Create a custom practice set
Pick category, difficulty, number of questions, and time limit. Start instantly with your own quiz.
Generate QuizGK Questions
Filter by category, type, and difficulty. Reading is open for everyone.
Under the Lokpal Act, 2013, NGOs receiving foreign contribution above ₹10 lakh or government funding above ₹1 crore are brought within Lokpal's jurisdiction.
- True
- False
Answer: True
Lokpal Act, 2013, Section 14: Extends jurisdiction to: (a) Public servants as defined in Prevention of Corruption Act, (b) Any person who is/has been Chairperson, member, officer, director of a society/trust/body corporate/NGO: (i) Receiving foreign contribution above ₹10 lakh under FCRA, OR (ii) Receiving government funding above ₹1 crore, OR (iii) Having annual income above ₹1 crore. Ensures accountability of entities handling public resources, but raises concerns about regulatory overreach on civil society.
The Digital India initiative aims to transform governance through technology by ensuring government services are made available to citizens electronically, improving online infrastructure, and increasing internet connectivity.
- True
- False
Answer: True
Digital India (launched 2015): Three vision areas: (1) Digital infrastructure as utility to every citizen, (2) Governance and services on demand, (3) Digital empowerment of citizens. Key components: BharatNet (rural broadband), Common Service Centres, e-Governance platforms (UMANG, DigiLocker), digital payments. Aims to improve transparency, efficiency, accessibility of public services; reduce corruption through technology-enabled accountability.
The National Human Rights Commission has the powers of a civil court while inquiring into complaints, including summoning witnesses and requiring discovery of documents.
- True
- False
Answer: True
Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, Section 13: NHRC has powers of civil court under Code of Civil Procedure for: (a) Summoning/enforcing attendance of witnesses, (b) Discovering/producing documents, (c) Receiving evidence on affidavits, (d) Requisitioning public records, (e) Issuing commissions for witness examination. However, NHRC recommendations are not binding; implementation depends on government response. Balances investigative powers with executive implementation responsibility.
All States in India have established Lokayuktas with uniform powers and jurisdiction as mandated by the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013.
- True
- False
Answer: False
Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013: Mandates States to establish Lokayuktas within one year, but States have flexibility in design: powers, jurisdiction, composition vary. Some States had Lokayuktas before 2013 (e.g., Maharashtra, 1971); others enacted laws later. As of 2024, not all States have functional Lokayuktas. Highlights challenges in implementing uniform accountability mechanisms across India's diverse federal structure.
The Mahatma Gandhi NREGA, 2005 mandates social audit of works by Gram Sabhas to ensure transparency and accountability in implementation.
- True
- False
Answer: True
MGNREGA, Section 17: Mandates social audit of all projects by Gram Sabha. Social audit involves: (a) Public verification of records, expenditure, beneficiary selection, (b) Gram Sabha discussion and approval, (c) Action on findings. Empowers citizens to monitor implementation, detect corruption, ensure accountability. Model extended to other schemes. Foundation of participatory governance at grassroots level.
Under Section 8 of the RTI Act, information relating to cabinet papers including records of Council of Ministers is exempt from disclosure until the decision is implemented and reasons are made public.
- True
- False
Answer: True
RTI Act, Section 8(1)(i): Exempts cabinet papers including records of Council of Ministers, Secretaries, etc., until decision implemented and reasons made public. However, once decision taken and matter complete, exemption ceases. Section 8(2): Even exempt information must be disclosed if public interest in disclosure outweighs harm to protected interests. Balances transparency with effective governance and collective responsibility.
The Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners at Union and State levels are appointed by the President/Governor on the recommendation of a committee consisting of the Prime Minister/Chief Minister, Leader of Opposition, and a Union Cabinet Minister/State Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister/Chief Minister.
- True
- False
Answer: True
RTI Act, 2005 (Section 15 for CIC, Section 16 for SICs): Appointment committee: (a) Union: PM (Chairperson), LoP in Lok Sabha, Union Cabinet Minister nominated by PM, (b) State: CM (Chairperson), LoP in Assembly, State Cabinet Minister nominated by CM. 2019 Amendment changed tenure and salary conditions to be prescribed by Central Government, raising concerns about executive influence on Information Commissions' independence.
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) functions under the administrative control of the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) in the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions.
- True
- False
Answer: True
CBI is not a constitutional/statutory body; established by Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. Functions under administrative control of DoPT, Ministry of Personnel. This has raised concerns about executive influence on CBI investigations. Supreme Court in Vineet Narain case (1997) directed measures to ensure CBI independence, including fixed tenure for Director. Debate continues on granting statutory independence to CBI.
In Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of West Bengal (1996), the Supreme Court held that failure of government hospital to provide timely medical treatment violates right to life under Article 21.
- True
- False
Answer: True
Paschim Banga (1996): SC held: (a) Right to health is integral to right to life under Article 21, (b) Government has constitutional obligation to provide adequate medical facilities, (c) Failure of government hospital to provide timely treatment violates Article 21, (d) State liable to pay compensation for negligence. Foundation for right to health jurisprudence; led to improvements in public health infrastructure.
In Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991), the Supreme Court held that right to pollution-free water and air is part of right to life under Article 21.
