Day-659 | Daily MCQs | UPSC Prelims | POLITY

Answer: A
Statement 1 is incorrect: Elections for the Municipal Corporations are held as per the Municipal Corporation Act framed by the legislature of respective state government, whereas elections for the Municipalities and the Town Panchayats are held as per respective Municipal Act.
In the election of Mayors within municipal corporations in India, MPs and MLAs generally do not play any direct role. The election of a Mayor is typically done by the elected members of the municipal corporation, and this process does not involve MPs or MLAs unless they are also members of the municipal corporation in some capacity.
The method of electing mayor and their tenure varies for each city in India.
● In Bengaluru (Karnataka) the election process is indirect with a tenure being for one year.
● In Mumbai (Maharashtra) it follows indirect elections with tenure for 2.5 years and
● Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh) follows a directly elected mayor with a term for 5 years.
Member of Parliament from Chandigarh is the ex-officio member of the corporation, and for this reason is eligible to vote in the Mayoral elections.
Hence we cannot say that an MP/MLA don’t play any role in the Mayoral elections.
Statement 2 is incorrect: While the State Election Commission is responsible for overseeing municipal elections, the appointment of Returning Officers can vary and might not be uniformly controlled by the State Election Commission in all cases. This depends on the specific electoral laws and regulations of each state.
Let us understand the case of Chandigarh Mayoral Election:
1. Chandigarh is a Union territory governed by the administrator, and the Governor of Punjab acts as the ex officio administrator of the UT.
• Chandigarh does not have its own State Election Commission. Instead, the State Election Commission of Delhi (not the ECI), established under Articles 243K and 243ZA of the Constitution, along with Section 7 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act 1957, exercises the authority of the state election commission for Chandigarh. This authority is granted by subsection (1) of Section 10 of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act 1976, as extended to the Union Territory of Chandigarh through the Punjab Municipal Corporation Law (Extension to Chandigarh) Act 1994.
• Subsection (1) of Section 10 of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act 1976 states that the superintendence, direction, and control of the preparation of the electoral rolls for and the conduct of all elections to the Chandigarh Corporation shall be vested in the Election Commission appointed under Section 7 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act 1957.
2. The State Election Commission is responsible for conducting elections for councillors. However, it is the councillors who elect the mayor.
• According to Section 38 of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act 1976, extended to the Union territory of Chandigarh by the Punjab Municipal Corporation Law (Extension to Chandigarh) Act 1994, the Chandigarh Municipal Corporation shall, at its first meeting in each year, elect one of its elected members to be the mayor of the corporation.
• Section 60(a) of the Act provides that the meeting for the election of the mayor shall be convened by the ‘Divisional Commissioner,’ who shall nominate a councillor not running for election to preside over the meeting.
• Similarly, Regulation 6(1) of the Chandigarh Municipal Corporation (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Regulations 1964 states that a meeting for the election of a mayor shall be convened by the ‘prescribed authority,’ who will nominate a councillor not running as a candidate to preside over the meeting.
3. The Deputy Commissioner of the Union Territory of Chandigarh was designated as the presiding authority for this purpose by a notification dated 4 October 1994.
• It was the Deputy Commissioner who nominated Anil Masih as the presiding authority to conduct the election for mayor and deputy mayor. He was bound by the aforementioned act to make the nomination. It is a convention in Chandigarh to nominate a nominated councillor. However, the convention of nominating a nominated member as the presiding officer is apparently meant for the elimination of partisanship.
Statement 3 is correct: The specific roles and powers of Mayors can vary significantly depending on the municipal corporation’s statute in the state. In many municipal corporations, the Mayor presides over meetings of the council, though not universally applicable across all contexts.
Statement 4 is incorrect: The 74th Constitutional Amendment Act provides for the constitution and composition of urban local bodies and suggests the manner of election (whether directly or indirectly) but does not specifically mandate indirect elections for Mayors across all states. States have the discretion to choose the method of election for Mayors, and thus, direct elections are also possible and practiced.

Answer: C
Explanation:
Statement A is correct: Article 352 of the Indian Constitution requires that the proclamation of Emergency must be approved by both Houses of Parliament within one month, by a majority of the total membership of each House and a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting.
Statement B is correct: According to Article 352(6) of the Constitution, a resolution for disapproving, or for the continuance of, a proclamation of emergency can be passed by either House of Parliament by a simple majority.
Statement C is incorrect: While the President can revoke the proclamation of emergency, it must be based on the receipt of a decision of the Union Cabinet. The President does not act on his own discretion but must follow the advice of the Cabinet as per Article 352(8) of the Constitution.
The President must revoke the proclamation if the Lok Sabha passes a resolution disapproving the continuance of the Emergency. This safeguard was introduced by the 44th Amendment Act 1978.
Statement D is correct: Article 352(7) provides that if not less than one-tenth of the total number of members of the Lok Sabha give written notice to the Speaker (or to the President if the House is not in session), expressing their intention to move a resolution for disapproving the declaration of emergency, a special sitting of the House must be held within 14 days for the purpose of considering a resolution disapproving the continuation of the proclamation.
Additional Information:
• Resolution for approval of the continuance of the proclamation: Needs to be approved by both the Houses of the Parliament; needs to be adopted by a special majority.
• Resolution for disapproval of the continuance of the proclamation: Required to be passed by the Lok Sabha only; to be adopted by a simple majority.
Thus, option C is the correct answer.

