Create a custom practice set
Pick category, difficulty, number of questions, and time limit. Start instantly with your own quiz.
Generate QuizPick category, difficulty, number of questions, and time limit. Start instantly with your own quiz.
Generate QuizNo weekly quiz is published yet. Check the weekly page for the latest updates.
View Weekly PageFilter by category, type, and difficulty. Reading is open for everyone.
Answer: Subject to judicial scrutiny; courts can review if clause violates Constitution or basic structure
Ouster clauses and judicial review (Indian position): (a) Parliament can limit judicial review via statute, but (b) Courts retain power to review if: (i) Clause violates Fundamental Rights, (ii) Decision suffers from jurisdictional error, mala fides, or violation of natural justice, (iii) Clause itself violates basic structure (e.g., excludes review of constitutional amendments). L. Chandra Kumar (1997): Tribunals' decisions subject to HC/SC judicial review; ouster clauses cannot exclude constitutional courts' jurisdiction. Ensures constitutional supremacy over legislative attempts to immunize executive action.
Answer: 360-degree
Performance Management System (DoPT initiative): Key features: (a) 360-degree feedback: Inputs from superiors, peers, subordinates, stakeholders, (b) Objective indicators: Quantifiable targets linked to role responsibilities, (c) Continuous feedback: Mid-year reviews, coaching, not just year-end assessment, (d) Development focus: Identify training needs, career planning. Aims to shift from confidential, hierarchical ACR to transparent, developmental appraisal. Implementation challenges: Cultural change, training evaluators, avoiding subjectivity.
Answer: False
Estoppel against State (Indian position): Doctrine applies with limitations: (a) State can resile from promise if: (i) Promise ultra vires statutory power, (ii) Resiling necessary for public interest, (iii) No fraud/mala fides in original promise, (b) Remedy: Fair hearing before withdrawal, or compensation for reliance loss (legitimate expectation doctrine). Balances citizen protection with State's need for policy flexibility in public interest. Illustrates nuanced administrative law: rights protection without paralyzing governance.
Answer: Gram Sabha or community members publicly verifying implementation records, expenditure, and beneficiary selection
Social audit process: (a) Public disclosure of scheme records (muster rolls, expenditure, beneficiary lists), (b) Gram Sabha meeting: Community verifies records, raises queries, (c) Action on findings: Recovery of misused funds, disciplinary action, systemic improvements. MGNREGA Section 17 mandates social audit; extended to NFSA, PMAY, etc. Empowers citizens to monitor implementation, detect corruption, ensure accountability. Challenges: Capacity building, political interference, follow-up on findings.
Answer: intensive
Proportionality vs Wednesbury: (a) Wednesbury: High deference; courts intervene only if decision so irrational no reasonable authority could make it, (b) Proportionality: More intensive review; courts examine: legitimate aim, rational connection, necessity, balancing of rights vs public interest. Indian Supreme Court increasingly applies proportionality (Puttaswamy, Anuradha Bhasin) for rights-affecting actions, while retaining Wednesbury for policy/economic decisions. Reflects calibrated judicial oversight: stricter scrutiny for rights, deference for policy.
Answer: True
Outcome Budgeting (Ministry of Finance initiative): Key features: (a) Ministries specify measurable outcomes for each scheme/programme, (b) Performance indicators to track progress, (c) Mid-year reviews to assess implementation, (d) Public disclosure of outcomes for accountability. Aims to improve efficiency: funds allocated based on results, not just expenditure. Challenges: Data quality, attribution of outcomes, capacity for monitoring. Part of broader public financial management reforms.
Answer: Ultra vires parent Act, violation of Constitution, or unreasonableness
Delegated legislation review grounds: (a) Ultra vires: Rules exceed authority granted by parent Act, (b) Constitutional violation: Rules infringe Fundamental Rights or basic structure, (c) Procedural non-compliance: Failure to follow consultation/publication requirements, (d) Unreasonableness: Arbitrary or manifestly unjust provisions. Committee on Subordinate Legislation (Parliament) also scrutinizes delegated legislation. Ensures executive rule-making remains within legislative mandate and constitutional bounds.
Answer: any ministry/department/organization of Government of India
CPGRAMS (launched 2007): Features: (a) Online grievance submission with unique registration number, (b) Time-bound redressal (typically 30 days), (c) Appeal mechanism if unsatisfied, (d) Analytics for systemic improvements, (e) Integration with state portals. Part of broader public grievance reforms to make administration responsive. Complements RTI, Citizen's Charter, social audit mechanisms. Challenges: Awareness, quality of responses, follow-up on systemic issues.
Answer: True
Wednesbury principle (Associated Provincial Picture Houses v. Wednesbury Corporation, 1948; applied in India): Courts can intervene if administrative decision is: (a) So unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have made it, (b) Based on irrelevant considerations or ignoring relevant ones, (c) Mala fide or arbitrary. High threshold: Courts don't substitute their wisdom for administrators'; only check for extreme irrationality. Balances judicial oversight with respect for executive expertise.
Answer: Setting standards of service quality, timeframes, and grievance redressal mechanisms
Citizen's Charter: Voluntary commitment by public authorities to: (a) Specify services offered, (b) Set quality standards and timeframes for delivery, (c) Provide grievance redressal mechanism, (d) Publish contact information for accountability. Coordinated by DARPG (Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances). Not legally enforceable but promotes transparency and accountability. Sevottam model (service excellence framework) builds on Charter principles.
