Day-721
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
1. Consider the following statements:
1. Right to privacy under Article 21 is also applicable to prisoners and convicts.
2. Right to a healthy environment is construed as a part of Right to life under Article 21.
3. CCTV cameras are not allowed in prisons to maintain the privacy of the inmates.
How many of the above given statements are correct?Correct
Answer: B
Explanation:
Context: In India, Uttar Pradesh was the first state to use drones in prisons. Recently, the State Prisons Department of Maharashtra by becoming the second state had decided that it shall be using drones for surveillance of prisoners. The decision is said to be taken for strengthening the security in the prisons by keeping an eye over the complete movement of prisoners to be monitored by the drones.
Statement 1 is correct: The Supreme Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Challa Ramakrishna Reddy held that the right to life is one of the basic human rights which is guaranteed to every person by Article 21. It is so fundamental that even the State has no authority to violate it.
A prisoner does not cease to be a human being even when lodged in jail. He continues to be a human and therefore is entitled to enjoy all the fundamental rights including the right to life.
Statement 2 is correct: In Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991) a Public Interest Litigation was filed against two iron and steel companies alleging that they were polluting the nearby river Bokaro by dumping waste into it. The petitioner pointed fingers at the State Pollution Control Board for failing to prevent this and offered to collect the waste and sludge himself.
The court confirmed that the Fundamental Right to Life includes the right to enjoy pollution-free water and air, and if anything endangers the quality of water and air then a citizen can file a petition in court.
Statement 3 is incorrect: The Courts in plethora of cases have very well affirmed the fact that there is a necessity to install CCTV cameras in prisons as it helps the authorities in reporting the cases of abuse, violence and escape of inmates from prisons.
Installation of cameras at specified areas in the prisons is justifiable by balancing the interest of prison security and privacy of prisoners.Incorrect
Answer: B
Explanation:
Context: In India, Uttar Pradesh was the first state to use drones in prisons. Recently, the State Prisons Department of Maharashtra by becoming the second state had decided that it shall be using drones for surveillance of prisoners. The decision is said to be taken for strengthening the security in the prisons by keeping an eye over the complete movement of prisoners to be monitored by the drones.
Statement 1 is correct: The Supreme Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Challa Ramakrishna Reddy held that the right to life is one of the basic human rights which is guaranteed to every person by Article 21. It is so fundamental that even the State has no authority to violate it.
A prisoner does not cease to be a human being even when lodged in jail. He continues to be a human and therefore is entitled to enjoy all the fundamental rights including the right to life.
Statement 2 is correct: In Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991) a Public Interest Litigation was filed against two iron and steel companies alleging that they were polluting the nearby river Bokaro by dumping waste into it. The petitioner pointed fingers at the State Pollution Control Board for failing to prevent this and offered to collect the waste and sludge himself.
The court confirmed that the Fundamental Right to Life includes the right to enjoy pollution-free water and air, and if anything endangers the quality of water and air then a citizen can file a petition in court.
Statement 3 is incorrect: The Courts in plethora of cases have very well affirmed the fact that there is a necessity to install CCTV cameras in prisons as it helps the authorities in reporting the cases of abuse, violence and escape of inmates from prisons.
Installation of cameras at specified areas in the prisons is justifiable by balancing the interest of prison security and privacy of prisoners. -
Question 2 of 5
2. Question
2. The superior virtue of Panchayati raj system lies in the fact that:
Correct
Answer: C
Explanation:
Context:
Recently, On the 25th year of India giving constitutional recognition to panchayats as the third-tier elected government, after the union and state governments, Prime Minister Narendra Modi launched the Rashtriya Gramswaraj Abhiyan to make panchayats sustainable and effective. Before him, Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Rajiv Gandhi (he initiated the constitutional amendments to make them elected governments with constitutionally mandated functions) also took interest in the functioning of panchayats.
The term Panchayati Raj in India signifies the system of rural local self government. The system of
Panchayati Raj was given Constitutional status through the 73rd Constitutional Amendment Act,
1992. This act has added a new Part-IX to the Constitution of India. This part is entitled as ‘The
Panchayats’ and consists of provisions from Articles 243 to 243-O.
• The act is a significant landmark in the evolution of grassroot democratic institutions in the country. It transfers representative democracy into participatory democracy. The act provides for a Gram Sabha as the foundation of the Panchayati raj system. It is a body consisting of persons registered in the electoral rolls of a village within the area of Panchayat at the village level.
