Day-486 | Daily MCQs | UPSC Prelims | POLITY

Answer: A
Explanation:
1. Only the second pair related to judges of high courts is correct. All other pairs are incorrectly matched.
2. Both Speaker and Vice-President are removed by effective majority.
3. President is removed by a special majority of the total strength with two-third present and voting.
THE DETAILED EXPLANATION IS AS FOLLOWS:
Types of Majorities in Indian Parliamentary system
Based on a comparative analysis of different methods of removal of constitutional functionaries, one can find four different types of majority which are as follows:
1. Simple Majority
2. Absolute Majority
3. Effective Majority
4. Special Majority

Simple Majority: A simple majority is defined as a vote by more than half of the members present and voting. Most of the common motions and bills such as adjournment motion, no confidence, confidence, a motion of thanks, censure motion, , money bills, ordinary bills, etc are passed by simple majority.
Absolute Majority: The term “absolute majority” refers to a majority of more than 50% of the house’s total strength. Example:
● The Lok Sabha has a total of 545 members.
● 273 votes (absolute majority)
In the Indian Parliament, such a majority is not required in isolation. There are times when this type of majority is required in conjunction with another type of majority, which is referred to as a special majority.
Effective Majority: This refers to a majority of the House’s effective strength of more than 50%. Example:
● Suppose there are 15 vacant seats in the Lok Sabha, out of a total of 545 members. This means that the House’s effective strength is (545 – 15) = 530. The effective majority, in this case, is 265.
● The Constitution defines an effective majority as “all the then members.”
● Situations in which an effective majority is required for the removal of
i. Speaker and Deputy Speaker
ii. Ex-Officio Chairman and Deputy Chairman

Special Majority: Special majorities are those which are not simple, absolute, or effective. there are four different types of special majorities which are as follows:
i. Special Majority under Article 249
ii. Special Majority under Article 368
iii. Special Majority under Article 368 + 50 percent state ratification by a simple majority
iv. Special Majority under Article 61

Special Majority under Article 249
This refers to a two-thirds majority of those present and voting. It is used to approve a Rajya Sabha resolution authorizing the Parliament to make laws in the State List.
Special Majority under Article 368
It refers to a vote backed by more than half of the House’s total strength and a majority of 2/3rds of the members present and voting.
This type of majority is utilized in the following situations:
1. Passing a constitutional amendment bill that has no effect on the federal government.
2. Removing Supreme Court or High Court judges.
3. Removal of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) and the Chief Election Commission (CEC).
4. National emergency.
5. The Legislative Council is abolished or created by a resolution passed by the State Legislature.
Special Majority under Article 368 + 50 percent state ratification by a simple majority
● When a constitutional amendment aims to restructure the federal system, this form of majority is required.
Special Majority under Article 61
This refers to a 2/3rds majority of the House’s overall strength. This is used in the case of the President of India being impeached.

Answer: D
Explanation:
All the three statements are correct. Hence, option D is the correct choice. Since India has adopted a parliamentary system, the Constitution has more details on the powers and functions of the President, and not of the PM. It is due to following factors:
● Since India has adopted a Westminster model of parliamentary system, all the decisions are taken in the name of the formal head as per the conventions of the UK parliamentary system.
● But India has also adopted a written Constitution unlike the UK which has an unwritten Constitution and hence, in the Constitution, details of powers of the President have been mentioned, and not PM.
● Articles 53, 74, 75 & 78 establish the relationship between formal and real heads. Although such articles give details of powers of the President, they are exercised on the basis of the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.

Answer: A
Explanation:
● The first three are the grounds of regulation of the freedom of religion under Article 26.
● Public order, Morality and Health have been mentioned in the Constitution for Article 26.
● Security is not the ground for regulation of freedom of religion. Rather it is ground for the regulation of Article 19.
● Article 26 has remained in news in the context of the Sabrimala Judgement.

Answer: B
Explanation:
Option B is correct. All other options are incorrect. The Constitution declares Delhi as the seat of the Supreme Court and also talks about other places as seat of the Supreme Court which can be created through:
● The other places as seats of the Supreme Court can be decided by the Chief Justice of India only with the approval of the President.
● The provision to establish other places as the seat of the Supreme Court is only optional and not compulsory.
● The Chief Justice of India needs to consult the President and not the government. The consultation is mandatory, not discretionary. Hence, option A & C are incorrect.
● There is no role of Parliament in such creation. That is, an act of Parliament is not needed. Hence, option D is incorrect.
The context of the question is related to debate on the creation of the national court of appeal to reduce burden on the Supreme Court. The present government has a supportive view for such creation.

Answer: C
Explanation:
● Option C is incorrect. It is due to the fact that the Fundamental Duties are non-justiciable but they are enforceable by law. That is, even if they are not directly enforceable by the court, Parliament can make law to enforce them. They are not self-executory but can be enforced if Parliament decides by a law. In this regard, Parliament enacted the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971.
● The Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 extends to the whole of India. Whoever intentionally prevents the singing of the Indian National Anthem or causes disturbance to any assembly engaged in such singing shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
● Recently, this law was in force in theaters as per the order of the supreme court. Later, it was withdrawn.
● All other options A, B & D are correct. They are moral and civic principles. They represent a sort of codification of Indian way of living as they are linked to Indian philosophy.
● Foreigners cannot be expected to perform duties as they have a moral obligation to their own countries, not India.