- True
- False
Answer: True
Subhash Kumar (1991): SC held: (a) Right to life under Article 21 includes right to enjoyment of pollution-free water and air, (b) Citizens can approach courts under Article 32/226 for enforcement of environmental rights, (c) PIL mechanism enables public-spirited persons to seek environmental protection. Foundation for environmental jurisprudence; led to closure of polluting industries, protection of forests, rivers.
In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (Aadhaar case, 2018), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Aadhaar Act but struck down mandatory linking of Aadhaar with bank accounts and mobile numbers.
- True
- False
Answer: True
Aadhaar Judgment (2018): 4:1 majority upheld Aadhaar Act for: (a) Welfare schemes (to prevent leakage), (b) PAN-Aadhaar linking (to curb tax evasion), (c) IT Act compliance. Struck down: (a) Mandatory linking with bank accounts/mobile numbers (disproportionate invasion of privacy), (b) Aadhaar authentication for school admissions (violates children's privacy). Balances state interest in welfare delivery with right to privacy.
In Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court struck down Section 377 of IPC to the extent it criminalized consensual homosexual acts between adults, holding it violated Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21.
- True
- False
Answer: True
Navtej Singh Johar (2018): 5-judge bench unanimously struck down Section 377 IPC to extent it criminalized consensual same-sex relations between adults. Held: (a) Violates Article 14 (arbitrary classification), Article 15 (discrimination based on sexual orientation), Article 19 (expression of identity), Article 21 (privacy, dignity, autonomy), (b) Sexual orientation intrinsic to personality; discrimination unconstitutional. Landmark LGBTQ+ rights judgment.
In Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985), the Supreme Court held that right to livelihood is part of right to life under Article 21, and eviction of pavement dwellers without alternative arrangement violates this right.
- True
- False
Answer: True
Olga Tellis (Pavement Dwellers Case, 1985): SC held: (a) Right to livelihood is integral to right to life under Article 21 (no person can live without means of living), (b) Eviction of pavement dwellers without alternative arrangement violates Article 21, (c) However, State can evict for public purpose with due procedure and rehabilitation. Expanded scope of Article 21 beyond physical existence to dignified life.
In Unnikrishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993), the Supreme Court held that right to education up to age 14 is a fundamental right flowing from Article 21, which later led to the 86th Amendment inserting Article 21A.
- True
- False
Answer: True
Unnikrishnan (1993): SC held right to education up to age 14 is fundamental right implicit in Article 21 (life with dignity). Directed State to provide free education within economic capacity. Led to 86th Amendment (2002) inserting Article 21A making education for 6-14 years a Fundamental Right, operationalized by RTE Act, 2009. Illustrates judicial legislation prompting constitutional amendment.
In Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979), the Supreme Court recognized right to speedy trial as part of right to life and personal liberty under Article 21.
- True
- False
Answer: True
Hussainara Khatoon (1979): SC held right to speedy trial is implicit in Article 21 (life and personal liberty). Case involved undertrial prisoners detained for periods longer than maximum sentence for alleged offences. Led to release of thousands of undertrials; established procedural due process as part of Article 21. Foundation for subsequent PILs on prison reforms, legal aid, human rights.
In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), a 9-judge bench of the Supreme Court unanimously held that right to privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21.
- True
- False
Answer: True
Puttaswamy case (2017): 9-judge bench unanimously held right to privacy is intrinsic to life and liberty under Article 21; also part of freedoms under Article 19 and equality under Article 14. Overruled M.P. Sharma (1954) and Kharak Singh (1962) which held privacy not a fundamental right. Foundation for subsequent judgments on Aadhaar, decriminalization of homosexuality, reproductive rights.
In the Puttaswamy case (2017), the Supreme Court held that the Right to Privacy is an intrinsic part of Article 21 and also part of the freedoms guaranteed by Part III.
- True
- False
Answer: True
In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017), a nine-judge bench unanimously held that Right to Privacy is: (1) An intrinsic part of Article 21 (life and personal liberty), (2) Part of freedoms under Part III (e.g., Article 19), (3) A natural right inherent in human dignity. This judgment has profound implications for data protection, surveillance, and personal autonomy.
The Constitution mandates that the Prime Minister must communicate all decisions of the Council of Ministers to the President in Hindi.
- True
- False
Answer: False
Article 78(a) requires the Prime Minister to communicate all Council of Ministers' decisions to the President, but does not specify language. Article 346 allows communication between States and with the Union in Hindi or English. In practice, English remains dominant in high-level executive communication due to administrative continuity and linguistic diversity.
The Supreme Court can award compensation in PIL cases for violation of Fundamental Rights.
- True
- False
Answer: True
In Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar (1983) and subsequent cases, the Supreme Court held that it can award monetary compensation in PIL/writ petitions for violation of Fundamental Rights, especially under Article 32. This 'constitutional tort' remedy provides immediate relief to victims when ordinary civil remedies are inadequate, enhancing access to justice.
The Right to Speedy Trial is part of the Right to Life and Personal Liberty under Article 21.
- True
- False
Answer: True
In Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979) and Kadra Pahadiya v. State of Bihar (1983), the Supreme Court held that 'speedy trial' is an essential component of 'reasonable, fair, and just procedure' under Article 21. Delayed justice violates personal liberty, especially for undertrial prisoners. This has driven reforms in criminal justice administration.