• Panchayati raj system is a major initiative towards participative democracy and decentralized governance. It provided for the participation of local people in decision making for development of rural areas. Hence option (c) is the correct answer.Incorrect
Answer: C
Explanation:
Context:
Recently, On the 25th year of India giving constitutional recognition to panchayats as the third-tier elected government, after the union and state governments, Prime Minister Narendra Modi launched the Rashtriya Gramswaraj Abhiyan to make panchayats sustainable and effective. Before him, Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Rajiv Gandhi (he initiated the constitutional amendments to make them elected governments with constitutionally mandated functions) also took interest in the functioning of panchayats.
The term Panchayati Raj in India signifies the system of rural local self government. The system of
Panchayati Raj was given Constitutional status through the 73rd Constitutional Amendment Act,
1992. This act has added a new Part-IX to the Constitution of India. This part is entitled as ‘The
Panchayats’ and consists of provisions from Articles 243 to 243-O.
• The act is a significant landmark in the evolution of grassroot democratic institutions in the country. It transfers representative democracy into participatory democracy. The act provides for a Gram Sabha as the foundation of the Panchayati raj system. It is a body consisting of persons registered in the electoral rolls of a village within the area of Panchayat at the village level.
• Panchayati raj system is a major initiative towards participative democracy and decentralized governance. It provided for the participation of local people in decision making for development of rural areas. Hence option (c) is the correct answer. -
Question 3 of 5
3. Question
3. Consider the following statements with respect to the Constitutional Amendment Bill:
1. It can be introduced by a private member.
2. The President can neither withhold his assent to the bill nor return the bill for reconsideration of the Parliament.
3. The President doesn’t enjoy veto powers on the Constitutional amendment bill.
4. There cannot be a joint sitting in case of any deadlock if the bill is rejected by either of the House.
How many of the above statements are correct?Correct
Answer: D
Explanation:
• Statement 1 is correct: For a Constitutional Amendment Bill, any Member of Parliament (MP), whether a minister or a private member, can initiate the process by introducing the bill in either house (Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha).
• Statement 2 is correct: Unlike regular bills, the President does not have the power to withhold assent to a Constitutional Amendment Bill. This is the key distinction between a Constitutional Amendment Bill and a regular bill. For a regular bill, the President can return the bill to Parliament for reconsideration with suggestions for amendments. However, the President cannot do this with a Constitutional Amendment Bill.
• Statement 3 is correct: The President’s power to withhold assent is limited. While they can veto regular bills and return them to Parliament for reconsideration (suspensive veto), this power does not apply to Constitutional Amendment Bills. The President also do not enjoy any veto power over the Constitutional Amendment Bills.
• Statement 4 is correct: According to Article 368, the Constitution can be amended only by a 2/3rd majority in both Houses. There is no provision for a joint sitting in case of a disagreement between both Houses.Incorrect
Answer: D
Explanation:
• Statement 1 is correct: For a Constitutional Amendment Bill, any Member of Parliament (MP), whether a minister or a private member, can initiate the process by introducing the bill in either house (Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha).
• Statement 2 is correct: Unlike regular bills, the President does not have the power to withhold assent to a Constitutional Amendment Bill. This is the key distinction between a Constitutional Amendment Bill and a regular bill. For a regular bill, the President can return the bill to Parliament for reconsideration with suggestions for amendments. However, the President cannot do this with a Constitutional Amendment Bill.
• Statement 3 is correct: The President’s power to withhold assent is limited. While they can veto regular bills and return them to Parliament for reconsideration (suspensive veto), this power does not apply to Constitutional Amendment Bills. The President also do not enjoy any veto power over the Constitutional Amendment Bills.
• Statement 4 is correct: According to Article 368, the Constitution can be amended only by a 2/3rd majority in both Houses. There is no provision for a joint sitting in case of a disagreement between both Houses. -
Question 4 of 5
4. Question
4. Under Part-III of the Constitution of India, the term ‘State’ has been defined. In this context, which of the following terms have not been explicitly mentioned?
1. Judiciary
2. Regulatory institutions
3. Non-profit bodies
4. Local Authorities
How many of the above are incorrect?Correct
Answer: A
Explanation:
The question statement is about the term NOT explicitly mentioned in the Constitution in context erm ‘State’ and we are asked to find the incorrect statements. So, in essence we need to find the terms which are explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.
Article 12 in Part III of the Constitution of India defines the State which explicitly includes the Government and Parliament of India and the Government and the Legislature of each of the States and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India. However, Judiciary, Regulatory Institutions and Non-profit bodies are not mentioned under Article 12.
