the new House.
✗IINo article requires this. Paragraph 5 of the Tenth Schedule only protects a Speaker who, by reason of his election, voluntarily gives up his party membership from disqualification; it does not make resignation compulsory.
✓IIIArticle 94(c) lets the House remove the Speaker by a resolution backed by a majority of all its then members, and the first proviso bars moving it without at least fourteen days' notice.
Remember · Speaker: stays on after dissolution until the new House meets; removed by a majority of all then members with 14 days' notice; no constitutional duty to quit the party.
Sources
The Constitution of India (Legislative Department, Government of India), Article 94, second proviso ↗“Provided further that, whenever the House of the People is dissolved, the Speaker shall not vacate his office until immediately before the first meeting of the House of the People after the dissolution. … may be removed from his office by a resolution of the House of the People passed by a majority of all the then members of the House … no resolution for the purpose of clause (c) shall be moved unless at least fourteen days’ notice has been given of the intention to move the resolution … shall not be disqualified under this Schedule,— (a) if he, by reason of his election to such office, voluntarily gives up the membership of the political party to which he belonged immediately before such election”
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 ·
I.If any question arises as to whether a Member of the House of the People has become subject to disqualification under the 10th Schedule, the President's decision in accordance with the opinion of the Council of Union Ministers shall be final.
II.There is no mention of the word 'political party' in the Constitution of India.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Answer & explanation▾
Answer: (d) Neither I nor II
Both statements are wrong. Under the Tenth Schedule, questions of defection disqualification are decided by the Speaker or Chairman, not the President. And the Constitution does use the words 'political party', in the Tenth Schedule and in Article 361B.
✗IParagraph 6 of the Tenth Schedule sends a defection question to the Speaker (or Chairman) of the House, whose decision is final. The President decides only disqualifications under Article 102(1), and then acts on the opinion of the Election Commission, not of the Council of Ministers.
✗IIThe Tenth Schedule, added by the Fifty-second Amendment in 1985, is built on 'political party', and Article 361B also uses the words.
Remember · Defection disqualification (Tenth Schedule) is decided by the Presiding Officer; the President decides Article 102(1) cases on the Election Commission's opinion. 'Political party' is in the Constitution.
Sources
The Constitution of India (Legislative Department, Government of India), Tenth Schedule, paragraph 6(1) ↗“the question shall be referred for the decision of the Chairman or, as the case may be, the Speaker of such House and his decision shall be final … Before giving any decision on any such question, the President shall obtain the opinion of the Election Commission and shall act according to such opinion. … A member of a House belonging to any political party who is disqualified for being a member of the House under paragraph 2 of the Tenth Schedule shall also be disqualified to hold any remunerative political post”
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 ·
Which of the following statements are correct in respect of a Money Bill in the Parliament?
1.Article 109 mentions special procedure in respect of Money Bills.
2.A Money Bill shall not be introduced in the Council of States.
3.The Rajya Sabha can either approve the Bill or suggest changes but cannot reject it.
4.Amendments to a Money Bill suggested by the Rajya Sabha have to be accepted by the Lok Sabha.
Select the answer using the code given below:
Answer & explanation▾
Answer: (c) 1, 2 and 3
Article 109 lays down a special procedure for Money Bills: they cannot start in the Council of States (Rajya Sabha), which may only return the Bill with recommendations within fourteen days. The House of the People (Lok Sabha) is free to accept or reject those recommendations, so statement 4 is wrong.
✓1.Article 109 is headed 'Special procedure in respect of Money Bills'.
✓2.Article 109(1) says a Money Bill shall not be introduced in the Council of States; it can start only in the Lok Sabha.
✓3.The Rajya Sabha cannot reject or amend a Money Bill. It can only send back recommendations, so its role is limited to suggesting changes.
✗4.Under Article 109(2) the Lok Sabha may either accept or reject all or any of the Rajya Sabha's recommendations. It is not bound to accept them.
Remember · Money Bill: introduced only in Lok Sabha; Rajya Sabha can only recommend within 14 days; Lok Sabha may accept or reject the recommendations (Article 109).
Constitution of India, Article 109(1) ↗“109. Special procedure in respect of Money Bills.—(1) A Money Bill shall not be introduced in the Council of States. … the House of the People may thereupon either accept or reject all or any of the recommendations of the Council of States.”
Question and answer: UPSC's official GS Paper I (2024, Series A) —
paper ↗ · answer key ↗.
Explanation: Minimalist IAS, checked 30 Sept 2026 (how we verify). Permalink ·
Which of the following statements about the Ethics Committee in the Lok Sabha are correct?
1.Initially it was an ad-hoc Committee.
2.Only a Member of the Lok Sabha can make a complaint relating to unethical conduct of a member of the Lok Sabha.
3.This Committee cannot take up any matter which is sub-judice.
Select the answer using the code given below:
Answer & explanation▾
Answer: (c) 1 and 3 only
Statements 1 and 3 are correct; statement 2 is wrong because Lok Sabha's Rule 233A lets any person, not only a Member, complain about a Member's unethical conduct, provided a Member forwards it. The Committee on Ethics began as an ad-hoc committee in 2000 and was made a regular standing committee in 2015.
✓1.The Committee on Ethics was first constituted as an ad-hoc committee on 16 May 2000, during the 13th Lok Sabha.
✗2.Rule 233A says any person or member may complain. If the complaint comes from an outsider, a Member must forward it, and an affidavit is needed unless a Member is the complainant.
✓3.Rule 233A(10) bars the Committee from taking up any sub-judice matter (one pending before a court), and the Committee's own decision on whether a matter is sub-judice is final.
•Since thenSince 2015 (16th Lok Sabha) the Committee is a regular standing committee under Rule 316A, no longer ad-hoc (Lok Sabha Secretariat).