Answer: B
Explanation:
The concept of separation of powers was propounded by Montesquieu, which was in the context of absolutism. Under monarchy, power remained concentrated in the hand of the King. The king was law unto himself. The revolutions in the West were also about rejection of this absolutism.US became the first country to adopt Montesquieu’s idea through its written constitution which went on separating powers between the three organs of the state. Therefore, separation of powers results in limited government, a government which is bound by law that is the Constitution. Constitutionalism is about limited government. It is the opposite of absolutism. Hence, separation of power becomes a key condition for constitutionalism. In a formal sense, constitutionalism emerged with the adoption of the written constitution of the US.
Hence, the correct answer is option B.
Why are other options not the most appropriate?
• Option A: Federal polity is related to division of powers, not separation of powers. That is, it is about the power sharing relationship between the units of the state, not organs of the state.
• Option C: The rule of law is also a very close answer but it is not directly linked to separation of powers. Rule of law has a British context which espouses equality. Its focus is on people, not state. But separation of powers focus is on the state.
• Option D: Independence of Judiciary is one feature of separation of powers but not the main feature.

Answer: C
Explanation:
Option A is correct: This is a primary role of the Indian judiciary, explicitly outlined in the Constitution. The judiciary interprets and enforces the Fundamental Rights provided under Part III of the Constitution, from Articles 12 to 35.
Option B is correct: The Indian judiciary has the power of judicial review, which allows it to invalidate any legislative or executive action that contradicts the Constitution, as affirmed by landmark judgments like Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973).
Option C is incorrect: While the Supreme Court and high courts can take up issues on their own under their inherent powers, the Constitution itself does not explicitly grant “suo moto” powers. This capability is derived from the general role of the judiciary to uphold the law and administer justice.
Option D is correct: This is a fundamental aspect of the Indian judiciary, integral to its role in the democratic framework of India, ensuring that all laws and policies conform to the constitutional provisions. Hence, option C is the most appropriate answer as it is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution but is an implied power derived from the broader judicial functions.
Hence Option C is the correct answer.
Additional Information:
• The Supreme Court of India has often taken up cases ‘suo moto’ though it is not a feature as per the Constitution of India. This means they take up cases by their own notice, without any petition being filed, or interest being brought before them.
• While such a power is granted by Section 23 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for contempt of court, the use of the procedure in writ or judicial review jurisdiction has been novel. It developed from the relaxation of procedure when considering PILs.
• The first instance is often considered to be in the Sunil Batra vs Delhi Administration (1979).
• The procedure for suo moto petitions was formalised only in 2014 by the adoption of Order 38, Rule 12(1)(a) in the Supreme Court Rules, 2013.

Answer: B
Explanation:
In the Indian context, a social audit is very much aligned with the motto “Hamara Paisa, Hamara Hisab” (Our Money, Our Account). It empowers citizens to hold the government accountable for how public funds are spent and the effectiveness of programs designed to benefit them.
People’s Participation: Unlike a statutory audit which is a legal requirement, a social audit is all about people’s participation. It’s not conducted by professional auditors but by the stakeholders themselves, including the intended beneficiaries of a program or project. Social audits promote transparency by allowing communities to examine government records and verify if allocated funds are reaching the intended targets. This fosters accountability of the government officials responsible for project implementation.
The Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) is a prime example where social audits are mandated. Here, the focus is on community participation to ensure proper utilization of funds and completion of projects as per plans. Whereas, Statutory Audit is a formal legal requirement where a qualified auditor verifies financial statements for accuracy and compliance with regulations. Even if MGNREGA provides for the Social Audit it is still not considered as a Statutory Audit as the purpose is the people’s participation rather than a legal regulation.
Public Hearing: Public hearings are another form of social audit. The Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS) pioneered the concept of “Jan Sunwai” (Public Hearing) in 1994. These public gatherings allow stakeholders to hear about the findings related to public projects or spending as well as discuss concerns and issues with project implementation. Jan Sunwayi embodies the principles of transparency and accountability by giving a platform to the public to directly engage with the government.
People’s audit and Participatory audit correctly describes a social audit as it involves people assessing government activities or projects that affect them. It also emphasizes the participation of local communities and stakeholders in auditing projects and policies that impact them.
However, Statutory audit in incorrectly associated with social audits. A statutory audit is a legally required review of the accuracy of government’s financial records. Statutory audits are mandatory by law. In India, the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) conduct these audits under the authority of the Constitution (Articles 148 to 151) and the Comptroller and Auditor General’s (Duties, Powers and Conditions of Service) Act, 1971. The CAG audits the receipt, expenditure, and utilization of public funds by the government departments, public sector undertakings, and autonomous bodies.
Hence, option B, “Statutory audit,” does not describe a social audit.