Polity Set 108
π
π Historical Background β’ British Acts
Q.1) Which British Act introduced the concept of direct elections in India for the first time?
Ans > Government of India Act of 1919
- The Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms: The Government of India Act of 1919 was essentially the legal manifestation of the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms. Edwin Montagu, the Secretary of State for India, and Lord Chelmsford, the Viceroy, drafted these reforms to introduce self-governing institutions gradually.
- Bicameral Legislature at the Center: This Act replaced the Indian Legislative Council with a bicameral legislature consisting of an Upper House (Council of State) and a Lower House (Legislative Assembly). The majority of members in both houses were chosen through direct elections, marking a historic shift in Indian political representation.
- Restricted Franchise: Although direct elections were introduced, the voting rights were not universal. The franchise was highly restricted and granted only based on specific property qualifications, tax payments, or educational achievements. Consequently, only a tiny fraction of the Indian population was actually eligible to vote.
- Introduction of Dyarchy: While introducing direct elections at the center, the Act also introduced the concept of ‘dyarchy’ or dual rule in the provinces. Provincial subjects were divided into ‘reserved’ (administered by the Governor) and ‘transferred’ (administered by the Governor with ministers).
π Historical Background β’ Public Services
Q.2) Which British Act provided for the establishment of a Public Service Commission for the first time?
Ans > Government of India Act of 1919
- Establishment of the Lee Commission: The provision for a Public Service Commission in the 1919 Act laid the legislative groundwork, but it was the Lee Commission (Royal Commission on the Superior Civil Services in India) in 1924 that strongly recommended its immediate practical establishment.
- Creation of the Central Public Service Commission: Following these recommendations, the Central Public Service Commission was finally set up in 1926. It was entrusted with the critical task of recruiting civil servants, independent of political influence.
- Sir Ross Barker’s Leadership: The first Chairman of this newly formed Commission was Sir Ross Barker. This establishment marked a significant step in institutionalizing and professionalizing the bureaucracy in British India.
- Evolution to UPSC: This initial commission was later expanded and renamed as the Federal Public Service Commission under the Government of India Act of 1935, which eventually became the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) after India’s independence and the adoption of the Constitution in 1950.
π Historical Background β’ Statutory Commissions
Q.3) The Simon Commission, a statutory commission to report on the condition of India under its new constitution, was appointed by the British Government in which year?
Ans > 1927
- Early Appointment: The Government of India Act of 1919 mandated a review commission after ten years (which would be in 1929). However, the British Conservative government, fearing an upcoming electoral defeat, appointed the Simon Commission two years early in 1927 to ensure they controlled the narrative of Indian constitutional reform.
- All-White Commission: Officially known as the Indian Statutory Commission, it was chaired by Sir John Simon. It sparked massive outrage in India because all seven of its members were British Members of Parliament, with absolutely no Indian representation to decide India’s constitutional future.
- Widespread Boycott: The Indian National Congress, the Muslim League, and other political parties vehemently boycotted the commission. They greeted the commission with black flags and widespread protests chanting the famous slogan, “Simon, Go Back!” wherever the commission travelled in India.
- Impact on Indian Nationalism: This exclusion galvanized Indian political leaders. It directly led to the challenge of drafting an Indian-made constitution, resulting in the Nehru Report of 1928, which demanded Dominion Status for India.
π Historical Background β’ Communal Award
Q.4) The ‘Communal Award’, extending separate electorates to the depressed classes, was announced in 1932 by which British Prime Minister?
Ans > Ramsay MacDonald
- Context of the Round Table Conferences: The Communal Award was announced on August 16, 1932, following the Second Round Table Conference in London. Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald sought to resolve the deadlock over minority representation by unilaterally imposing this award on the Indian political landscape.
- Extension of Separate Electorates: While separate electorates already existed for Muslims, Sikhs, Indian Christians, and Anglo-Indians, the Award controversially extended this provision to the “Depressed Classes” (now known as Scheduled Castes), effectively treating them as a separate minority outside the general Hindu fold.
- Gandhi’s Fast Unto Death: Mahatma Gandhi, who was incarcerated in the Yerwada Jail in Poona at the time, saw this as a sinister British ploy to divide the Hindu society and weaken the Indian national movement. He began a “fast unto death” in protest against the award.