Remember · Lok Sabha's Ethics Committee: ad-hoc from 2000, standing since 2015; any person may complain through a Member; sub-judice matters are excluded.
Sources
Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha, Rule 233A (Sansad) ↗“Any person or member may make a complaint relating to unethical conduct of a member of Lok Sabha:– Provided that if a complaint is made by any person, it shall be forwarded by a member. … The Committee on Ethics shall not take up any matter which is sub-judice and the decision of the Committee as to whether such matter is or is not sub-judice shall for the purposes of these rules be treated as final.”
Question and answer: UPSC's official GS Paper I (2024, Series A) —
paper ↗ · answer key ↗.
Explanation: Minimalist IAS, checked 30 Sept 2026 (how we verify). Permalink ·
Consider the following statements regarding ‘Nari Shakti Vandan Adhiniyam’:
1.Provisions will come into effect from the 18th Lok Sabha.
2.This will be in force for 15 years after becoming an Act.
3.There are provisions for the reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes Women within the quota reserved for the Scheduled Castes.
Which of the statements given above are correct?
Answer & explanation▾
Answer: (c) 2 and 3 only
Statements 2 and 3 are correct. The women's reservation (Constitution 106th Amendment) Act, 2023 lapses 15 years after its commencement and sets aside one-third of the Scheduled Caste seats for SC women. Statement 1 is wrong because reservation starts only after a fresh delimitation based on the first census taken after the Act, not from the 18th Lok Sabha.
✗1.Article 334A says the reservation takes effect after delimitation is done using the first census figures published after the Act's commencement. The 18th Lok Sabha (elected in 2024) was therefore not covered.
✓2.Article 334A(1) provides that the reservation ceases to have effect on the expiry of fifteen years from commencement. Parliament may extend this by law.
✓3.Article 330A(2) reserves, as nearly as may be, one-third of the seats reserved for Scheduled Castes (and for Scheduled Tribes) for women of those communities.
Remember · Nari Shakti Vandan Adhiniyam (106th Amendment, 2023): one-third seats for women, SC/ST quota sub-reserved, effective after post-census delimitation, lapses 15 years from commencement.
Sources
The Constitution (One Hundred and Sixth Amendment) Act, 2023, article 334A (e-Gazette) ↗“shall come into effect after an exercise of delimitation is undertaken for this purpose after the relevant figures for the first census taken after commencement of the Constitution (One Hundred and Sixth Amendment) Act, 2023 have been published and shall cease to have effect on the expiration of a period of fifteen years from such commencement. … As nearly as may be, one-third of the total number of seats reserved under clause (2) of article 330 shall be reserved for women belonging to the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes.”
Question and answer: UPSC's official GS Paper I (2024, Series A) —
paper ↗ · answer key ↗.
Explanation: Minimalist IAS, checked 30 Sept 2026 (how we verify). Permalink ·
With reference to Union Budget, consider the following statements:
1.The Union Finance Minister on behalf of the Prime Minister lays the Annual Financial Statement before both the Houses of Parliament.
2.At the Union level, no demand for a grant can be made except on the recommendation of the President of India.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Answer & explanation▾
Answer: (c) Both 1 and 2
UPSC's official answer: (c) · the answer UPSC accepted, and the one that counts in the exam
Also defensible: (b)
Statement 2 is the Constitution's own words: Article 113(3), 'No demand for a grant shall be made except on the recommendation of the President.'
Statement 1 says the Finance Minister lays the Annual Financial Statement 'on behalf of the Prime Minister'. Article 112(1) says 'the President shall in respect of every financial year cause to be laid before both the Houses of Parliament' the statement, and Lok Sabha Rule 204 says the Budget 'shall be presented to the House on such day as the President may direct'. In form, the Minister lays it for the President, not the Prime Minister.
UPSC's key accepts statement 1 on its substance: the President acts on the advice of the Council of Ministers 'with the Prime Minister at the head' (Article 74), and the Finance Minister presents the Budget for that Government. Hence (c).
A reader who holds the statement to the constitutional form, under which the statement is laid on the President's authority, rejects 1 and answers (b).
UPSC's key accepts statement 1 for its substance, the Finance Minister acting for the Government the Prime Minister heads; held to the form of Article 112, it fails and the answer is (b). In the exam, treat a statement as correct when its substance is right and only the form of words is loose.
This box is Minimalist IAS's analysis, with its sources; it does not change UPSC's answer.
Statement 2 is straight from the Constitution: Article 113(3) bars any demand for a grant without the President's recommendation. For statement 1, the Finance Minister lays the Annual Financial Statement before Parliament for the Government, the Council of Ministers headed by the Prime Minister, on whose advice the President 'causes' it to be laid under Article 112. UPSC's key treats both as correct.
✓1.Article 112(1) makes the President cause the Annual Financial Statement to be laid before both Houses; under Article 74 the President acts on the advice of the Council of Ministers with the Prime Minister at its head, and the Finance Minister lays the statement on the Government's behalf, presenting the Budget in the Lok Sabha and laying it in the Rajya Sabha.
✓2.Article 113(3): no demand for a grant shall be made except on the recommendation of the President. Demands for grants are submitted to the Lok Sabha only in this way.
Remember · Art 112: the President causes the Annual Financial Statement to be laid; the Finance Minister presents the Budget for the Government headed by the Prime Minister. Art 113(3): no demand for a grant without the President's recommendation.
Constitution of India, Article 112(1): annual financial statement ↗“The President shall in respect of every financial year cause to be laid before both the Houses of Parliament a statement of the estimated receipts and expenditure of the Government of India for that year … No demand for a grant shall be made except on the recommendation of the President. … There shall be a Council of Ministers with the Prime Minister at the head to aid and advise the President who shall, in the exercise of his functions, act in accordance with such advice”
With reference to the Speaker of the Lok Sabha, consider the following statements:
While any resolution for the removal of the Speaker of the Lok Sabha is under consideration
1.He/She shall not preside.
