Table of Contents
Day-624
Quiz-summary
0 of 5 questions completed
Questions:
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
Information
DAILY MCQ
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)
Categories
- Not categorized 0%
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Answered
- Review
-
Question 1 of 5
1. Question
Consider the following statements:
- Laws promoting the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) cannot be challenged in court simply because they restrict Fundamental Rights.
- When enacting laws based on the DPSP, the government cannot infringe upon the right to equality (Article 14) and freedom of expression (Article 19).
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Correct
Answer: B
Explanation:
Statement 1 is incorrect: In the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), the Supreme Court held that Judicial Review is a basic feature of the Constitution and hence, cannot be taken away. Hence, laws which seek to implement the Directive Principles of State Policy can be questioned in courts on the ground that they violate the Fundamental rights.
Statement 2 is correct: No law which seeks to implement the Socialist Directive Principles specified in Article 39(b) and 39(c) shall be void on the ground of contravention of the Fundamental Rights conferred by Article 14 and 19. (Not all Directive Principles).
Incorrect
Answer: B
Explanation:
Statement 1 is incorrect: In the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), the Supreme Court held that Judicial Review is a basic feature of the Constitution and hence, cannot be taken away. Hence, laws which seek to implement the Directive Principles of State Policy can be questioned in courts on the ground that they violate the Fundamental rights.
Statement 2 is correct: No law which seeks to implement the Socialist Directive Principles specified in Article 39(b) and 39(c) shall be void on the ground of contravention of the Fundamental Rights conferred by Article 14 and 19. (Not all Directive Principles).
-
Question 2 of 5
2. Question
Consider the following statements:
- National emergency grants the Parliament law making power over state subjects, overriding state legislatures.
- The President can suspend the enforcement of all fundamental rights during a national emergency.
- National emergency allows the Parliament to extend the term of the Lok Sabha, one year at a time, for an indefinite period.
How many of the above given statements are correct?
Correct
Answer: B
Explanation:
Statement 1 is correct: During National Emergency, the parliament becomes empowered to make laws on any subject mentioned in the state list. Although the legislative power of the state legislature is not suspended, it becomes subject to the overriding power of the parliament.
Statement 2 is incorrect: The Constitution authorizes the President to suspend the right to move any court for the enforcement of fundamental rights during the national emergency.
Statement 3 is correct: While a proclamation of national emergency is in operation, the life of the Lok Sabha may be extended beyond its normal term of five years by law of the parliament for one year at a time, for any length of time. However, this extension cannot continue beyond a period of six months after the emergency has ceased to operate.
Incorrect
Answer: B
Explanation:
Statement 1 is correct: During National Emergency, the parliament becomes empowered to make laws on any subject mentioned in the state list. Although the legislative power of the state legislature is not suspended, it becomes subject to the overriding power of the parliament.
Statement 2 is incorrect: The Constitution authorizes the President to suspend the right to move any court for the enforcement of fundamental rights during the national emergency.
Statement 3 is correct: While a proclamation of national emergency is in operation, the life of the Lok Sabha may be extended beyond its normal term of five years by law of the parliament for one year at a time, for any length of time. However, this extension cannot continue beyond a period of six months after the emergency has ceased to operate.
-
Question 3 of 5
3. Question
Consider the following statements about the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA):
- It is granted only to associations engaged in areas of cultural, economic, educational, religious, or social programs.
- An NGO is required to open a bank account for the receipt of the foreign funds in any branch of the State Bank of India across the country.
- In case FCRA license is cancelled, an NGO is ineligible for ten years before re-applying for the license.
How many of the above statements are correct?
Correct
Answer: D
Explanation:
Statement 1 is incorrect: The Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, established in 1976, aims to safeguard India’s sovereignty as a democratic republic. It achieves this by overseeing foreign donations received by both individuals and organizations. This ensures that such funds are used for legitimate purposes that align with the country’s democratic values and prevents foreign influence from potentially disrupting domestic affairs.
Statement 2 is incorrect: The FCRA regulates foreign contributions in these defined areas to ensure transparency and compliance with the law. Entities can register under multiple categories based on their programs, allowing for diverse activities. Applicants need to open a bank account for the receipt of the foreign funds at a specified branch of State Bank of India in New Delhi.