- The Poona Pact of 1932: Gandhi’s fast led to intense negotiations between B.R. Ambedkar (representing the Depressed Classes) and Hindu leaders. This culminated in the Poona Pact, which abandoned separate electorates for the Depressed Classes in favor of reserved seats within the general Hindu electorate.
π Historical Background β’ British Acts
Q.5) Which Act abolished the Council of India, which was originally established by the Government of India Act of 1858 to assist the Secretary of State?
Ans > Government of India Act of 1935
- Origin in the 1858 Act: The Council of India was originally created by the Government of India Act of 1858, which transferred power from the British East India Company to the British Crown. It consisted of 15 members designed to assist and advise the Secretary of State for India in London.
- Reason for Abolition: By the 1930s, the Council was widely seen as an outdated, conservative impediment to Indian self-government. Indian nationalists had long demanded its abolition, arguing it was a massive financial burden on the Indian exchequer and a tool of imperial interference.
- Replacement with Advisors: The Government of India Act of 1935 formally abolished the Council of India. Instead, the Secretary of State was provided with a smaller team of advisors (between three and six in number) to assist him, significantly reducing the bureaucratic bloat in London.
- Shift Towards Provincial Autonomy: The abolition of the Council coincided with the 1935 Act’s broader goal of introducing provincial autonomy and a federal structure, theoretically shifting some administrative focus from London back to the Indian provinces.
π Historical Background β’ Independence
Q.6) The Indian Independence Bill was introduced in the British Parliament on July 4, 1947, and received the royal assent on:
Ans > July 18, 1947
- Based on the Mountbatten Plan: The Indian Independence Bill was drafted based on the June 3 Plan, also widely known as the Mountbatten Plan. This historical plan outlined the partition of British India into two independent dominions: India and Pakistan.
- Swift Parliamentary Passage: The bill was introduced by Prime Minister Clement Attlee in the House of Commons on July 4, 1947. It experienced an exceptionally rapid legislative journey, passing through both houses of the British Parliament without any significant opposition or amendments in just a fortnight.
- Royal Assent and Implementation: King George VI gave his Royal Assent to the bill on July 18, 1947, legally transforming it into the Indian Independence Act of 1947. This Act formally set the date for independence and partition as August 15, 1947.
- Lapse of Paramountcy: A crucial provision of the Act was the termination of British suzerainty over the Indian princely states. It declared that with independence, the treaties between the Crown and the princely states would lapse, leaving them free to join either dominion.
π Executive β’ Governor-General
Q.7) Who was the first and only Indian to hold the office of Governor-General of independent India?
Ans > C. Rajagopalachari
- Transition of Power: Following independence on August 15, 1947, Lord Mountbatten continued as the first Governor-General of the independent Dominion of India. However, when he departed for Britain in June 1948, the role required a distinguished Indian successor.
- Appointment of Rajaji: Chakravarti Rajagopalachari, affectionately known as Rajaji, was appointed to this prestigious position. A prominent freedom fighter, he had previously served as the Premier of the Madras Presidency and was a highly trusted associate of Mahatma Gandhi.
- A Historic and Unique Tenure: He served as the Governor-General from June 21, 1948, until January 26, 1950. He remains the only Indian citizen to ever hold this specific title, guiding the nation during its transitional dominion phase.
- Abolition of the Office: The office of the Governor-General was permanently abolished and replaced by the office of the President of India upon the adoption of the Republic’s Constitution in 1950, making Rajagopalachari the last person to hold the title.
π Interim Government β’ Portfolios
Q.8) In the Interim Government of India formed in 1946, who held the crucial portfolio of Finance?
Ans > Liaquat Ali Khan
- Formation of the Interim Government: The Interim Government was formed on September 2, 1946, from the newly elected Constituent Assembly. Initially, the Muslim League boycotted it, but they later joined the cabinet in October 1946 to influence political proceedings from within.
- Strategic Allocation of Portfolios: When the Muslim League joined, the Congress party, seeking political cooperation, offered them the crucial Finance portfolio. Liaquat Ali Khan, a senior League leader and the future first Prime Minister of Pakistan, was appointed to this powerful role.
- The “Poor Man’s Budget”: In 1947, Liaquat Ali Khan presented a highly controversial budget that heavily taxed wealthy industrialists, many of whom were Hindu merchants aligned with the Congress.
