Polity – MCQ – GK Questions

Answer: Collect backwardness, inadequacy of representation, administrative efficiency

M. Nagaraj (2006): SC upheld constitutional amendments (77th, 81st, 82nd, 85th) enabling reservation in promotions for SCs/STs but imposed three conditions: (a) Collect quantifiable data showing backwardness of class, (b) Prove inadequacy of representation in particular post, (c) Maintain overall administrative efficiency. Balances social justice with merit; State must justify reservation in promotions with empirical data.

Answer: Criminal antecedents, assets, liabilities, educational qualification

ADR Case (2002): SC directed ECI to require candidates to disclose: (a) Criminal cases pending, (b) Assets/liabilities of candidate and spouse, (c) Educational qualification. Rationale: Voters' right to know (implicit in Article 19(1)(a)) essential for informed choice in democracy. Led to ECI forms requiring these disclosures; foundation for electoral transparency reforms.

Answer: Article 19(1)(a) (Freedom of Speech)

Pre-RTI Act cases: (a) Bennett Coleman v. Union of India (1972): Right to information implicit in Article 19(1)(a), (b) Indian Express v. Union of India (1985): Right to know essential for democracy, (c) Dinesh Trivedi v. Union of India (1997): Citizens' right to know about government functioning. RTI Act, 2005 statutory recognition; Supreme Court in 2024 (Electoral Bonds case) reaffirmed right to information as part of Article 19(1)(a).

Answer: Creamy layer

Indra Sawhney (Mandal Case, 1992): 9-judge bench upheld 27% reservation for OBCs but: (a) Excluded 'creamy layer' (advanced sections) within OBCs, (b) Capped total reservation at 50% (with exceptions), (c) Held reservation not applicable to promotions (later amended by 77th/85th Amendments). Landmark judgment balancing social justice with merit; foundation of OBC reservation jurisprudence.

Answer: Judicial independence

NJAC Judgment (2015): 4:1 majority struck down 99th Amendment and NJAC Act. Held: (a) Collegium system (judges appointing judges) is part of basic structure, (b) Executive participation in appointments threatens judicial independence, (c) Primacy of judiciary in appointments essential for separation of powers. Controversial judgment; debate on judicial appointments reform continues.

Answer: Federalism

SR Bommai (1994): 9-judge bench held: (a) Federalism is part of basic structure, (b) Presidential satisfaction under Article 356 subject to judicial review, (c) Floor test is primary method to test majority, (d) State Assembly dissolution not automatic; can be revived if proclamation invalidated. Curbed arbitrary use of Article 356; landmark judgment protecting State autonomy within federal framework.

Answer: Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)

Kesavananda Bharati (1973): 13-judge bench held Parliament can amend any part of Constitution but cannot alter its 'basic structure'. Basic features include: supremacy of Constitution, republican/democratic form, secularism, federalism, separation of powers, judicial review, rule of law, individual dignity. Landmark judgment balancing parliamentary sovereignty with constitutional supremacy; foundation of Indian constitutionalism.

Answer: Seal of the Union

Article 155 states: 'The Governor of a State shall be appointed by the President by warrant under his hand and seal.' The 'seal' refers to the Seal of the Union (not State), emphasizing that the Governor is a Union appointee representing the Centre in the State. This reflects the federal balance in India's quasi-federal structure.

Answer: Right to Education

The 86th Amendment Act, 2002: (1) Added Article 21A making education a Fundamental Right for children 6-14 years, (2) Added Directive Principle Article 45 for early childhood care, (3) Added Fundamental Duty Article 51A(k) for parents to provide education opportunities. This amendment operationalized the constitutional commitment to universal elementary education.

Answer: Two or more State Legislatures pass resolutions requesting such law

Article 252 enables 'cooperative federalism': if two or more State Legislatures pass resolutions requesting Parliament to legislate on a State List subject, Parliament can make a law applicable to those States (and others that adopt it later). Examples: Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974; Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976.

Answer: Summon the House without ministerial advice

In Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker, Arunachal Pradesh (2016), the Supreme Court held that the Governor cannot summon, prorogue, or dissolve the State Assembly at their discretion when the Council of Ministers enjoys majority support. Such powers must be exercised on ministerial advice, except in rare situations of constitutional breakdown. This curbed arbitrary use of gubernatorial powers.

Answer: Cooperative Societies

The 97th Amendment Act, 2011 added Part IXB to the Constitution for regulation of Cooperative Societies. It mandated democratic elections, fixed terms, and audit requirements for cooperatives. However, in 2021, the Supreme Court struck down parts related to State cooperatives (violating federalism), upholding only provisions for multi-State cooperatives.

Answer: Sikkim

Article 371F, added by the 36th Amendment Act, 1975, provides special provisions for Sikkim's integration into India. It protects Sikkim's existing laws, land ownership patterns, and reservation policies. It also allows the Parliament to determine the number of seats for Sikkim in Lok Sabha and State Assembly, ensuring representation while preserving local identity.

Answer: Article 213

Article 213 empowers the Governor to promulgate Ordinances when the State Legislature is not in session, if satisfied that circumstances require immediate action. Ordinances have the same force as Acts but must be approved by the Legislature within 6 weeks of reassembly, or they lapse. The Governor's satisfaction is subject to judicial review for mala fides.

Answer: Reverse excesses of the 1975 Emergency

The 44th Amendment Act, 1978 was passed by the Janata Party government to undo authoritarian changes made during the 1975-77 Emergency. Key reversals: (1) Restored judicial review of emergency proclamations, (2) Made 'armed rebellion' (not 'internal disturbance') the ground for National Emergency, (3) Protected Articles 20-21 from suspension during Emergency, (4) Restored Parliament's term to 5 years.

Answer: All of the above

Article 200 gives the Governor three options on State Bills: (1) Give assent (Bill becomes law), (2) Withhold assent (Bill fails), (3) Reserve for President's consideration (mandatory for certain Bills affecting High Court, compulsory for Bills derogating from High Court powers). The Governor can also return a Bill (not Money Bill) for reconsideration, but must assent if re-passed.

Answer: Imposition of President's Rule under Article 356

The landmark S.R. Bommai case (1994) established strict guidelines for imposing President's Rule under Article 356: (1) Floor test is the primary method to test majority, (2) Presidential proclamation is subject to judicial review, (3) State Assembly can only be dissolved after Parliament approves the proclamation, (4) Secularism is part of basic structure. This curbed arbitrary use of Article 356.

Answer: Reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS)

The 103rd Amendment Act, 2019 added Articles 15(6) and 16(6) to provide 10% reservation in education and government jobs for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) among citizens not covered under existing reservations (SC/ST/OBC). It amended the definition of 'backward classes' to exclude EWS, sparking debates on equality and reservation policy.

Answer: Nagaland

Article 371A grants special provisions to Nagaland: (1) No Act of Parliament on Naga religious/social practices, customary law, civil/criminal justice involving customary law, or land ownership/transfer applies unless the Nagaland Legislative Assembly so decides. This protects Naga tribal identity and autonomy within the Indian Union.

Answer: President of India

Article 156 states that the Governor holds office 'during the pleasure of the President'. This means the President can remove the Governor at any time without assigning reasons. However, conventions suggest removal should not be arbitrary. The Governor's term is normally 5 years, but they can resign or be removed earlier.