2.He/She shall not have the right to speak.
3.He/She shall not be entitled to vote on the resolution in the first instance.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Answer & explanation▾
Answer: (a) 1 only
Article 96 lays down what happens while a resolution to remove the Speaker is under consideration. The Speaker may not preside, even though present, but keeps the right to speak and to take part in the proceedings, and can vote in the first instance like any member. So only statement 1 is correct.
✓1.Article 96(1): the Speaker shall not preside at the sitting while a resolution for his removal is under consideration, though he is present.
✗2.Article 96(2) gives the Speaker the right to speak in, and otherwise take part in, the proceedings of the House while the resolution is under consideration.
✗3.Article 96(2) entitles the Speaker to vote in the first instance on the resolution or any other matter in those proceedings. What he does not get is a casting vote in case of a tie.
Remember · Article 96: on his own removal resolution the Speaker does not preside but may speak and vote in the first instance; he has no casting vote in a tie.
Sources
Constitution of India, Article 96(1): Speaker not to preside while a resolution for his removal is under consideration ↗“the Speaker, or while any resolution for the removal of the Deputy Speaker from his office is under consideration, the Deputy Speaker, shall not, though he is present, preside … The Speaker shall have the right to speak in, and otherwise to take part in the proceedings of, the House of the People while any resolution for his removal from office is under consideration in the House … shall, notwithstanding anything in article 100, be entitled to vote only in the first instance on such resolution or on any other matter during such proceedings but not in the case of an equality of votes”
Question and answer: UPSC's official GS Paper I (2024, Series A) —
paper ↗ · answer key ↗.
Explanation: Minimalist IAS, checked 30 Sept 2026 (how we verify). Permalink ·
With reference to the Indian Parliament, consider the following statements:
1.A bill pending in the Lok Sabha lapses on its dissolution.
2.A bill passed by the Lok Sabha and pending in the Rajya Sabha lapses on the dissolution of the Lok Sabha.
3.A bill in regard to which the President of India notified his/her intention to summon the Houses to a joint sitting lapses on the dissolution of the Lok Sabha.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Answer & explanation▾
Answer: (b) 1 and 2
Article 107(5) says a Bill pending in the Lok Sabha, or passed by it and pending in the Rajya Sabha, lapses when the Lok Sabha is dissolved. That rule is 'subject to article 108', and Article 108(5) lets a joint sitting be held even after dissolution, so a Bill for which the President has notified a joint sitting does not lapse.
✓1.A Bill pending in the Lok Sabha lapses on its dissolution (Article 107(5)).
✓2.A Bill passed by the Lok Sabha and pending in the Rajya Sabha also lapses when the Lok Sabha is dissolved (Article 107(5)).
✗3.Article 108(5) allows the joint sitting to be held and the Bill passed even though the Lok Sabha has been dissolved since the President notified the sitting. Such a Bill therefore does not lapse.
Remember · Lok Sabha dissolution lapses Bills pending in it, or passed by it and pending in Rajya Sabha. Bills only in Rajya Sabha, or with a joint sitting notified, survive.
Sources
Constitution of India, Article 107(5): Bills that lapse on dissolution of the House of the People ↗“A Bill which is pending in the House of the People, or which having been passed by the House of the People is pending in the Council of States, shall, subject to the provisions of article 108, lapse on a dissolution … A joint sitting may be held under this article and a Bill passed thereat, notwithstanding that a dissolution of the House of the People has intervened since the President notified his intention to summon the Houses to meet therein.”
Question and answer: UPSC's official GS Paper I (2024, Series A) —
paper ↗ · answer key ↗.
Explanation: Minimalist IAS, checked 30 Sept 2026 (how we verify). Permalink ·
With reference to the Parliament of India, consider the following statements:
1.Prorogation of a House by the President of India does not require the advice of the Council of Ministers.
2.Prorogation of a House is generally done after the House is adjourned sine die but there is no bar to the President of India prorogating the House which is in session.
3.Dissolution of the Lok Sabha is done by the President of India who, save in exceptional circumstances, does so on the advice of the Council of Ministers.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Answer & explanation▾
Answer: (c) 2 and 3
The President prorogues the Houses and dissolves the Lok Sabha under Article 85(2), but under Article 74(1) he acts in accordance with the advice of the Council of Ministers, so statement 1 is wrong. Prorogation usually follows an adjournment sine die, yet it can take place even while the House is sitting, and dissolution is ordinarily on the Council's advice too.
✗1.Article 74(1) makes the President act in accordance with the Council of Ministers' advice in exercising his functions, and prorogation is no exception. He may ask the Council to reconsider its advice once, but must then follow it.
✓2.Prorogation ends a session by the President's order under Article 85(2)(a). It usually follows adjournment sine die, but it can take place at any time, even while the House is sitting.
✓3.The Lok Sabha is dissolved by the President's order under Article 85(2)(b), and he ordinarily acts on the advice of the Council of Ministers under Article 74(1). The phrase 'save in exceptional circumstances' does not change that general rule.
Remember · The President prorogues the Houses and dissolves the Lok Sabha, acting on the Council of Ministers' advice (Art 74(1)). Prorogation usually follows adjournment sine die but can occur mid-session.
Question and answer: UPSC's official GS Paper I (2024, Series A) —
paper ↗ · answer key ↗.
Explanation: Minimalist IAS, checked 30 Sept 2026 (how we verify). Permalink ·
1.If the election of the President of India is declared void by the Supreme Court of India, all acts done by him/her in the performance of duties of his/her office of President before the date of decision become invalid.