- Political Gridlock: While framed as a socialist “poor man’s budget,” Congress leaders viewed it as a deliberate attempt to cripple their financial backers and paralyze the government’s functioning, severely straining the relationship between the two parties leading up to partition.
π Interim Government β’ Portfolios
Q.9) Who held the portfolio of Defence in the Interim Government of India formed in 1946?
Ans > Baldev Singh
- Sikh Representation: The Interim Government aimed to represent India’s major communities to project unity. Baldev Singh, a prominent Sikh political leader from Punjab and a key figure in the Akali Dal, was chosen to represent the Sikh community in the executive cabinet.
- Managing the Armed Forces: As the Defence Member, Baldev Singh held an incredibly sensitive position during a highly volatile period. He oversaw the British Indian Army precisely when communal tensions were peaking across the subcontinent.
- Overseeing Partition of Forces: During his tenure, the complex and monumental task of partitioning the armed forces, their assets, and personnel between the future states of India and Pakistan began under his departmental oversight.
- Transition to Independent India: His competent handling of the portfolio earned him the trust of the national leadership. Consequently, when India achieved full independence, Baldev Singh was retained in Jawaharlal Nehru’s first independent cabinet as the first Minister of Defence.
π Constitutional Bodies β’ Election Commission
Q.10) Who was appointed as the first Chief Election Commissioner of independent India?
Ans > Sukumar Sen
- Establishment of the ECI: The Election Commission of India (ECI) was officially established on January 25, 1950, just a day before the Constitution came into effect. Sukumar Sen, an Indian Civil Service (ICS) officer, was appointed as the first Chief Election Commissioner in March 1950.
- Monumental Task of the First Election: Sen faced the unprecedented challenge of organizing the first general elections in 1951-52 based on universal adult franchise. This involved registering over 173 million voters across a massive and diverse geographical area.
- Overcoming Mass Illiteracy: A major hurdle was that the vast majority of the electorate was illiterate. To overcome this, Sen introduced the innovative use of pictorial party symbols and distinct, separate ballot boxes for each candidate at the polling booths.
- Global Acclaim: His meticulous planning and successful execution of the elections earned global acclaim. He practically proved that a massive democratic exercise could successfully function in a large, developing, and highly impoverished nation.
π Parliament β’ Lok Sabha
Q.11) Who served as the first Speaker of the Lok Sabha?
Ans > G.V. Mavalankar
- Early Parliamentary Experience: Ganesh Vasudev Mavalankar, popularly known as ‘Dadasaheb’, had extensive legislative experience long before independence. He served as the President of the Bombay Legislative Assembly and later as the President of the Central Legislative Assembly from 1946 to 1947.
- Transition to the Republic: Following independence, he served as the Speaker of the Constituent Assembly when it functioned as a legislative body. When the first Lok Sabha was constituted in 1952, he was the unanimous choice to become its first official Speaker.
- Establishing Parliamentary Traditions: Mavalankar played a foundational role in shaping Indian parliamentary democracy. He established numerous rules of procedure, parliamentary conventions, and vital committees that continue to govern the functioning of the Lok Sabha today.
- The “Father of the Lok Sabha”: Due to his monumental contributions in laying down the robust democratic traditions of the lower house, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru respectfully conferred upon him the title “Father of the Lok Sabha.”
π Parliament β’ Lok Sabha
Q.12) Who served as the first Deputy Speaker of the Lok Sabha?
Ans > Ananthasayanam Ayyangar
- Constituent Assembly Role: Madabushi Ananthasayanam Ayyangar was a prominent freedom fighter, a learned lawyer, and a highly dedicated member of the Constituent Assembly of India, actively participating in the complex debates that shaped the Indian Constitution.
- Election as Deputy Speaker: Upon the constitution of the first Lok Sabha in 1952, while G.V. Mavalankar was elected Speaker, Ayyangar was elected as the first Deputy Speaker. The Deputy Speaker’s role is crucial in maintaining parliamentary continuity when the Speaker is absent or unavailable.
- Elevation to Speaker: Tragically, G.V. Mavalankar passed away during his term in 1956. Following this sudden vacancy, Ayyangar was elevated to the position of Speaker for the remainder of the first Lok Sabha’s tenure.