Statement 3 is incorrect: FCRA registration is valid for five years, and NGOs are required to apply for renewal within six months of the registration’s expiry. The government has the authority to cancel an NGO’s FCRA registration for various reasons, including violations of the Act or a lack of reasonable activity in their chosen field for two consecutive years. Once canceled, an NGO is ineligible for re-registration for three years.
Incorrect
Answer: D
Explanation:
Statement 1 is incorrect: The Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, established in 1976, aims to safeguard India’s sovereignty as a democratic republic. It achieves this by overseeing foreign donations received by both individuals and organizations. This ensures that such funds are used for legitimate purposes that align with the country’s democratic values and prevents foreign influence from potentially disrupting domestic affairs.
Statement 2 is incorrect: The FCRA regulates foreign contributions in these defined areas to ensure transparency and compliance with the law. Entities can register under multiple categories based on their programs, allowing for diverse activities. Applicants need to open a bank account for the receipt of the foreign funds at a specified branch of State Bank of India in New Delhi.
Statement 3 is incorrect: FCRA registration is valid for five years, and NGOs are required to apply for renewal within six months of the registration’s expiry. The government has the authority to cancel an NGO’s FCRA registration for various reasons, including violations of the Act or a lack of reasonable activity in their chosen field for two consecutive years. Once canceled, an NGO is ineligible for re-registration for three years.
-
Question 4 of 5
4. Question
Consider the following statements about the judges of the Supreme Court:
- After ceasing to hold office, he/she cannot appear as a lawyer before any court or authority in India.
- There is no cooling-off period for judges after their retirement before they could join political parties or contest elections.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Correct
Answer: C
Explanation:
Statement 1 is correct: A retired Supreme Court judge cannot practice law in regular courts or before authorities in India. This is to uphold the dignity of the judge’s position and avoid any conflict of interest.
Statement 2 is correct: There’s no legal bar on retired judges joining politics or contesting elections. However, some argue there should be an unofficial cooling-off period to avoid using the judge’s position for political gain.
Incorrect
Answer: C
Explanation:
Statement 1 is correct: A retired Supreme Court judge cannot practice law in regular courts or before authorities in India. This is to uphold the dignity of the judge’s position and avoid any conflict of interest.
Statement 2 is correct: There’s no legal bar on retired judges joining politics or contesting elections. However, some argue there should be an unofficial cooling-off period to avoid using the judge’s position for political gain.
-
Question 5 of 5
5. Question
Consider the following:
Statement-I: Members of Parliament (MPs) can claim immunity from prosecution for bribes to cast a vote or make a speech in the House in a particular fashion.
Statement-II: Article 105(2) of the Indian Constitution confers on MPs immunity from prosecution in respect of anything said or any vote given in Parliament or on any parliamentary committee.
Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above statements?
Correct
Answer: D
Explanation:
Article 105(2) of the Indian Constitution confers on MPs immunity from prosecution in respect of anything said or any vote given in Parliament or on any parliamentary committee. Similarly, Article 194(2) grants protection to MLAs.
In a judgment delivered in March 2024 (Sita Soren V. Union of India), the seven judge bench of the Supreme Court unanimously held that Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs) cannot claim any immunity from prosecution for accepting bribes to cast a vote or make a speech in the House in a particular fashion. The Bench overruled the 3:2 Constitution Bench decision held in P.V Narasimha Rao v State (1998).
Incorrect
Answer: D
Explanation:
Article 105(2) of the Indian Constitution confers on MPs immunity from prosecution in respect of anything said or any vote given in Parliament or on any parliamentary committee. Similarly, Article 194(2) grants protection to MLAs.
In a judgment delivered in March 2024 (Sita Soren V. Union of India), the seven judge bench of the Supreme Court unanimously held that Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs) cannot claim any immunity from prosecution for accepting bribes to cast a vote or make a speech in the House in a particular fashion. The Bench overruled the 3:2 Constitution Bench decision held in P.V Narasimha Rao v State (1998).