Explanation:

Directive Principles of State Policy

The Directive Principles of State Policy are guidelines or principles set out in Part IV of the Constitution of India, which are not enforceable by any court but are considered fundamental in the governance of the country. The aim of these principles is to establish a social order characterized by social, economic, and political justice.

Article 50 and the Separation of Judiciary from the Executive

Article 50 of the Indian Constitution, which falls under the Directive Principles of State Policy, explicitly calls for the state to take steps to separate the judiciary from the executive in the public services of the state. This is aimed at ensuring the independence of the judiciary, reducing the potential for bias or influence from the executive branch, and maintaining the integrity of the legal system.

Therefore, the correct answer to the question is b) a Directive Principle of State Policy, as it is Article 50 of the Constitution that enjoins the separation of judiciary from the executive.

Source: Article 50 in Constitution of India (indiankanoon.org)

Explanation:

Right to Equality

The Right to Equality is one of the six fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution of India. It includes Articles 14 to 18, which collectively ensure equality before the law and equal protection of the laws; prohibit discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth; and abolish untouchability and titles.

Abolition of Untouchability

Article 17 of the Indian Constitution specifically deals with the abolition of untouchability. It states, “Untouchability is abolished and its practice in any form is forbidden. The enforcement of any disability arising out of Untouchability shall be an offence punishable in accordance with law.” This provision makes it clear that the protection against untouchability as a form of discrimination falls under the category of the Right to Equality.

Explanation:

Members of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme (MPLADS)

The Members of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme (MPLADS) is a scheme in India that allows Members of Parliament (MPs) to recommend developmental work in their constituencies with an emphasis on creating durable community assets based on locally felt needs.

Explanation of the statements provided:

1. MPLADS funds must be used to create durable assets like physical infrastructure for health, education, etc. – This statement is correct. The primary objective of the MPLADS is to create durable public assets of national priorities, viz. drinking water, primary education, public health, sanitation, and roads, etc.

2. A specified portion of each MP’s fund must benefit SC/ST populations. – This statement is correct. There is a guideline that recommends a certain percentage of MPLADS funds to be utilized for areas inhabited by Scheduled Caste (SC) and Scheduled Tribe (ST) populations to ensure that these communities benefit from the scheme.

3. MPLADS funds are sanctioned on a yearly basis and the unused funds cannot be carried forward to the next year. – This statement is incorrect. MPLADS funds can be carried forward to the subsequent years. The funds are non-lapsable, meaning if they are not fully utilized in a given year, they can be carried forward to the next financial year.

4. The district authority must inspect at least 10% of all works under implementation every year. – This statement is correct. To ensure the quality of works under the MPLADS, there is a provision for the district authority to inspect a minimum of 10% of the ongoing works each year. This is to ensure accountability and proper utilization of the funds.

Given the explanations above, the correct answer is d) 1, 2, and 4 only.

Source: FAQOld_904.pdf (mplads.gov.in)

Explanation:

b) amending the Constitution

The Rajya Sabha (Council of States) and the Lok Sabha (House of the People) are the two houses of India’s Parliament. They have different powers and functions, but when it comes to amending the Constitution, both houses have equal powers. This means that for a constitutional amendment to pass, it must be approved by both the Rajya Sabha and the Lok Sabha. This requirement ensures that significant changes to the Constitution cannot be made without broad consensus across both houses of Parliament.

Let’s briefly look at why the other options are incorrect:

a) The matter of creating new All India Services:

While the Rajya Sabha has a special power under Article 312 of the Constitution to initiate the process of creating new All India Services by passing a resolution supported by not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting, the final decision does not solely rest with it. The Lok Sabha also has a say in the matter, but the initiation power is unique to the Rajya Sabha.

c) The removal of the government:

The Lok Sabha holds more power in the removal of the government through a no-confidence motion. The Rajya Sabha does not have the power to introduce or pass a no-confidence motion against the government. This is a critical aspect of the parliamentary system that underscores the Lok Sabha’s role in holding the government accountable, as it is the directly elected house.

d) Making cut motions:

Cut motions are a tool used by members of the Lok Sabha to oppose and reduce specific amounts in the demands for grants. This is a part of the budgetary process where the Lok Sabha has exclusive powers. The Rajya Sabha does not have the power to make cut motions, reflecting the Lok Sabha’s primary role in financial matters.

Therefore, the only statement that correctly represents an area where the Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha have equal powers is b) amending the Constitution.

Explanation:

Aadhaar Metadata Storage

The statement that Aadhaar metadata cannot be stored for more than three months is incorrect. According to the Supreme Court ruling in September 2018, Aadhaar metadata cannot be stored for more than six months.

Sharing Aadhaar Data with Private Corporations

The statement that the state cannot enter into any contract with private corporations for sharing Aadhaar data is correct. The Supreme Court’s decision prevents the sharing of Aadhaar data with private entities without the explicit consent of the individual. This ruling aims to protect the privacy of individuals and ensure that Aadhaar data is used strictly for purposes outlined by the UIDAI and within the legal framework.

Aadhaar Requirement for Insurance Products

The statement that Aadhaar is mandatory for obtaining insurance products is incorrect. Following the Supreme Court’s ruling, the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI) directed insurance companies not to mandatorily ask for Aadhaar details for Know Your Customer (KYC) requirements. This means that while Aadhaar can be used as a form of identification, it cannot be mandated for obtaining insurance products.