- Continued Legislative Legacy: Proving his parliamentary acumen, Ayyangar was subsequently re-elected as the Speaker of the second Lok Sabha in 1957, serving a full term and further cementing his legacy in India’s early legislative history.
π Constitution Parts β’ Trade & Commerce
Q.13) Which Part of the Constitution deals with Trade, Commerce, and Intercourse within the Territory of India?
Ans > Part XIII
- Constitutional Location: Part XIII of the Indian Constitution, explicitly titled “Trade, Commerce and Intercourse within the Territory of India,” spans from Article 301 to Article 307. It establishes the foundational economic unity of the country.
- Concept of Economic Unity: The framers of the Constitution recognized that for a federal nation to thrive, there must be a unified national market. Part XIII was designed to prevent states from erecting internal trade barriers, tariffs, or discriminatory taxes against goods.
- Borrowing from the Australian Constitution: The core principles embodied in Part XIII, particularly the robust declaration of free trade and commerce, were heavily inspired by Section 92 of the Australian Constitution, adapting it to the Indian federal context.
- Balancing Freedom and Regulation: Unlike the absolute freedom in some constitutions, Part XIII in India creates a nuanced balance. While Article 301 declares trade free, subsequent articles allow the Parliament and State Legislatures to impose reasonable restrictions in the public interest.
π Trade & Commerce β’ Restrictions
Q.14) Article 301 declares trade, commerce, and intercourse throughout the territory of India to be free. However, which Article empowers the Parliament to impose restrictions on this freedom in the public interest?
Ans > Article 302
- The General Rule of Freedom: Article 301 lays down the overarching general rule that trade, commerce, and intercourse shall be free throughout India. However, this freedom is not absolute and is subject to the specific provisions of Part XIII.
- Parliamentary Override for Public Interest: Article 302 provides the most significant exception to this freedom. It explicitly empowers the Parliament to enact laws that impose restrictions on the freedom of trade, commerce, or intercourse between one state and another.
- The Public Interest Condition: The vital caveat in Article 302 is that any restriction imposed by Parliament must be strictly required in the “public interest,” preventing arbitrary bans on inter-state commerce for political reasons.
- Examples of Restrictions: Under this Article, the Parliament can pass legislation like the Essential Commodities Act to regulate the distribution, pricing, and inter-state movement of critical goods (like foodstuff or fuel) during shortages, prioritizing national public welfare over absolute free trade.
π Fundamental Rights β’ Martial Law
Q.15) The phrase “martial law” has not been explicitly defined in the Constitution, but it is mentioned in which Article?
Ans > Article 34
- Implicit Recognition: The Indian Constitution deliberately does not contain a specific definition of “martial law.” However, Article 34 acknowledges its potential existence by detailing the legal consequences and parliamentary powers when martial law is operational in any territory within India.
- Suspension of Fundamental Rights: When martial law is declared, normal civil administration and standard legal processes are suspended, and the military assumes control to restore order. This typically results in the severe curtailment or complete suspension of Fundamental Rights.
- Distinction from National Emergency: Martial law (Article 34) is fundamentally different from a National Emergency (Article 352). A National Emergency has specific constitutional grounds (war, armed rebellion) and applies nationally or regionally, while martial law is a localized military rule imposed strictly to restore broken public order.
- Borrowed Concept: The concept of martial law under Article 34 is borrowed from English common law. It is invoked only under extraordinary circumstances when civil authorities are completely paralyzed by widespread riots, rebellion, or violent resistance to law.
π Fundamental Rights β’ Martial Law
Q.16) Article 34 allows Parliament to indemnify any person in the service of the Union or a State for acts done to maintain or restore order in an area where what is in force?
Ans > Martial Law
- Protection for State Servants: Article 34 specifically empowers the Parliament to pass an ‘Act of Indemnity’. This legal mechanism protects military personnel, police officers, or any government official from legal prosecution for actions taken while martial law was in force.
- Necessity for Restoring Order: The rationale behind this provision is that during periods of extreme breakdown of public order, security personnel may need to take drastic or legally questionable actions to restore peace. Indemnity ensures they are not paralyzed by the fear of future lawsuits.
- Validating Military Sentences: Beyond protecting individuals, Article 34 also allows Parliament to legally validate any sentence passed, punishment inflicted, or forfeiture ordered by military tribunals or authorities operating during the period of martial law.