2.Election for the post of the President of India can be postponed on the ground that some Legislative Assemblies have been dissolved and elections are yet to take place.
3.When a Bill is presented to the President of India, the Constitution prescribes time limits within which he/she has to declare his/her assent.
How many of the above statements are correct?
Answer & explanation▾
Answer: (d) None
None of the three statements is correct. Article 71 protects acts already done by a President whose election is later voided, Articles 62 and 71 do not allow the election to be delayed because of vacancies in the electoral college, and Article 111 sets no time limit for the President to assent to a Bill.
✗1.Article 71(2) says acts done by the President on or before the date of the Supreme Court's decision are not invalidated by the declaration that the election was void.
✗2.Article 62(1) requires the election to be completed before the term ends, and Article 71(4) says the election cannot be questioned because of vacancies in the electoral college, such as dissolved Assemblies.
✗3.Article 111 says the President shall declare that he assents or withholds assent, and may return a non-Money Bill for reconsideration, but it fixes no time limit.
Remember · Presidential election: acts done before a voided election stand (Art. 71(2)); vacancies in the electoral college do not stop it (71(4)); Art. 111 sets no deadline for assent.
Sources
Constitution of India, Article 71(2) (Legislative Department) ↗“the powers and duties of the office of President or Vice-President, as the case may be, on or before the date of the decision of the Supreme Court shall not be invalidated by reason of that declaration. … The election of a person as President or Vice-President shall not be called in question on the ground of the existence of any vacancy for whatever reason among the members of the electoral college electing him. … An election to fill a vacancy caused by the expiration of the term of office of President shall be completed before the expiration of the term. … it shall be presented to the President, and the President shall declare either that he assents to the Bill, or that he withholds assent therefrom”
Question and answer: UPSC's official GS Paper I (2023, Series A) —
paper ↗ · answer key ↗.
Explanation: Minimalist IAS, checked 30 Sept 2026 (how we verify). Permalink ·
With reference to Finance Bill and Money Bill in the Indian Parliament, consider the following statements:
1.When the Lok Sabha transmits Finance Bill to the Rajya Sabha, it can amend or reject the Bill.
2.When the Lok Sabha transmits Money Bill to the Rajya Sabha, it cannot amend or reject the Bill, it can only make recommendations.
3.In the case of disagreement between the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha, there is no joint sitting for Money Bill, but a joint sitting becomes necessary for Finance Bill.
How many of the above statements are correct?
Answer & explanation▾
Answer: (b) Only two
UPSC's official answer: (b) · the answer UPSC accepted, and the one that counts in the exam
Also defensible: (a)
Statement 2 is correct on any reading: under Article 109(2) the Rajya Sabha must 'return the Bill to the House of the People with its recommendations' within fourteen days.
Statement 3 fails on 'becomes necessary': Article 108 only says the President 'may' summon a joint sitting on a non-Money Bill; it is never compulsory, and a Money Bill has no joint sitting at all.
Statement 1 depends on what 'Finance Bill' means. UPSC's key treats it as a financial Bill that is not a Money Bill, which the Rajya Sabha can amend or reject like any other Bill, so 1 and 2 are correct: two, option (b).
But the Finance Bill of the Budget, defined in Lok Sabha Rule 219 as 'the Bill ordinarily introduced in each year to give effect to the financial proposals of the Government of India', is certified a Money Bill: 'A Finance Bill is a Money Bill but not all money bills are Finance Bills' (Arthapedia, Indian Economic Service). On that reading the Rajya Sabha cannot amend or reject it, 1 fails too, and only 2 holds: option (a).
UPSC's key is (b), reading 'Finance Bill' as the non-Money financial Bill; read as the annual Finance Bill, a Money Bill, only statement 2 survives, giving (a). In the exam, when UPSC sets 'Finance Bill' against 'Money Bill', read it as the non-Money financial Bill, and never let 'necessary' pass for 'possible'.
This box is Minimalist IAS's analysis, with its sources; it does not change UPSC's answer.
Statements 1 and 2 are correct and statement 3 is not, so two are correct. The question sets a Finance Bill against a Money Bill, so the Finance Bill here is a financial Bill that is not a Money Bill: the Rajya Sabha can amend or reject it like any other Bill (1), while a Money Bill it can only return with recommendations within 14 days (2). Statement 3 fails on 'becomes necessary': Article 108 lets the President summon a joint sitting on a non-Money Bill, but it is never compulsory.
✓1.Article 117(1) restricts a financial Bill only at introduction: the President's recommendation, and no introduction in the Rajya Sabha. Once transmitted, the Rajya Sabha can amend or reject it; Article 108 itself contemplates such a Bill being 'rejected by the other House' or the Houses disagreeing on amendments.
✓2.Article 109(2): the Council of States must return a Money Bill within fourteen days with recommendations, and the House of the People may accept or reject any of them.
✗3.No joint sitting for a Money Bill is right (Article 108 proviso), but a joint sitting never 'becomes necessary': on a disagreement the President 'may' notify a joint sitting, and the Bill may simply lapse. A possible remedy is not a necessary one.
Remember · Money Bill: Lok Sabha only; Rajya Sabha may only recommend within 14 days; no joint sitting. Other financial Bills: Rajya Sabha can amend or reject; a joint sitting is possible (the President 'may' summon one), never necessary.
Sources
Constitution of India, Article 109(2) (Legislative Department) ↗“the Council of States shall within a period of fourteen days from the date of its receipt of the Bill return the Bill to the House of the People with its recommendations … his intention to summon them to meet in a joint sitting for the purpose of deliberating and voting on the Bill: Provided that nothing in this clause shall apply to a Money Bill. … and a Bill making such provision shall not be introduced in the Council of States … (a) the Bill is rejected by the other House; or (b) the Houses have finally disagreed as to the amendments to be made in the Bill … the President may, unless the Bill has elapsed by reason of a dissolution of the House of the People, notify to the Houses by message if they are sitting or by public notification if they are not sitting, his intention to summon them to meet in a joint sitting”
Consider the following statements in respect of election to the President of India:
1.The members nominated to either House of the Parliament or the Legislative Assemblies of States are also eligible to be included in the Electoral College.