Article 12 of the Indian Constitution casts a wide net when defining “State” within the context of fundamental rights. Factors like function, funding, administrative control, instrumentality factor, and deep and pervasive role to the extent of power over people’s lives are all considered. Courts weigh these factors on a case-by-case basis.
In India, the judiciary does not fall under the meaning of the State under Art 12 while working on its judicial side. This has been established in the cases of Naresh Sridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra, A R Antulay v. R S Nayak and Riju Prasad Sharma v. State of Assam.Incorrect
Answer: A
Explanation:
The question statement is about the term NOT explicitly mentioned in the Constitution in context erm ‘State’ and we are asked to find the incorrect statements. So, in essence we need to find the terms which are explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.
Article 12 in Part III of the Constitution of India defines the State which explicitly includes the Government and Parliament of India and the Government and the Legislature of each of the States and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India. However, Judiciary, Regulatory Institutions and Non-profit bodies are not mentioned under Article 12.
Article 12 of the Indian Constitution casts a wide net when defining “State” within the context of fundamental rights. Factors like function, funding, administrative control, instrumentality factor, and deep and pervasive role to the extent of power over people’s lives are all considered. Courts weigh these factors on a case-by-case basis.
In India, the judiciary does not fall under the meaning of the State under Art 12 while working on its judicial side. This has been established in the cases of Naresh Sridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra, A R Antulay v. R S Nayak and Riju Prasad Sharma v. State of Assam. -
Question 5 of 5
5. Question
5. The Government in India for admitting any new territory or ceding any territory, needs to-
1. Bring constitutional amendment
2. Issue an executive order
Which of the above is/are correct?Correct
Answer: A
Explanation:
Article 2 empowers the Parliament to ‘admit into the Union of India, or establish, new states on such terms and conditions as it thinks fit’. Thus, Article 2 grants two powers to the Parliament:
● The power to admit into the Union of India new states (refers to the admission of states which are already in existence, E.g., Sikkim).
● The power to establish new states (refers to the establishment of states which were not in existence before).
● Article 2 also relates to the admission or establishment of new states that are not part of the Union of India
Ceding any territory, however, requires a Constitutional amendment as per the Supreme Court’s interpretation. The Berubari Union Case (1960) established that Parliament’s power to alter state boundaries (under Article 3) doesn’t extend to ceding Indian territory to another country.
In 1960, Berubari Union (West Bengal) Case, the Supreme Court held that the power of Parliament to diminish the area of a state (under Article 3) does not cover cession of Indian territory to a foreign country. Hence, Indian territory can be ceded to a foreign state only by amending the Constitution under Article 368. Consequently, the 9th Constitutional Amendment Act (1960) was enacted to transfer the said territory to Pakistan.
The 100th Constitutional Amendment Act (2015) was enacted to exchange certain territories by India and Bangladesh. Under it, India transferred 111 enclaves to Bangladesh, while Bangladesh transferred 51 enclaves to India.
An executive order wouldn’t suffice for such significant changes as to ceding the territory.
Hence only Option 1 is correct.Incorrect
Answer: A
Explanation:
Article 2 empowers the Parliament to ‘admit into the Union of India, or establish, new states on such terms and conditions as it thinks fit’. Thus, Article 2 grants two powers to the Parliament:
● The power to admit into the Union of India new states (refers to the admission of states which are already in existence, E.g., Sikkim).
● The power to establish new states (refers to the establishment of states which were not in existence before).
● Article 2 also relates to the admission or establishment of new states that are not part of the Union of India
Ceding any territory, however, requires a Constitutional amendment as per the Supreme Court’s interpretation. The Berubari Union Case (1960) established that Parliament’s power to alter state boundaries (under Article 3) doesn’t extend to ceding Indian territory to another country.
In 1960, Berubari Union (West Bengal) Case, the Supreme Court held that the power of Parliament to diminish the area of a state (under Article 3) does not cover cession of Indian territory to a foreign country. Hence, Indian territory can be ceded to a foreign state only by amending the Constitution under Article 368. Consequently, the 9th Constitutional Amendment Act (1960) was enacted to transfer the said territory to Pakistan.
The 100th Constitutional Amendment Act (2015) was enacted to exchange certain territories by India and Bangladesh. Under it, India transferred 111 enclaves to Bangladesh, while Bangladesh transferred 51 enclaves to India.
An executive order wouldn’t suffice for such significant changes as to ceding the territory.
Hence only Option 1 is correct.