- Cannot be Challenged: Once an Act of Indemnity is passed by Parliament under Article 34, the actions protected by it cannot be challenged in any court on the ground that they violated the Fundamental Rights of citizens.
π Judiciary β’ Writ Jurisdiction
Q.17) In the L. Chandra Kumar case (1997), the Supreme Court declared that the writ jurisdictions of both the Supreme Court (Article 32) and High Courts (Article 226) constitute a part of the:
Ans > Basic Structure of the Constitution
- Challenge to Administrative Tribunals: The L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India case (1997) directly challenged the constitutional validity of Articles 323A and 323B, which were added during the Emergency by the 42nd Amendment to bypass regular courts.
- Exclusion of High Courts: These inserted articles allowed the creation of specialized administrative tribunals and explicitly excluded the judicial review and writ jurisdiction of the High Courts regarding service matters and other disputes.
- Reaffirming Judicial Review: The Supreme Court delivered a landmark verdict stating that the power of judicial review vested in the High Courts (under Article 226) and the Supreme Court (under Article 32) is an integral and essential feature of the Constitution.
- Basic Structure Doctrine Applied: The Court firmly placed writ jurisdiction within the inviolable “Basic Structure” of the Constitution. Consequently, it struck down the provisions that attempted to bypass the High Courts, ruling that tribunal decisions must remain subject to High Court scrutiny.
π Basic Structure β’ Landmark Cases
Q.18) The 42nd Amendment Act attempted to accord primacy to all Directive Principles over Fundamental Rights. However, the Supreme Court struck this down and restored the balance between the two in which landmark case?
Ans > Minerva Mills Case (1980)
- The Overreach of the 42nd Amendment: During the Emergency, the Indira Gandhi government passed the 42nd Amendment Act (1976). It sought to establish the absolute supremacy of all Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) over the Fundamental Rights (specifically Articles 14, 19, and 21).
- Shielding Laws from Review: The amendment attempted to ensure that any law passed to implement any DPSP could not be challenged in court, effectively making Fundamental Rights subordinate to state policy directives.
- The Supreme Court’s Correction: In the Minerva Mills vs. Union of India case (1980), the Supreme Court struck down this specific constitutional expansion, arguing that giving absolute primacy to one part of the Constitution over another disrupts its fundamental harmony.
- The “Bedrock of Balance”: The Court famously ruled that the Indian Constitution is founded on the “bedrock of balance” between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles. To give absolute primacy to one is to disturb the basic structure of the Constitution.
π Social Justice β’ Reservations
Q.19) Which committee was appointed by the Government of India in 1993 to identify the “creamy layer” among the Other Backward Classes (OBCs) for the purpose of excluding them from reservation?
Ans > Ram Nandan Committee
- Aftermath of the Mandal Commission: Following the implementation of the Mandal Commission report, which controversially granted 27% reservation to Other Backward Classes (OBCs), the Supreme Court upheld the quota in the landmark Indira Sawhney case (1992).
- The Creamy Layer Directive: However, in the same judgment, the Supreme Court mandated that the “creamy layer”βthe socially and economically advanced sections among the OBCsβmust be explicitly excluded from the benefits of this reservation to ensure aid reaches the truly disadvantaged.
- Formation of the Committee: To comply with the Court’s strict directive, the Government of India appointed an expert committee headed by Justice Ram Nandan Prasad in 1993 to devise the methodology for exclusion.
- Establishing Criteria: The Ram Nandan Committee was tasked with establishing the specific economic, occupational, and social criteria (such as income limits, property holdings, and parental status in government service) to accurately identify and exclude this creamy layer from quotas.
π Constitutional Bodies β’ National Commissions
Q.20) The National Commission for Scheduled Castes (Article 338) is a multi-member body consisting of a chairperson, a vice-chairperson, and how many other members?
Ans > Three
- Constitutional Evolution: Originally, Article 338 of the Constitution provided for a single “Special Officer” for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The 65th Amendment Act (1990) replaced this single-officer post with a multi-member National Commission for SCs and STs.
- Bifurcation of the Commission: Recognizing the distinct challenges and geographical differences faced by these groups, the 89th Constitutional Amendment Act of 2003 bifurcated the combined commission into two completely separate constitutional bodies.