Aadhaar Requirement for Benefits from Consolidated Fund of India

The statement that Aadhaar is mandatory for getting benefits funded out of the Consolidated Fund of India is correct. The Supreme Court upheld the amendment to Section 7 of the Aadhaar Act, which allows the government to require Aadhaar authentication for beneficiaries receiving subsidies, benefits, or services where the expenditure is incurred from the Consolidated Fund of India. This provision ensures that Aadhaar can be used to streamline and secure the delivery of government benefits to eligible individuals.

Explanation:

President’s Power to Summon Parliament

According to Article 85(1) of the Indian Constitution, the President has the authority to summon each House of Parliament to meet at such time and place as he/she deems fit. However, there must not be a gap of more than six months between the last sitting of the Parliament in one session and the date appointed for its first sitting in the next session. This ensures that Parliament meets at least twice a year, though the exact timing and location are at the President’s discretion. Therefore, statement 1 is correct.

Number of Sessions in a Year

The Constitution does not explicitly mandate the number of sessions Parliament must have in a year. The practice of having three sessions (Budget, Monsoon, and Winter) is based on convention rather than a constitutional requirement. Therefore, the statement that the Constitution provides for three sessions but it’s not mandatory to conduct all three is incorrect because the Constitution itself does not specify the number of sessions. Hence, statement 2 is not correct.

Minimum Number of Meeting Days

The Constitution does not prescribe a minimum number of days for which Parliament must meet in a year. The actual number of days Parliament meets can vary significantly from year to year. Over the years, there has been a decline in the number of days Parliament is in session, with recommendations from various committees suggesting that it should meet for at least 120 days a year. However, these recommendations have not been codified into law, and as such, there is no constitutional or statutory minimum. Therefore, statement 3 is correct.

Explanation:

Statement 1:

This statement is misleading because it suggests that merely being eligible to vote qualifies someone to be appointed as a minister. However, the Constitution requires that a person must also meet the age criteria for being a member of the state legislature (25 years for the Legislative Assembly and 30 years for the Legislative Council) to be eligible for such an appointment. Moreover, they must become a member of the legislature within six months to continue in the ministerial position. Therefore, the statement is incorrect as it omits crucial information regarding eligibility.

Statement 2:

This statement is incorrect because it suggests a permanent disqualification for individuals convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for five years. According to the Representation of the People Act, 1951, the disqualification for contesting in elections is not permanent. A person is disqualified from the date of conviction and continues to be disqualified for a further period of six years after serving their sentence. After this period, the individual is eligible to contest in elections again.

Correct Answer: d) Neither 1 nor 2

Explanation:

Directive Principles of State Policy in the Constitution of India

Part IV of the Constitution of India deals with the Directive Principles of State Policy. These principles are guidelines or aims that the state is supposed to keep in mind while formulating laws and policies. They are meant to ensure that the state works towards creating a more equitable and just society. However, unlike the Fundamental Rights listed in Part III of the Constitution, the Directive Principles are not enforceable by any court. This means that while the state is encouraged to follow these principles, citizens cannot go to court to demand their implementation if the state fails to adhere to them.

The relevant provisions

1. They shall be enforceable by courts. – This statement is incorrect. The Directive Principles, unlike the Fundamental Rights, are not enforceable by courts. This is explicitly stated in Article 37 of the Constitution, which says that the Directive Principles “shall not be enforceable by any court”.

2. They shall not be enforceable by any court. – This statement is correct, as per Article 37 of the Constitution.

3. The principles laid down in this part are to influence the making of laws by the State. – This statement is correct. The Directive Principles are intended to guide the state in the creation of laws and policies. They embody the concept of a welfare state and aim to address issues like poverty, education, and health to ensure social and economic democracy.

Therefore, the statements 2 and 3 are correct, making option d) 2 and 3 as the right answer.

Explanation:

Gold Tranche (Reserve Tranche)

The “Gold Tranche” (Reserve Tranche) refers to a portion of a country’s quota in the International Monetary Fund (IMF) that can be accessed without the stringent conditions that typically apply to IMF loans. The term originates from the time when the IMF’s operations were closely tied to gold, but in the modern context, it represents a reserve asset that member countries can access.

Quota and Reserve Tranche Position

Each member of the IMF is required to pay a quota, part of which is payable in Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) or major currencies, and part in the member’s own currency. The portion that is payable in SDRs or major currencies forms the country’s reserve tranche position. Accessing funds from the reserve tranche is considered a right of the member countries, as it essentially represents their own resources that they have on deposit with the IMF. Therefore, drawing on the reserve tranche is not considered a loan and does not carry the same conditions and interest charges that other IMF financial mechanisms do.

Liquidity and Financial Safety Net

This system is designed to provide member countries with liquidity in times of balance of payments needs, without the need for a full-fledged program or the stigma that might be associated with borrowing from the IMF. It’s an important part of the global financial safety net, providing a first line of defense for countries with temporary liquidity problems.

Explanation:

Preamble to the Constitution of India

The Preamble to the Constitution of India serves as an introduction to the Constitution and expresses the ideals and aspirations on which the Constitution is based. It outlines the objectives of the Constitution such as Justice, Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity. The Preamble is considered a part of the Constitution, as affirmed by the Supreme Court of India in the Kesavananda Bharati case in 1973. This landmark judgment recognized the Preamble as an integral part of the Constitution.

Role of the Preamble

However, the Preamble, by itself, does not confer any power or enforce any rights or duties like the other provisions of the Constitution. It cannot be a source of any substantive power or limitation. Instead, it provides a guide and a philosophy to interpret the Constitution. Thus, while it is a part of the Constitution, it does not have legal effect independently of other parts. It sets the stage and context for the Constitution but does not directly bear legal consequences on its own.