2.Higher the number of elective Assembly seats, higher is the value of vote of each MLA of that State.
3.The value of vote of each MLA of Madhya Pradesh is greater than that of Kerala.
4.The value of vote of each MLA of Puducherry is higher than that of Arunachal Pradesh because the ratio of total population to total number of elective seats in Puducherry is greater as compared to Arunachal Pradesh.
How many of the above statements are correct?
Answer & explanation▾
Answer: (a) Only one
Only statement 4 is correct. The Electoral College has only elected members, and the value of each MLA's vote equals the 1971 population of the State divided by its number of elected MLAs (then divided by 1,000), so more seats make each vote worth less, not more.
✗1.Article 54 limits the Electoral College to the elected members of both Houses of Parliament and of the State Legislative Assemblies. Nominated members are not eligible.
✗2.Under Article 55(2)(a) the number of elected MLAs is the divisor, so for a given population, more elective seats means a lower value for each MLA's vote.
✗3.Using 1971 Census population, each MLA vote is worth 152 in Kerala (about 2.13 crore people, 140 seats) and 131 in Madhya Pradesh (about 3.00 crore people, 230 seats). Madhya Pradesh's value is lower, not greater.
✓4.Puducherry (1971 population 4,71,707; 30 elected seats) gives 16 per MLA, while Arunachal Pradesh (4,67,511; 60 seats) gives 8. The populations are almost equal but Puducherry has half the seats, so its ratio of population to seats is higher.
Remember · Value of an MLA's vote = (State's 1971 population ÷ elected MLAs) ÷ 1,000, rounded. Only elected members vote, and states with fewer seats per head of population get a higher vote value.
Constitution of India, Article 55(2)(a) ↗“every elected member of the Legislative Assembly of a State shall have as many votes as there are multiples of one thousand in the quotient obtained by dividing the population of the State by the total number of the elected members of the Assembly”
Question and answer: UPSC's official GS Paper I (2023, Series A) —
paper ↗ · answer key ↗.
Explanation: Minimalist IAS, checked 30 Sept 2026 (how we verify). Permalink ·
1.A bill amending the Constitution requires a prior recommendation of the President of India.
2.When a Constitution Amendment Bill is presented to the President of India, it is obligatory for the President of India to give his/her assent.
3.A Constitution Amendment Bill must be passed by both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha by a special majority and there is no provision for joint sitting.
Which of the statements given above are correct?
Answer & explanation▾
Answer: (b) 2 and 3 only
Article 368(2) lets an amendment bill be introduced in either House without any prior recommendation of the President. Each House must pass it separately by a special majority — no joint sitting — and the President then 'shall give his assent', so assent is obligatory.
✗1.Article 368(2) only says an amendment is initiated by introducing a Bill in either House of Parliament; no prior presidential recommendation is required.
✓2.Since the 24th Amendment (1971), Article 368(2) says the passed Bill 'shall be presented to the President who shall give his assent'. The President cannot send it back for reconsideration.
✓3.Each House must pass the Bill separately by a majority of its total membership and two-thirds of members present and voting; there is no provision for a joint sitting.
Remember · Article 368: introduce in either House, no President's prior recommendation; special majority in each House separately; no joint sitting; President must assent.
Constitution of India (as on 2024), Article 368(2) — Legislative Department ↗“An amendment of this Constitution may be initiated only by the introduction of a Bill for the purpose in either House of Parliament, and when the Bill is passed in each House by a majority of the total membership of that House … it shall be presented to the President who shall give his assent to the Bill and thereupon the Constitution shall stand amended in accordance with the terms of the Bill”
Question and answer: UPSC's official GS Paper I (2022, Series A) —
paper ↗ · answer key ↗.
Explanation: Minimalist IAS, checked 30 Sept 2026 (how we verify). Permalink ·
1.The Constitution of India classifies the ministers into four ranks viz. Cabinet Minister, Minister of State with Independent Charge, Minister of State and Deputy Minister.
2.The total number of ministers in the Union Government, including the Prime Minister, shall not exceed 15 percent of the total number of members in the Lok Sabha.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Answer & explanation▾
Answer: (b) 2 only
The Constitution speaks only of a Council of Ministers headed by the Prime Minister; ranks such as cabinet minister, minister of state and deputy minister are allotted by the Prime Minister by convention. The 15 per cent cap on the size of the Council of Ministers is in Article 75(1A).
✗1.No article lists ranks of ministers. The Prime Minister allocates ranks and portfolios, depending on seniority and political importance.
✓2.Article 75(1A), added by the 91st Amendment (2003), says the total number of ministers including the Prime Minister shall not exceed fifteen per cent of the total membership of the Lok Sabha.
Remember · Article 75(1A): Council of Ministers ≤ 15% of Lok Sabha strength (Article 164(1A) for States, minimum 12). Ministerial ranks are the PM's arrangement, not constitutional categories.
NCERT Class 11 · Indian Constitution at Work, Chapter 4“The Prime Minister allocates ranks and portfolios to the ministers. Depending upon the seniority and political importance, the ministers are given the ranks of cabinet minister, minister of State or deputy minister.”
Question and answer: UPSC's official GS Paper I (2022, Series A) —
paper ↗ · answer key ↗.
Explanation: Minimalist IAS, checked 30 Sept 2026 (how we verify). Permalink ·
Which of the following is/are the exclusive power(s) of Lok Sabha?