Answer: promises or consistent practices
Legitimate expectation doctrine (recognized in India through cases like Food Corporation of India v. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed): Protects citizens when: (a) Public authority makes explicit promise or follows consistent practice, (b) Citizen reasonably relies on it to their detriment, (c) Authority seeks to resile without fair procedure/compelling public interest. Remedy: Fair hearing before withdrawal, or compensation. Balances administrative flexibility with protection of citizen trust in governance.
Answer: True
Mission Karmayogi (National Programme for Civil Services Capacity Building): Key features: (a) Shift from 'rules-based' to 'roles-based' HR management, (b) Competency framework: Define skills needed for each post, (c) iGOT platform: Digital learning modules for continuous training, (d) Performance management: Link training to career progression. Aims to create future-ready civil servants capable of handling complex governance challenges. Implementation ongoing across Ministries/States.
Answer: The means adopted by administration are rationally connected to legitimate aim and not excessive
Proportionality test (evolved through Puttaswamy, Anuradha Bhasin cases): Four-step analysis: (a) Legitimate aim: Action must pursue valid public interest, (b) Rational connection: Means must be suitable to achieve aim, (c) Necessity: No less restrictive alternative available, (d) Balancing: Benefits must outweigh harm to rights. Applied to: internet shutdowns, privacy restrictions, reservation policies. Ensures administrative actions respect fundamental rights while pursuing public goals.
Answer: e-governance
Second ARC (Chairman: Veerappa Moily): 15 reports on: (a) Ethics in governance, (b) Right to Information, (c) E-governance, (d) Citizen-centric administration, (e) Local governance, (f) Disaster management, etc. Key recommendations: (i) Code of ethics for public servants, (ii) Strengthening RTI implementation, (iii) Digital service delivery platforms, (iv) Performance monitoring systems. Many recommendations implemented (RTI Act amendments, CPGRAMS, Digital India); others pending. Illustrates ongoing governance reform process.
Answer: True
Natural justice principles: (a) Audi alteram partem (hear the other side): Right to notice, hearing, representation before adverse decision, (b) Nemo judex in causa sua (no one judge in own cause): Rule against bias. Supreme Court has held these principles implicit in Article 14 (equality) and Article 21 (fair procedure); apply to administrative/quasi-judicial decisions unless expressly excluded by statute. Ensures fairness in governance.
Answer: Be within the legal authority granted by statute or Constitution
Ultra vires (Latin: 'beyond powers'): Core principle of administrative law that executive actions must be within legal authority granted by statute or Constitution. If action exceeds authority, courts can declare it void. Ensures rule of law: executive cannot act arbitrarily; must have legal basis for decisions affecting citizens' rights. Foundation of judicial review of administrative action in India.
Answer: Constitutional polity provides the stable framework within which current affairs are debated, decided, and adjudicated, ensuring continuity amid change
Constitutional polity and current affairs relationship: (a) Constitution as framework: Provides enduring principles (federalism, rights, democracy, rule of law) that guide response to contemporary challenges (digital age, climate change, identity politics, economic transformation), (b) Dynamic interaction: Current affairs test constitutional provisions; judicial interpretation, legislative amendment, executive action adapt framework while preserving core values (basic structure doctrine), (c) Continuity amid change: Constitution enables evolution without revolution; amendments, interpretations, practices update governance while maintaining democratic legitimacy, (d) Citizen role: Public discourse, elections, civil society engagement ensure constitutional evolution reflects popular will within rights-respecting boundaries. Illustrates Indian constitutionalism as living tradition: rooted in foundational values, responsive to contemporary needs, shaped by democratic participation. Essential for UPSC Mains conceptual understanding.
Answer: civil society
Polity-current affairs interface: (a) Judicial interpretation: Courts adapt constitutional principles to new challenges (privacy, digital rights, LGBTQ+ rights), (b) Legislative amendment: Parliament updates framework for contemporary needs (reservation, electoral reforms, data protection), (c) Executive action: Government implements policies within constitutional bounds (welfare schemes, digital governance, federal coordination), (d) Civil society engagement: NGOs, media, citizens use RTI, PIL, advocacy to hold institutions accountable, propose reforms, amplify marginalized voices. Together, these forces drive constitutional evolution: living document adapting to 21st century challenges while preserving core values. Illustrates participatory constitutionalism: democracy as ongoing dialogue, not static text.
Answer: True
Constitutional culture and civic education: (a) Legal framework alone insufficient: Rights realization requires citizen awareness, institutional capacity, political will, (b) Civic education role: (i) Schools: NCERT curriculum includes Constitution, democracy, rights, (ii) ECI initiatives: SVEEP programme for voter awareness, (iii) Civil society: RTI camps, legal literacy programmes, (iv) Media: Public interest reporting on governance, (c) Challenges: Uneven access to quality education, digital divide, political polarization affecting civic discourse. Illustrates that constitutional democracy is not self-executing; requires continuous nurturing through education, participation, and institutional reinforcement.
Answer: Threshold-based disclosure (e.g., disclose donations above ₹20,000)
Post-Electoral Bonds judgment reforms debate: (a) Current law (Section 29B, R.P. Act): Donations above ₹20,000 must be disclosed to ECI, (b) Proposed enhancements: (i) Lower disclosure threshold for greater transparency, (ii) Real-time online disclosure portal, (iii) Stricter penalties for non-compliance, (iv) Safeguards for small donors (privacy protection), (c) Balance sought: Transparency (voters' right to know) vs privacy (donor safety, especially for small contributors), (d) Challenge: Preventing quid pro quo while encouraging political participation. Illustrates ongoing evolution of electoral integrity framework through judicial-legislative dialogue.