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)
Average score
Your score
Categories
Not categorized0%
Your result has been entered into leaderboard
Loading
1
2
3
4
5
Answered
Review
Question 1 of 5
1. Question
2 points
Consider the following statements:
1. The Constitutional position of the British territories in India was defined explicitly for the first time
under the Charter Act of 1813.
2. The Charter Act of 1833 was responsible for the legislative and administrative decentralization of
British rule in India.
3. The legislative and executive functions of the Governor-General’s council were separated with the
passage of the Charter Act of 1853.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Correct
Correct Answer: D
Explanation
• Statements 1 and 3 are correct. Statement 2 is incorrect.
• Statement 1 is correct. In England, the business interests were pressing for an end to the Company’s
monopoly over trade in India because of a spirit of laissez-faire and the continental system by Napoleon
through which the European ports were closed for Britain. The 1813 Act sought to redress these
grievances- The Company’s monopoly over trade in India ended, but the Company retained the trade
with China and the trade-in tea. The Company’s shareholders were given a 10.5 per cent dividend on the
revenue of India. The Company was to retain the possession of territories and the revenue for 20 years
more, without prejudice to the sovereignty of the Crown. Thus, the constitutional position of the British
territories in India was defined explicitly for the first time.
• Statement 2 is incorrect. The Charter Act of 1833 strengthened the centralisation in British India. In
India, a financial, legislative and administrative centralisation of the government was envisaged:
1. The governor-general was given the power to superintend, control and direct all civil and military
affairs of the Company. — Bengal, Madras, Bombay and all other territories were placed under
complete control of the governor-general.
2. All revenues were to be raised under the authority of the governor-general who would have complete
control over the expenditure too,
3. The Governments of Madras and Bombay were drastically deprived of their legislative powers and left
with a right of proposing to the governor-general the projects of law which they thought to be
expedient.
• Statement 3 is correct. The Charter Act of 1853 was the last of the series of Charter Acts passed by the
British Parliament between 1793 and 1853. It was a significant constitutional landmark. It separated, for
the first time, the legislative and executive functions of the GovernorGeneral’s council. It provided for
addition of six new members called legislative councillors to the legislative council. In other words, it
established a separate Governor-General’s legislative council which came to be known as the Indian
(Central) Legislative Council. This legislative wing of the council functioned as a mini-Parliament,
adopting the same procedures as the British Parliament. Thus, legislation, for the first time, was treated
as a special function of the government, requiring special machinery and special process.
Incorrect
Correct Answer: D
Explanation
• Statements 1 and 3 are correct. Statement 2 is incorrect.
• Statement 1 is correct. In England, the business interests were pressing for an end to the Company’s
monopoly over trade in India because of a spirit of laissez-faire and the continental system by Napoleon
through which the European ports were closed for Britain. The 1813 Act sought to redress these
grievances- The Company’s monopoly over trade in India ended, but the Company retained the trade
with China and the trade-in tea. The Company’s shareholders were given a 10.5 per cent dividend on the
revenue of India. The Company was to retain the possession of territories and the revenue for 20 years
more, without prejudice to the sovereignty of the Crown. Thus, the constitutional position of the British
territories in India was defined explicitly for the first time.
• Statement 2 is incorrect. The Charter Act of 1833 strengthened the centralisation in British India. In
India, a financial, legislative and administrative centralisation of the government was envisaged:
1. The governor-general was given the power to superintend, control and direct all civil and military
affairs of the Company. — Bengal, Madras, Bombay and all other territories were placed under
complete control of the governor-general.
2. All revenues were to be raised under the authority of the governor-general who would have complete
control over the expenditure too,
3. The Governments of Madras and Bombay were drastically deprived of their legislative powers and left
with a right of proposing to the governor-general the projects of law which they thought to be
expedient.
• Statement 3 is correct. The Charter Act of 1853 was the last of the series of Charter Acts passed by the
British Parliament between 1793 and 1853. It was a significant constitutional landmark. It separated, for
the first time, the legislative and executive functions of the GovernorGeneral’s council. It provided for
addition of six new members called legislative councillors to the legislative council. In other words, it
established a separate Governor-General’s legislative council which came to be known as the Indian
(Central) Legislative Council. This legislative wing of the council functioned as a mini-Parliament,
adopting the same procedures as the British Parliament. Thus, legislation, for the first time, was treated
as a special function of the government, requiring special machinery and special process.
Question 2 of 5
2. Question
2 points
With reference to the amendments to the Constitution under Article 368, consider the following
statements:
1. The bills under it can be introduced by a any private member.
2. The amendment under Article 368 always requires consent of half the states
3. The President can only withhold his assent to the bill but cannot return the bill for reconsideration of
the Parliament.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Correct
Correct Answer: B
Explanation
• Option b is the correct answer.
• Article 368 in Part XX of the Constitution deals with the powers of Parliament to amend the
Constitution and its procedure.