- Creation of Separate Bodies: This resulted in the creation of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes under Article 338 and the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes under a newly inserted Article 338A.
- Composition and Appointment: As per Article 338, the National Commission for SCs consists of a Chairperson, a Vice-Chairperson, and exactly three other members. They are all appointed by the President of India by warrant under his hand and seal.
π Scheduled Tribes β’ Presidential Powers
Q.21) Under the Constitution, who is empowered to specify the tribes or tribal communities to be deemed as Scheduled Tribes in relation to a State or Union Territory?
Ans > The President of India (after consultation with the Governor of the state)
- The Presidential Power: Under Article 342 of the Indian Constitution, the President of India is granted the exclusive initial authority to specify which tribes or tribal communities shall be legally recognized as Scheduled Tribes (STs) concerning any specific State or Union Territory.
- Mandatory State Consultation: The President cannot act arbitrarily in this matter. The Constitution explicitly mandates that before issuing a notification regarding the ST list of a specific State, the President must consult with the Governor of that respective State.
- The First Order: Exercising this power, the President issued the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order in 1950, which formed the foundational list of recognized tribes across the country.
- Role of Parliament for Modifications: Crucially, once the President issues the initial notification specifying the ST list, any subsequent inclusions, exclusions, or modifications can only be made by the Parliament of India through a legislative Act. The President cannot alter the list via another executive order.
π Schedules β’ Sixth Schedule
Q.22) Which Schedule of the Constitution specifically contains provisions for the administration of tribal areas in the four northeastern states of Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura, and Mizoram?
Ans > Sixth Schedule
- Protection of Tribal Autonomy: The Sixth Schedule of the Indian Constitution is specifically designed to safeguard the land rights and preserve the unique socio-cultural practices of tribal populations in the specific northeastern states of Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura, and Mizoram (AMTM).
- Contrast with the Fifth Schedule: While the Fifth Schedule deals with the administration of Scheduled Areas and Scheduled Tribes in any state other than the four AMTM states, the Sixth Schedule provides a much higher degree of political and administrative autonomy.
- Creation of Autonomous Districts: The cornerstone of the Sixth Schedule is the creation of Autonomous Districts within these four states. These districts are treated differently from the regular administrative framework of the state.
- Autonomous Regions: If there are different distinct Scheduled Tribes within a single autonomous district, the Governor is empowered to further divide the area into Autonomous Regions, allowing for highly localized self-governance tailored to specific tribal sub-groups.
π Schedules β’ Autonomous Districts
Q.23) Under the Sixth Schedule, the tribal areas in these four states have been constituted as autonomous districts. Each autonomous district council consists of a maximum of how many members?
Ans > 30
- The Engine of Self-Governance: Within the framework of the Sixth Schedule, each autonomous district is governed by an Autonomous District Council (ADC). These councils function as mini-legislatures at the district level, embodying the principle of decentralized democratic governance for tribal communities.
- Fixed Maximum Strength: The Constitution dictates that a standard Autonomous District Council can have a maximum of 30 members. This size is deemed sufficient to provide diverse demographic representation while maintaining administrative efficiency.
- Legislative and Judicial Powers: These 30-member councils are granted significant powers. They can make laws on specified subjects like land, forests, village administration, inheritance of property, and marriage, and even constitute village courts for trials of suits between tribes.
- Exception for Bodoland: While 30 is the standard maximum, the Bodoland Territorial Council (BTC) in Assam is a notable exception. Due to a specific constitutional amendment resulting from a peace accord, the BTC has a much larger council consisting of 46 members.
π Schedules β’ Autonomous Districts
Q.24) Out of the 30 members of an autonomous district council under the Sixth Schedule, 26 are elected on the basis of adult franchise. How are the remaining 4 members chosen?
Ans > Nominated by the Governor
- Democratic Representation: To ensure the Autonomous District Councils reflect the true political will of the tribal population, 26 out of the 30 members are elected directly by the public based on universal adult franchise, similar to state assembly elections.
- The Role of Nomination: The remaining 4 members are not elected but are nominated directly by the Governor of the respective state. This nomination mechanism is designed to ensure the representation of unrepresented minorities or marginalized groups within the district.