1.To ratify the declaration of Emergency
2.To pass a motion of no-confidence against the Council of Ministers
3.To impeach the President of India
Select the correct answer using the code given below:
Answer & explanation▾
Answer: (b) 2 only
The Council of Ministers is responsible to the Lok Sabha alone, so only the Lok Sabha can remove it through a no-confidence motion. Approving an Emergency proclamation needs resolutions of both Houses, and impeachment of the President can begin in either House.
✗1.Under Article 352(4), an Emergency proclamation lapses after one month unless approved by resolutions of both Houses of Parliament, so the Rajya Sabha shares this power.
✓2.Article 75(3) makes the Council of Ministers collectively responsible to the Lok Sabha. The Rajya Sabha can criticise the government but cannot remove it.
✗3.Article 61(1) says the impeachment charge against the President may be preferred by either House; the other House then investigates it.
Remember · Lok Sabha only: no-confidence motion; money bills. Both Houses: approving Emergency (Art. 352), impeaching the President (Art. 61), amending the Constitution.
Constitution of India (as on 2024), Article 352(4) — Legislative Department ↗“cease to operate at the expiration of one month unless before the expiration of that period it has been approved by resolutions of both Houses of Parliament … When a President is to be impeached for violation of the Constitution, the charge shall be preferred by either House of Parliament.”
Question and answer: UPSC's official GS Paper I (2022, Series A) —
paper ↗ · answer key ↗.
Explanation: Minimalist IAS, checked 30 Sept 2026 (how we verify). Permalink ·
With reference to anti-defection law in India, consider the following statements:
1.The law specifies that a nominated legislator cannot join any political party within six months of being appointed to the House.
2.The law does not provide any time-frame within which the presiding officer has to decide a defection case.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Answer & explanation▾
Answer: (b) 2 only
The Tenth Schedule works the other way round for nominated members: they may join a party within six months of taking their seat and are disqualified only if they join after that. It leaves defection cases to the Speaker or Chairman but sets no deadline for deciding them.
✗1.Paragraph 2(3) disqualifies a nominated member who joins a political party after the expiry of six months from taking the seat — so joining within the first six months is allowed.
✓2.Paragraph 6 refers disqualification questions to the Chairman or Speaker, whose decision is final, but prescribes no time limit for the decision.
Remember · Tenth Schedule: nominated member may join a party within 6 months of taking seat; independents may never join one; Speaker/Chairman decides, with no statutory deadline.
Sources
Constitution of India (as on 2024), Tenth Schedule, paragraph 2(3) — Legislative Department ↗“A nominated member of a House shall be disqualified for being a member of the House if he joins any political party after the expiry of six months from the date on which he takes his seat … the question shall be referred for the decision of the Chairman or, as the case may be, the Speaker of such House and his decision shall be final”
Question and answer: UPSC's official GS Paper I (2022, Series A) —
paper ↗ · answer key ↗.
Explanation: Minimalist IAS, checked 30 Sept 2026 (how we verify). Permalink ·
1.Attorney General of India and Solicitor General of India are the only officers of the Government who are allowed to participate in the meetings of the Parliament of India.
2.According to the Constitution of India, the Attorney General of India submits his resignation when the Government which appointed him resigns.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Answer & explanation▾
Answer: (d) Neither 1 nor 2
Article 88 gives every Minister and the Attorney-General — not the Solicitor General — the right to speak and take part in Parliament's proceedings without a vote. The Constitution only says the Attorney-General holds office during the pleasure of the President; resigning with the government is a convention, not a constitutional rule.
✗1.Article 88 names Ministers and the Attorney-General as the persons who may take part in the proceedings of either House and its committees; the Solicitor General has no such constitutional right.
✗2.Article 76(4) says only that the Attorney-General holds office during the pleasure of the President. Stepping down when the government changes is a practice, not something the Constitution provides.
Remember · Article 76: Attorney-General (office at President's pleasure; right of audience in all courts). Article 88: AG and Ministers may speak in either House and committees but cannot vote.
Sources
Constitution of India (as on 2024), Article 88 — Legislative Department ↗“Every Minister and the Attorney-General of India shall have the right to speak in, and otherwise to take part in the proceedings of, either House, any joint sitting of the Houses … The Attorney-General shall hold office during the pleasure of the President, and shall receive such remuneration as the President may determine.”
Question and answer: UPSC's official GS Paper I (2022, Series A) —
paper ↗ · answer key ↗.
Explanation: Minimalist IAS, checked 30 Sept 2026 (how we verify). Permalink ·
With reference to Deputy Speaker of Lok Sabha, consider the following statements:
1.As per the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha, the election of Deputy Speaker shall be held on such date as the Speaker may fix.
2.There is a mandatory provision that the election of a candidate as Deputy Speaker of Lok Sabha shall be from either the principal opposition party or the ruling party.
3.The Deputy Speaker has the same power as of the Speaker when presiding over the sitting of the House and no appeal lies against his rulings.
4.The well established parliamentary practice regarding the appointment of Deputy Speaker is that the motion is moved by the Speaker and duly seconded by the Prime Minister.
Which of the statements given above are correct?
Answer & explanation▾
Answer: (a) 1 and 3 only
Rule 8 of the Lok Sabha Rules lets the Speaker fix the date of the Deputy Speaker's election, and under Article 95 the Deputy Speaker acts as Speaker when presiding, with the Chair's full authority. No rule reserves the post for any party, and the election motion is moved by members, not by the Speaker.
✓1.Rule 8(1) of the Lok Sabha procedure rules says the election of a Deputy Speaker is held on a date the Speaker fixes, and the Secretary-General notifies every member.
✗2.Neither Article 93 nor the Rules restrict the post to any party. Giving it to the opposition has been a practice in many Lok Sabhas, not a legal requirement.