• Statement 1 is correct. The bill regarding the amendments to the Constitution can be introduced
either by a minister or by a private member (any Member of Parliament who is not a minister). It also
does not require prior permission of the President.
• Statement 2 is incorrect. The bill concerning constitutional amendment must be passed in each House
by a special majority, that is, a majority of the total membership of the House and a majority of twothirds of the members of the House present and voting.
• But in case of amending the federal provisions of the Constitution then it must be ratified by the
legislature of half the states by a simple majority. Thus, not in all the cases, consent of half the states is
needed.
• Statement 3 is incorrect. After duly passed by both the Houses of Parliament and ratified by the state
legislatures, where necessary, the bill is presented to the President for assent. The President must give
his assent to the bill. He can neither withhold his assent to the bill nor return the bill for reconsideration
of the Parliament. After the president’s assent, the bill becomes an Act (i.e., a constitutional amendment
act) and the Constitution stands amended in accordance with the terms of the Act.
Incorrect
Correct Answer: B
Explanation
• Option b is the correct answer.
• Article 368 in Part XX of the Constitution deals with the powers of Parliament to amend the
Constitution and its procedure.
• Statement 1 is correct. The bill regarding the amendments to the Constitution can be introduced
either by a minister or by a private member (any Member of Parliament who is not a minister). It also
does not require prior permission of the President.
• Statement 2 is incorrect. The bill concerning constitutional amendment must be passed in each House
by a special majority, that is, a majority of the total membership of the House and a majority of twothirds of the members of the House present and voting.
• But in case of amending the federal provisions of the Constitution then it must be ratified by the
legislature of half the states by a simple majority. Thus, not in all the cases, consent of half the states is
needed.
• Statement 3 is incorrect. After duly passed by both the Houses of Parliament and ratified by the state
legislatures, where necessary, the bill is presented to the President for assent. The President must give
his assent to the bill. He can neither withhold his assent to the bill nor return the bill for reconsideration
of the Parliament. After the president’s assent, the bill becomes an Act (i.e., a constitutional amendment
act) and the Constitution stands amended in accordance with the terms of the Act.
Question 3 of 5
3. Question
2 points
Which of the following correctly defines the Privilege Motion?
Correct
Correct Answer: B
Explanation
• Option B is correct.
• Option A is incorrect. Censure Motion can be moved against an individual minister or a group of
ministers or the entire council of ministers for censuring the council of ministers for specific
policies and actions and it should state the reasons for its adoption in the Lok Sabha. If it is passed
in the Lok Sabha, the council of ministers need not resign from the office.
• Option B is correct. Privilege Motion is concerned with the breach of parliamentary privileges by
a minister. It is moved by a member when he feels that a minister has committed a breach of
privilege of the House or one or more of its members by withholding facts of a case or by giving
wrong or distorted facts. Its purpose is to censure the concerned minister.
• Option C is incorrect. Closure Motion is a motion moved by a member to cut short the debate on
a matter before the House. If the motion is approved by the House, debate is stopped forthwith
and the matter is put to vote
• Option D is incorrect. Calling Attention Motion is introduced in the Parliament by a member to
call the attention of a minister to a matter of urgent public importance, and to seek an
authoritative statement from him on that matter. Like the zero hour, it is also an Indian innovation
in the parliamentary procedure and has been in existence since 1954. However, unlike the zero
hour, it is mentioned in the Rules of Procedure
Incorrect
Correct Answer: B
Explanation
• Option B is correct.
• Option A is incorrect. Censure Motion can be moved against an individual minister or a group of
ministers or the entire council of ministers for censuring the council of ministers for specific
policies and actions and it should state the reasons for its adoption in the Lok Sabha. If it is passed
in the Lok Sabha, the council of ministers need not resign from the office.
• Option B is correct. Privilege Motion is concerned with the breach of parliamentary privileges by
a minister. It is moved by a member when he feels that a minister has committed a breach of
privilege of the House or one or more of its members by withholding facts of a case or by giving
wrong or distorted facts. Its purpose is to censure the concerned minister.
• Option C is incorrect. Closure Motion is a motion moved by a member to cut short the debate on
a matter before the House. If the motion is approved by the House, debate is stopped forthwith
and the matter is put to vote
• Option D is incorrect. Calling Attention Motion is introduced in the Parliament by a member to
call the attention of a minister to a matter of urgent public importance, and to seek an
authoritative statement from him on that matter. Like the zero hour, it is also an Indian innovation
in the parliamentary procedure and has been in existence since 1954. However, unlike the zero
hour, it is mentioned in the Rules of Procedure
Question 4 of 5
4. Question
2 points
Which of the following is/are objective of PESA Act of 1996?
1. To extend the provisions of Panchayati Raj to the scheduled areas with certain modifications.
2. To safeguard and to preserve the traditions and customs of tribal communities.
3. To prevent panchayats at the higher level from assuming the powers and authority of panchayats at
the lower level of the Gram Sabha
Select the correct statement using the code given below:
Correct
Correct Answer: D
Explanation
• All the above are correct.
