Explanation : 

Representation of the People Act (RPA), 1951

The Representation of the People Act (RPA), 1951, is the legal framework that governs elections in India. To address the statements provided, we need to refer to specific sections of the RPA and the amendments made to it over the years.

Candidate Restrictions in Lok Sabha Elections

As per the current law, the statement regarding the restriction on candidates from contesting in one Lok Sabha election from three constituencies is incorrect. The RPA 1951 was amended in 1996 to include Section 33(7), which limits the number of constituencies from which a candidate can contest in general elections. According to this amendment, a person cannot contest a general election from more than two parliamentary constituencies. Therefore, the law restricts a candidate from contesting in one Lok Sabha election from three constituencies.

The statement regarding Shri Devi Lal contesting from three Lok Sabha constituencies in the 1991 elections is correct. Before the 1996 amendment to the RPA, there was no restriction on the number of constituencies from which a candidate could contest. Therefore, Shri Devi Lal was able to contest from three Lok Sabha constituencies in the 1991 elections.

Rules on By-election Costs

The statement about the existing rules requiring a candidate’s party to bear the cost of bye-elections if a candidate contests and wins from multiple constituencies is incorrect. The existing rules, as per the RPA, do not explicitly require the candidate’s party to bear the cost of bye-elections. The cost of conducting elections is generally borne by the government. However, there have been discussions and suggestions to amend the law to include such a provision, but as of the knowledge cutoff date in 2023, no such amendment has been made to the RPA.

Given the above explanations, the correct answer to the question is “2 only,” which corresponds to the statement that Shri Devi Lal contested from three Lok Sabha constituencies in the 1991 election.

Explanation : 

Right to Privacy in India

The ‘Right to Privacy’ in India is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Article 21 states:

“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law.”

While the text of Article 21 does not explicitly mention the ‘Right to Privacy,’ the Supreme Court of India has interpreted the right to life and personal liberty to include the right to privacy. This interpretation has evolved over time through various landmark judgments.

Landmark Judgment: Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) vs Union of India

The most significant judgment regarding the ‘Right to Privacy’ came in the case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) vs Union of India (2017). In this landmark decision, a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court unanimously recognized that the right to privacy is protected as an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 and as a part of the freedoms guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution.

Therefore, the ‘Right to Privacy’ is not enumerated as a separate right in the Constitution but is derived from Article 21 through judicial interpretation. It is now considered a fundamental right that protects individuals’ privacy from intrusion by the state, subject to reasonable restrictions.

Explanation : 

Administrative Reforms in India

The recommendation for a minister and a secretary to be designated solely for administrative reforms did not originate from the N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar Committee. Instead, it was the Appleby Report in 1953, penned by American public administration expert Paul H. Appleby, which suggested the creation of an organization within the Government of India focused on administrative improvement. This proposal led to the establishment of the Organization and Methods Division in the Cabinet Secretariat.

Formation of the Department of Personnel

In line with the recommendations of the first Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC), set up in 1966, the Department of Personnel was established in 1970. The ARC was tasked with examining the system of public administration and proposing reforms. The Department of Personnel was placed under the charge of the Prime Minister, highlighting the importance attached to the process of administrative reforms.

Explanation : 

Parliamentary Democracies: India vs. United Kingdom

The parliamentary systems of India and the United Kingdom are fundamentally different in several ways. One of the most significant differences lies in the legislative powers and the concept of sovereignty.

Legislative Powers and Sovereignty

In the UK, the British Parliament is recognized as supreme or sovereign, adhering to the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. This means that the Parliament has the ultimate authority to create or repeal any law without legal restraint. In contrast, the Indian Parliament operates within the constraints of a written constitution, which limits its legislative capabilities and ensures that laws do not contravene constitutional provisions. Additionally, India’s federal structure divides legislative authority between the Union and state governments.

Constitutionality and Judicial Review

Another key difference is the role of the judiciary in reviewing the constitutionality of legislation. The Indian Supreme Court has the power of judicial review and can convene a Constitution Bench to address substantial questions of constitutional law. On the other hand, the UK Supreme Court does not have the authority to declare an Act of Parliament unconstitutional due to the absence of a codified constitution and the principle of parliamentary sovereignty.

Explanation : 

Separation of Powers in Liberal Democracy

The best safeguard of liberty in a liberal democracy is the separation of powers. This principle divides the government into different branches, each with its own powers and responsibilities. The purpose of this separation is to prevent any one branch from gaining too much power and to create a system of checks and balances where each branch can limit the powers of the others. This helps to protect individual liberties by ensuring that power is not concentrated in the hands of a few and that government remains responsive to the will of the people.

Assessing the Options for Safeguarding Liberty

Let’s break down the options to understand why separation of powers is the best choice:
A Committed Judiciary : While a judiciary committed to upholding the law and protecting rights is essential to liberty, it is not sufficient on its own. Without separation of powers, a committed judiciary could still be overpowered by other branches of government that have centralized power.

Centralization of Powers: This is actually the opposite of a safeguard for liberty in a liberal democracy. Centralization of powers can lead to authoritarianism, as it concentrates power in the hands of a small group or a single entity, making it easier for them to abuse power and infringe upon individual freedoms.