✓3.Under Article 95 the Deputy Speaker performs the Speaker's duties when the office is vacant, and Rule 10 of the Lok Sabha Rules gives the Deputy Speaker, when presiding, the same powers as the Speaker, so his rulings carry the Chair's authority.
✗4.Under Rule 8(2) any member gives notice of a motion that another member be chosen Deputy Speaker, and a third member seconds it. The Speaker presides over the election and does not move the motion.
Remember · Deputy Speaker: elected under Article 93 on a date fixed by the Speaker (LS Rule 8); acts as Speaker under Article 95; opposition claim to the post is only convention.
Sources
Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha (Lok Sabha Secretariat, sansad.in), Rule 8: Election of Deputy Speaker ↗“The election of a Deputy Speaker shall be held on such date as the Speaker may fix, and the Secretary-General shall send to every member notice of this date. … any member may give notice in writing, addressed to the Secretary-General, of a motion that another member be chosen as the Deputy Speaker of the House and the notice shall be seconded by a third member … shall, when so presiding, have the same powers as the Speaker when so presiding”
Constitution of India, Article 95 (Legislative Department, Government of India) ↗“(1) While the office of Speaker is vacant, the duties of the office shall be performed by the Deputy Speaker or, if the office of Deputy Speaker is also vacant, by such member of the House of the People as the President may appoint for the purpose.”
Lok Sabha (Digital Sansad): Frequently Asked Questions ↗“Who presides over the Lok Sabha when the Speaker is absent from the sitting of the House? The Deputy Speaker presides over the Lok Sabha when the Speaker is absent from the sitting of the House.”
Question and answer: UPSC's official GS Paper I (2022, Series A) —
paper ↗ · answer key ↗.
Explanation: Minimalist IAS, checked 30 Sept 2026 (how we verify). Permalink ·
We adopted parliamentary democracy based on the British model, but how does our model differ from that model?
1.As regards legislation, the British Parliament is supreme or sovereign but in India, the power of the Parliament to legislate is limited.
2.In India, matters related to the constitutionality of the Amendment of an Act of the Parliament are referred to the Constitution Bench by the Supreme Court.
Select the correct answer using the code given below.
Answer & explanation▾
Answer: (c) Both 1 and 2
Both statements are correct as UPSC frames them. The British Parliament is sovereign, but India's Parliament works within a written Constitution and can be checked by the courts. Also, cases on the meaning of the Constitution go to a Constitution Bench of at least five Supreme Court judges.
✓1.In the UK, Parliament is the supreme legal authority and the courts generally cannot overrule its laws. In India, the Constitution limits Parliament: it must respect Fundamental Rights, the division of powers between the Union and the States, and the basic structure, and the Supreme Court can strike down laws that breach them.
✓2.Article 145(3) requires at least five judges to decide any case involving a substantial question of law on the interpretation of the Constitution. So challenges to the constitutional validity of a law or an amendment are placed before a Constitution Bench. The statement's phrase 'Amendment of an Act' is loose, but the key treats it as correct.
Remember · UK: parliamentary sovereignty. India: constitutional supremacy, with judicial review, and Constitution Bench (five or more judges) for substantial questions on interpreting the Constitution (Article 145(3)).
UK Parliament, Parliamentary sovereignty ↗ · reference work“It makes Parliament the supreme legal authority in the UK, which can create or end any law. Generally, the courts cannot overrule its legislation”
Question and answer: UPSC's official GS Paper I (2021, Series A) —
paper ↗ · answer key ↗.
Explanation: Minimalist IAS, checked 30 Sept 2026 (how we verify). Permalink ·
With reference to India, consider the following statements:
1.There is only one citizenship and one domicile.
2.A citizen by birth only can become the Head of State.
3.A foreigner once granted the citizenship cannot be deprived of it under any circumstances.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Answer & explanation▾
Answer: (a) 1 only
Only statement 1 is correct: India has a single citizenship (and a single domicile, that of India), unlike federal countries that give people citizenship of both the nation and a state. Statement 2 is wrong because Article 58 requires the President to be a citizen of India, not a citizen by birth, and statement 3 is wrong because the Citizenship Act allows the Central Government to deprive some citizens of citizenship.
✓1.The Constitution provides only one citizenship, that of India; Article 5 speaks of domicile 'in the territory of India', not of any state. Some federal countries have dual citizenship; India does not.
✗2.Article 58 lists three conditions to be President: citizen of India, at least 35 years of age, and qualified to be elected to the Lok Sabha. Birth in India is not a condition, so a naturalised citizen can be eligible.
✗3.Section 10 of the Citizenship Act, 1955 lets the Central Government deprive a citizen who got citizenship by naturalisation or registration of it, for example where it was obtained by fraud, after giving notice. The Citizenship Rules, 2009 lay down the notice procedure.
Remember · One citizenship, one domicile. The President must be a citizen of India, not necessarily by birth. Section 10 of the Citizenship Act, 1955 allows deprivation of some citizens.
Question and answer: UPSC's official GS Paper I (2021, Series A) —
paper ↗ · answer key ↗.
Explanation: Minimalist IAS, checked 30 Sept 2026 (how we verify). Permalink ·
A constitutional amendment must be passed separately by each House with a special majority, and there is no joint sitting to override a House that refuses. So on amendments the Rajya Sabha stands level with the Lok Sabha. The other three options are either special to the Rajya Sabha or reserved for the Lok Sabha.
✓(b)Under Article 368 each House must pass an amendment bill by a special majority, so the constituent powers of the two Houses are the same.
✗(a)Creating a new All India Service needs a resolution of the Rajya Sabha alone, backed by two-thirds of members present and voting (Article 312). This is a special power of the Rajya Sabha, not an equal one.