• PESA ACT OF 1996 (EXTENSION ACT):
• The provisions of Part IX of the constitution relating to the Panchayats are not applicable to the
Fifth Schedule areas. However, the Parliament may extend these provisions to such areas, subject
to such exceptions and modifications as it may specify. Under this provision, the Parliament has
enacted the “Provisions of the Panchayats (Extension to the Scheduled Areas) Act”, 1996,
popularly known as the PESA Act or the Extension Act.
• At present (2016), ten states have Fifth Schedule Areas. These are: Andhra Pradesh, Telangana,
Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Odisha and
Rajasthan. All the ten states have enacted requisite compliance legislations by amending the
respective Panchayati Raj Acts.
The objectives of the PESA Act are as follows:
1. To extend the provisions of Part IX of the Constitution relating to the panchayats to the scheduled
areas with certain modifications
2. To provide self-rule for the bulk of the tribal population
3. To have village governance with participatory democracy and to make the gram sabha a nucleus of all
activities
4. To evolve a suitable administrative framework consistent with traditional practices
5. To safeguard and to preserve the traditions and customs of tribal communities
6. To empower panchayats at the appropriate levels with specific powers conducive to tribal
requirements
7. To prevent panchayats at the higher level from assuming the powers and authority of panchayats at
the lower level of the gram sabha
Incorrect
Correct Answer: D
Explanation
• All the above are correct.
• PESA ACT OF 1996 (EXTENSION ACT):
• The provisions of Part IX of the constitution relating to the Panchayats are not applicable to the
Fifth Schedule areas. However, the Parliament may extend these provisions to such areas, subject
to such exceptions and modifications as it may specify. Under this provision, the Parliament has
enacted the “Provisions of the Panchayats (Extension to the Scheduled Areas) Act”, 1996,
popularly known as the PESA Act or the Extension Act.
• At present (2016), ten states have Fifth Schedule Areas. These are: Andhra Pradesh, Telangana,
Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Odisha and
Rajasthan. All the ten states have enacted requisite compliance legislations by amending the
respective Panchayati Raj Acts.
The objectives of the PESA Act are as follows:
1. To extend the provisions of Part IX of the Constitution relating to the panchayats to the scheduled
areas with certain modifications
2. To provide self-rule for the bulk of the tribal population
3. To have village governance with participatory democracy and to make the gram sabha a nucleus of all
activities
4. To evolve a suitable administrative framework consistent with traditional practices
5. To safeguard and to preserve the traditions and customs of tribal communities
6. To empower panchayats at the appropriate levels with specific powers conducive to tribal
requirements
7. To prevent panchayats at the higher level from assuming the powers and authority of panchayats at
the lower level of the gram sabha
Question 5 of 5
5. Question
2 points
Consider the following statements:
1. The writ jurisdiction of the High Court is narrower than that of Supreme Court.
2. A High Court may not refuse to exercise its writ jurisdiction if the cause of action arises within its
territory.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Correct
Correct Answer: D
Explanation
• Both the statements are incorrect.
• Statement 1 is incorrect. The Supreme Court can issue writs only for the enforcement of
fundamental rights whereas a high court can issue writs not only for the enforcement of
Fundamental Rights but also for any other purpose. The expression ‘for any other purpose’ refers
to the enforcement of an ordinary legal right. Thus, the writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, in
this respect, is narrower than that of high court. However in case of Fundamental Rights both
Supreme and High Court have equal jurisdiction.
• Statement 2 is incorrect. A remedy under Article 32 is in itself a Fundamental Right and hence,
the Supreme Court may not refuse to exercise its writ jurisdiction. On the other hand, a remedy
under Article 226 is discretionary and hence, a high court may refuse to exercise its writ
jurisdiction. Article 32 does not merely confer power on the Supreme Court as Article 226 does on
a high court to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights or other rights as part of its
general jurisdiction.
Incorrect
Correct Answer: D
Explanation
• Both the statements are incorrect.
• Statement 1 is incorrect. The Supreme Court can issue writs only for the enforcement of
fundamental rights whereas a high court can issue writs not only for the enforcement of
Fundamental Rights but also for any other purpose. The expression ‘for any other purpose’ refers
to the enforcement of an ordinary legal right. Thus, the writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, in
this respect, is narrower than that of high court. However in case of Fundamental Rights both
Supreme and High Court have equal jurisdiction.
• Statement 2 is incorrect. A remedy under Article 32 is in itself a Fundamental Right and hence,
the Supreme Court may not refuse to exercise its writ jurisdiction. On the other hand, a remedy
under Article 226 is discretionary and hence, a high court may refuse to exercise its writ
jurisdiction. Article 32 does not merely confer power on the Supreme Court as Article 226 does on
a high court to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights or other rights as part of its
general jurisdiction.
