Day-373
Quiz-summary
0 of 5 questions completed
Questions:
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
Information
To attempt the Quiz, simply click on START Button.
You have already completed the quiz before. Hence you can not start it again.
Quiz is loading...
You must sign in or sign up to start the quiz.
You have to finish following quiz, to start this quiz:
Results
0 of 5 questions answered correctly
Your time:
Time has elapsed
You have reached 0 of 0 points, (0)
| Average score |
|
| Your score |
|
Categories
- Not categorized 0%
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Answered
- Review
-
Question 1 of 5
1. Question
2 points1. Consider the following statements:
1. A writ of mandamus can be issued against a private organization for the violation of Article 21 by a competent court despite not performing a public duty.
2. A writ petition under Art 32 can be filed in the Supreme Court for the violation of the right to freedom of speech of a citizen by a private individual.
Which of the statements given above is/are incorrect?Correct
Answer: D
Explanation:
● The Supreme Court recently in Kaushal Kishore Vs State of UP, 2022, held that a writ petition lies against private individuals and private organisations for the violation of fundamental rights of citizens given under Art 19 and 21 of the Constitution. Prior to the judgement of the Supreme Court. the writs against private individuals and organisations were limited to some specific constitutional articles including article 17, 23, 24 etc. This judgement of the Supreme Court has expanded the scope of horizontal nature of rights. Thus, as of today any aggrieved citizen can approach the Supreme Court under article 32 and the High Court under article 226 for enforcing their fundamental rights under article 19 and 21 against private individuals and private organisations. So, both the statements are correct. For more information on this topic please refer to the link given below: https://youtu.be/s9XC28ZBvlU
Hence, option D is the correct answer.Incorrect
Answer: D
Explanation:
● The Supreme Court recently in Kaushal Kishore Vs State of UP, 2022, held that a writ petition lies against private individuals and private organisations for the violation of fundamental rights of citizens given under Art 19 and 21 of the Constitution. Prior to the judgement of the Supreme Court. the writs against private individuals and organisations were limited to some specific constitutional articles including article 17, 23, 24 etc. This judgement of the Supreme Court has expanded the scope of horizontal nature of rights. Thus, as of today any aggrieved citizen can approach the Supreme Court under article 32 and the High Court under article 226 for enforcing their fundamental rights under article 19 and 21 against private individuals and private organisations. So, both the statements are correct. For more information on this topic please refer to the link given below: https://youtu.be/s9XC28ZBvlU
Hence, option D is the correct answer. -
Question 2 of 5
2. Question
2 points2. The term “constitutional tort”, recently seen in the news, refers to:
Correct
Answer: D
Explanation:
● If a government official violates an individual’s constitutional rights, then a civil action can lie against him. As the government official is a functionary of the state such wrongs are considered to be committed under the color of state law. Such civil wrongs are called constitutional tort. A constitutional tort is a legal tool that allows the state to be held vicariously accountable for the actions of its agents. This tort is not available when the government carries out sovereign functions and hence the damage can be claimed only when the harm relates to the non-sovereign functions of the state.
Hence. option D is the correct answer.Incorrect
Answer: D
Explanation:
● If a government official violates an individual’s constitutional rights, then a civil action can lie against him. As the government official is a functionary of the state such wrongs are considered to be committed under the color of state law. Such civil wrongs are called constitutional tort. A constitutional tort is a legal tool that allows the state to be held vicariously accountable for the actions of its agents. This tort is not available when the government carries out sovereign functions and hence the damage can be claimed only when the harm relates to the non-sovereign functions of the state.
Hence. option D is the correct answer. -
Question 3 of 5
3. Question
2 points3. Which among the following is/are correct about the concept of collective responsibility in the context of Indian polity?
1. It is applicable only inside the houses of legislatures.
2. It always flows from the Council of Ministers to the individual ministers.
3. It can be a ground to sue the state by constitutional tort.
4. It flows from the individual ministers to the Council of Ministers.
Select the correct answer by using the code given below:Correct
Answer: C
Explanation:
● Statement 1 is incorrect: Collective responsibility is also applicable outside the legislature as per the judgement of the Supreme Court in Kaushal Kishore Vs State of UP,2022.
● Statement 2 is incorrect: Collective responsibility in general flows from the Council of Ministers to the individual ministers. However, in certain circumstances, the collective responsibility will also flow from individual minister to the Council of Ministers. This legal position was articulated by the constitution bench of the Supreme Court in Kaushal Kishore Vs State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022. Hence Statement 3 is correct.
● Statement 4 is correct: Collective responsibility can be a ground to sue the state for constitutional tort when the Council Ministers can be held vicariously liable for the action of an individual minister. This legal position was articulated by the constitution bench of the supreme court in Kaushal Kishore Vs State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022. For more information visit the following link: https://youtu.be/s9XC28ZBvlU
Hence the answer is option C.Incorrect
Answer: C
Explanation:
● Statement 1 is incorrect: Collective responsibility is also applicable outside the legislature as per the judgement of the Supreme Court in Kaushal Kishore Vs State of UP,2022.
● Statement 2 is incorrect: Collective responsibility in general flows from the Council of Ministers to the individual ministers. However, in certain circumstances, the collective responsibility will also flow from individual minister to the Council of Ministers. This legal position was articulated by the constitution bench of the Supreme Court in Kaushal Kishore Vs State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022. Hence Statement 3 is correct.