Elected Government: While having a government that is elected by the people is a cornerstone of democracy, elections alone do not ensure liberty. Elected officials can still abuse power if there are no mechanisms in place to limit their authority and hold them accountable.

Separation of Powers: This is the correct answer because it creates a system where power is distributed among different branches of government—typically the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. Each branch has its own distinct functions and can check the powers of the others, preventing any one branch from becoming too powerful. This structure is fundamental to ensuring that the government respects and protects the liberties of its citizens.

Explanation : 

Indian Citizenship and Domicile

There is only one type of citizenship recognized by the Indian Constitution, and that is Indian citizenship. India’s citizens have only one allegiance: the Union. State citizenship is not distinct. Additionally, an Indian citizen’s Indian citizenship automatically ends when he voluntarily obtains the citizenship of another nation.

There is only one domicile allowed in India. Domicile Certificate can be made only in one State/UT.

Citizenship and the Head of State

Contrary to the claim that only a citizen by birth can become the Head of State in India, the Constitution of India allows citizens by descent, registration, or naturalization to hold the office of the President, who is the Head of State. Article 58 specifies the qualifications needed and does not limit the position exclusively to citizens by birth.

Citizenship Revocation for Foreigners

The statement that a foreigner granted Indian citizenship cannot be deprived of it under any circumstances is incorrect. The Citizenship Act of 1955 outlines conditions under which citizenship may be revoked. This includes obtaining citizenship through fraud, disloyalty to the Constitution, or engagement in unlawful activities with the enemy during wartime.

In conclusion, the accurate statement among the three is the first one, indicating that “1 only” is the correct answer. The other two statements are not consistent with the Indian Constitution and citizenship laws.

Explanation : 

Retired Supreme Court Judges Acting as Supreme Court Judges

According to Article 128 of the Indian Constitution, a retired judge of the Supreme Court of India can be called upon by the Chief Justice of India, with the prior permission of the President of India, to sit and act as a judge of the Supreme Court. This provision is crucial for addressing the backlog of cases or when there is a shortage of judges in the Supreme Court.

High Court’s Power to Review Its Own Judgement

The High Court in India also possesses the power to review its own judgements, a power similar to that of the Supreme Court. This is enshrined in Article 226 and Article 227 of the Indian Constitution, which grant High Courts the authority to issue writs and to have superintendence over all courts and tribunals within their jurisdiction. The procedure for review is generally detailed in the court’s rules, which are formulated under Article 225. The review mechanism is intended to rectify any mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, rather than to re-litigate the case on its merits.

Explanation : 

Concept of a State

In political science, a state is a structured political entity that possesses sovereignty over a defined geographic territory and exercises authority through a set of institutions. It is often characterized by the following key elements:

Territory

A state must have a clearly defined geographic area with recognized borders. This territory can vary greatly in size and can be subject to change due to political negotiations, wars, or other factors.

Population

A state is inhabited by a group of people who may share common cultural, linguistic, or ethnic ties. However, the population within a state can also be very diverse.

Government

A state has an organized government that creates and enforces laws, policies, and regulations. The government is responsible for maintaining order, providing public services, and protecting the state’s sovereignty.

Sovereignty

Sovereignty is the supreme authority within a territory. A sovereign state has the power to govern itself without external interference. This includes the ability to enter into relations with other states, make treaties, and engage in trade or war.

Recognition

For a state to fully function within the international system, it generally needs to be recognized by other states. Recognition is often formalized through diplomatic relations and membership in international organizations.

The concept of the state is central to many theories of political science and international relations. States are considered the primary actors in global politics, and their interactions form the basis of the study of international relations. The definition of a state can vary in different contexts and may evolve over time, but these core attributes are widely accepted in the discipline of political science.

Explanation : 

Parole – Rights for Prisoners ?

The concept of parole is often misunderstood as an absolute right of prisoners. However, in the context of Indian law, this is not the case. While a prisoner can apply for parole by presenting a sufficient case, the decision to grant parole rests with the concerned authorities. Factors such as the nature of the offense, the prisoner’s behavior, and the risk of absconding are taken into consideration. Thus, even with a strong case, parole can be rightfully denied if the situation warrants.

State-Specific Parole Regulations in India

In India, the responsibility for the administration of prisons and the release of prisoners on parole lies with the state governments.  ‘Prisons’ is a State subject under the State List of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. Each state has the autonomy to establish its own Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, which dictate the eligibility, process, and terms under which parole may be granted. These rules are not uniform and can significantly differ from one state to another, reflecting the decentralized approach to prison management within the country.

Explanation : 

Judicial Custody

The concept of judicial custody can be confusing, and it’s important to clarify common misconceptions. Here’s a breakdown of the key points to understand what judicial custody entails and the rights of the accused during this period.

Statement 1: Location of Judicial Custody

Contrary to some beliefs, judicial custody does not imply that the accused is held at a police station. In fact, when a person is placed in judicial custody, they are typically housed in a prison (jail) and not under police supervision. The magistrate is responsible for the accused, ensuring a neutral environment that is free from undue police influence or potential mistreatment.

Statement 2: Interrogation During Judicial Custody

The second statement addresses the interrogation process during judicial custody. It is accurate that the police officer in charge must obtain court approval to interrogate the suspect when they are in judicial custody. This safeguard is in place to protect the rights of the accused and to ensure that any questioning is conducted fairly and under the court’s supervision.