✗(c)The Council of Ministers is collectively responsible to the Lok Sabha only (Article 75(3)), so only the Lok Sabha can remove the government.
✗(d)Demands for grants are voted only by the Lok Sabha (Article 113(2)), so cut motions, which propose reducing a demand, can be moved only there.
Remember · Equal powers of the two Houses: constitutional amendments, non-money bills, impeaching the President, removing the Vice President. Lok Sabha alone: money bills, grants, no-confidence.
NCERT Class 11 · Indian Constitution at Work, Chapter 5“In all other spheres, including passing of non-money bills, constitutional amendments, and impeaching the President and removing the Vice President the powers of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha are co-equal.”
Constitution of India, Article 312 (All-India services) ↗“if the Council of States has declared by resolution supported by not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting that it is necessary or expedient in the national interest so to do, Parliament may by law provide for the creation of one or more all India services … shall be submitted in the form of demands for grants to the House of the People, and the House of the People shall have power to assent, or to refuse to assent, to any demand”
Question and answer: UPSC's official GS Paper I (2020, Series A) —
paper ↗ · answer key ↗.
Explanation: Minimalist IAS, checked 30 Sept 2026 (how we verify). Permalink ·
With reference to the funds under Members of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme (MPLADS), which of the following statements are correct?
1.MPLADS funds must be used to create durable assets like physical infrastructure for health, education, etc.
2.A specified portion of each MP's fund must benefit SC/ST populations.
3.MPLADS funds are sanctioned on yearly basis and the unused funds cannot be carried forward to the next year.
4.The district authority must inspect at least 10% of all works under implementation every year.
Select the correct answer using the code given below:
Answer & explanation▾
Answer: (d) 1, 2 and 4 only
Only statement 3 is wrong. MPLADS money is non-lapsable: whatever is left with the district, or not released by the Centre in a year, is carried forward. The scheme's other rules are as stated — durable community assets, a fixed share for SC and ST areas, and inspection of at least 10% of works by the district authority.
✓1.The scheme lets MPs recommend developmental works with the emphasis on creating durable community assets such as drinking water, education, health and sanitation infrastructure.
✓2.The guidelines earmark at least 15% of each MP's annual fund for works in areas inhabited by Scheduled Castes and 7.5% for areas inhabited by Scheduled Tribes.
✗3.MPLADS funds are non-lapsable. Money left with the district is carried forward to later years, and funds not released by the Centre in a year are released in subsequent years.
✓4.The district authority supervises the works and must inspect at least 10% of the works under implementation every year, involving MPs where feasible.
Remember · MPLADS (1993, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation): durable community assets; funds non-lapsable; 15% SC areas, 7.5% ST areas; district authority inspects at least 10% of works a year.
Sources
MPLADS Guidelines (Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation), copy hosted by the Public Works Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh ↗ · reference work“Funds released to the District Authority by the Government of India are non-lapsable. Funds left in the district can be carried forward for utilization in the subsequent years. … inspect at least 10% of the works under implementation every year. The District Authority should involve the MPs in the inspections of projects to the extent feasible. … The District Authority shall enforce the provisions made in the Paragraph 2.5 on the earmarked 15% and 7.5% of funds for MPLADS works in the SC and ST respectively.”
Question and answer: UPSC's official GS Paper I (2020, Series A) —
paper ↗ · answer key ↗.
Explanation: Minimalist IAS, checked 30 Sept 2026 (how we verify). Permalink ·
A Parliamentary System of Government is one in which
Answer & explanation▾
Answer: (b) the Government is responsible to the Parliament and can be removed by it
The defining feature of a parliamentary system is that the executive survives only while it keeps the confidence of the legislature. In India the Council of Ministers is collectively responsible to the Lok Sabha, which can remove it at any time.
✓(b)The Council of Ministers depends on majority support in the legislature and can be removed whenever it loses that support, for example through a no-confidence motion in the Lok Sabha.
✗(d)A government with a fixed term that the legislature cannot remove is a feature of the presidential system, as in the USA, not the parliamentary one.
✗(c)Voters elect the legislature, not the government directly; the government is formed from the majority in the legislature and answers to it.
Remember · Parliamentary system: executive drawn from and responsible to the legislature, removable any time by loss of confidence. Presidential system: fixed-term executive not removable by the legislature (except impeachment).
Question and answer: UPSC's official GS Paper I (2020, Series A) —
paper ↗ · answer key ↗.
Explanation: Minimalist IAS, checked 30 Sept 2026 (how we verify). Permalink ·
In the context of India, which one of the following is the characteristic appropriate for bureaucracy?
Answer & explanation▾
Answer: (d) An agency for the implementation of public policy
The bureaucracy is the permanent executive: trained, merit-selected officers who help ministers frame policy and then carry it out. Its defining job is implementing public policy, whichever party is in power.
✓(d)Civil servants assist ministers in formulating policies and implementing them, and must faithfully implement a new government's policies too.
✗(c)Continuity of administration may help stability, but political stability and growth are outcomes of policy choices made by elected governments, not the defining role of the bureaucracy.
✗(a)Widening parliamentary democracy is a political task of legislators and parties; the bureaucracy is non-partisan and works under ministerial control.
Remember · Bureaucracy = permanent executive (civil service), recruited on merit through UPSC/State PSCs, politically neutral, and tasked with implementing the policies of the political executive.
NCERT Class 11 · Indian Constitution at Work, Chapter 4“Trained and skilled officers who work as permanent employees of the government are assigned the task of assisting the ministers in formulating policies and implementing these policies.”
Question and answer: UPSC's official GS Paper I (2020, Series A) —
paper ↗ · answer key ↗.
Explanation: Minimalist IAS, checked 30 Sept 2026 (how we verify). Permalink ·