● Statement 4 is correct: Collective responsibility can be a ground to sue the state for constitutional tort when the Council Ministers can be held vicariously liable for the action of an individual minister. This legal position was articulated by the constitution bench of the supreme court in Kaushal Kishore Vs State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022. For more information visit the following link: https://youtu.be/s9XC28ZBvlU
Hence the answer is option C. -
Question 4 of 5
4. Question
2 points4. Consider the following pairs:
Name of the Committees/Commissions – Subject Matter
1. Fazal Ali – State Reorganisation
2. Kaka Kalelkar – Scheduled Tribes Upliftment
3. Dharamveer – Police Reforms
4. Soli Sorabjee – Model Police Act
How many pairs given above are correctly matched?Correct
Answer: C
Explanation:
Name of the Committee/Commission – Subject Matter
1. Fazal Ali – State Reorganisation
2. Kaka Kalelkar – Backward Classes
3. Dharam Veer – Police Reforms.
4. Soli Sorabjee – Model Police Act
● The Janata Party government established the National Police Commission under Dharamveer. The Commission had wide terms of reference covering the police organisation, its role, functions, accountability, relations with the public, political interference in its work, misuse of powers, evaluation of its performance etc. This was the first Commission appointed at the national level after Independence. The Commission produced eight reports between 1979 and 1981, suggesting wide ranging reforms in the existing police set-up.
● The Ministry of Home Affairs set up an Expert Committee, Chaired by Dr. Soli Sorabjee, to draft a new Model Police Act in September 2005. The Committee submitted a Model Police Act in October 2006 after extensive consultations.Incorrect
Answer: C
Explanation:
Name of the Committee/Commission – Subject Matter
1. Fazal Ali – State Reorganisation
2. Kaka Kalelkar – Backward Classes
3. Dharam Veer – Police Reforms.
4. Soli Sorabjee – Model Police Act
● The Janata Party government established the National Police Commission under Dharamveer. The Commission had wide terms of reference covering the police organisation, its role, functions, accountability, relations with the public, political interference in its work, misuse of powers, evaluation of its performance etc. This was the first Commission appointed at the national level after Independence. The Commission produced eight reports between 1979 and 1981, suggesting wide ranging reforms in the existing police set-up.
● The Ministry of Home Affairs set up an Expert Committee, Chaired by Dr. Soli Sorabjee, to draft a new Model Police Act in September 2005. The Committee submitted a Model Police Act in October 2006 after extensive consultations. -
Question 5 of 5
5. Question
2 points5. Consider the following statements:
1. Bicameralism and direct elections in the country were first introduced by the Government of India Act, 1909.
2. The nature of the distribution of power between the centre and the states in the Constitution of India is based on the Government of India Act, 1935.
3. The Principle of Constitutional Autocracy was introduced by the Government of India Act, 1919.
4. The Governor-General of India and the provincial Governors were designated as the constitutional Head of the States by the Indian Independence Act, 1947.
Which of the statements given above are correct?Correct
Answer: C
Explanation:
● Statement 1 is incorrect: Bicameralism and direct elections in the country were first introduced by the Government of India Act of 1919. Thus, the Indian Legislative Council was replaced by a bicameral legislature consisting of an Upper House (Council of State) and a Lower House (Legislative Assembly). The majority of members of both the Houses were chosen by direct election.
● Statement 2 is correct: The nature of distribution of power between the centre and the states in the Constitution of India is based on the Government of India Act, 1935. This Act provided for the establishment of an All-India Federation consisting of provinces and princely states as units. The Act divided the powers between the centre and the units in terms of three lists—Federal List (for Centre, with 59 items), Provincial List (for provinces, with 54 items) and the Concurrent List (for both, with 36 items). Residuary powers were given to the Viceroy. However, the federation never came into being as the princely states did not join it.
● Statement 3 is incorrect: The Principle of Constitutional Autocracy was introduced by the Government of India Act, 1935.This Act vested the executive authority of provinces in the Governors. Similarly, of the center, in the Governor-General on the behalf of the British Crown.
● Statement 4 is correct: The Governor-General of India and the provincial governors were designated as the constitutional(nominal) Head of the states by the Indian Independence Act of 1947. They were made to act on the advice of the respective council of ministers in all matters.
Hence, option C is the correct answer.Incorrect
Answer: C
Explanation:
● Statement 1 is incorrect: Bicameralism and direct elections in the country were first introduced by the Government of India Act of 1919. Thus, the Indian Legislative Council was replaced by a bicameral legislature consisting of an Upper House (Council of State) and a Lower House (Legislative Assembly). The majority of members of both the Houses were chosen by direct election.
● Statement 2 is correct: The nature of distribution of power between the centre and the states in the Constitution of India is based on the Government of India Act, 1935. This Act provided for the establishment of an All-India Federation consisting of provinces and princely states as units. The Act divided the powers between the centre and the units in terms of three lists—Federal List (for Centre, with 59 items), Provincial List (for provinces, with 54 items) and the Concurrent List (for both, with 36 items). Residuary powers were given to the Viceroy. However, the federation never came into being as the princely states did not join it.
● Statement 3 is incorrect: The Principle of Constitutional Autocracy was introduced by the Government of India Act, 1935.This Act vested the executive authority of provinces in the Governors. Similarly, of the center, in the Governor-General on the behalf of the British Crown.
● Statement 4 is correct: The Governor-General of India and the provincial governors were designated as the constitutional(nominal) Head of the states by the Indian Independence Act of 1947. They were made to act on the advice of the respective council of ministers in all matters.
Hence, option C is the correct answer.
Social Media