- Differing Term Limits: The 26 elected members hold office for a standard term of five years, subject to the early dissolution of the council. This provides a stable democratic mandate.
- Pleasure of the Governor: In stark contrast, the 4 members nominated by the Governor hold their office strictly “during the pleasure of the Governor.” This means their tenure is not fixed, and they can be legally removed by the Governor at any time without a stated reason.
π Union & Territory β’ Article 3
Q.25) A bill seeking to form a new state or alter the boundaries of existing states under Article 3 must be passed by Parliament by a:
Ans > Simple majority
- Article 3 Provisions: Article 3 of the Constitution grants absolute power to the Parliament to form a new State by separating territory from any State, uniting two or more States, or altering the boundaries or names of existing States.
- Prior Presidential Recommendation: The legislative process has a safeguard: a bill contemplating such territorial changes can only be introduced in either house of Parliament with the prior recommendation of the President of India.
- Consulting the State: Before recommending the bill, the President is required to refer it to the concerned state legislature for its views within a specified time limit. However, Parliament is entirely unbound by the state legislature’s views and can ignore them.
- Simple Majority Requirement: The actual passage of the bill in both houses of Parliament (Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha) requires only a simple majorityβthat is, a majority of the members present and voting. It does not require a rigid, special constitutional majority.
π Union & Territory β’ Article 4
Q.26) Which Article explicitly provides that laws made under Article 2 or Article 3 for the admission or formation of new states are NOT to be considered as constitutional amendments under Article 368?
Ans > Article 4
- The Constitutional Bypass: Article 4 acts as a critical facilitator for the reorganization of Indian states. It explicitly states that any law passed under Article 2 (admission of new states) or Article 3 (formation of existing states) shall not be deemed an amendment of the Constitution for the purposes of Article 368.
- Avoiding Rigid Amendment Procedures: Article 368 outlines a rigid process for constitutional amendments, requiring special majorities and sometimes state ratification. By excluding state reorganization from Article 368, the framers made it easier for Parliament to redraw the political map.
- Ordinary Legislative Process: Because of Article 4, Parliament can completely reorganize the internal geography of India using the ordinary legislative process, requiring only a simple majority vote in both houses.
- Consequential Amendments Included: While not treated as a formal Article 368 amendment, a law passed under Article 2 or 3 automatically and legally amends the First Schedule (names of states) and the Fourth Schedule (Rajya Sabha seats) to reflect the newly created boundaries.
π Emergency Provisions β’ Article 355
Q.27) Article 355 imposes a duty on the Union to protect every state against:
Ans > External aggression and internal disturbance
- Federal Obligation: Article 355 establishes a fundamental, non-negotiable duty of the Union government towards the states. It embodies the protective principle of Indian federalism, ensuring that states are not left vulnerable to existential security threats.
- Dual Protection Mandate: The Article specifically mandates that the Union must protect every state against two distinct threats: “external aggression” (such as a foreign invasion or military strike) and “internal disturbance” (such as severe riots or armed rebellion).
- Constitutional Compliance: Beyond physical protection, Article 355 also imposes a duty on the Union to ensure that the government of every State is carried on in strict accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.
- Link to President’s Rule: This duty is inherently linked to the constitutional emergency machinery. If the Union determines that a state cannot handle internal disturbance or is failing constitutionally (as per the duty in 355), it can trigger the imposition of President’s Rule under Article 356.
π Anti-Defection β’ Tenth Schedule
Q.28) Who acts as the final authority to decide whether a member of the Lok Sabha has incurred disqualification under the Tenth Schedule (Anti-Defection Law)?
Ans > The Speaker of the Lok Sabha
- The Adjudicating Authority: The Tenth Schedule of the Constitution, commonly known as the Anti-Defection Law (added by the 52nd Amendment), designates the presiding officer of the respective legislative house as the sole initial adjudicating authority.
- House-Specific Roles: In the case of the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies, this authority rests entirely with the Speaker. For the Rajya Sabha and State Legislative Councils, the authority rests with the Chairman.
- Procedure for Disqualification: The Speaker does not act suo motu (on their own accord). A question regarding the disqualification of a member must be formally raised by another member of the house via a petition submitted to the Speaker with evidence.
- Subject to Judicial Review: Originally, the Tenth Schedule made the Speaker’s decision final and barred court intervention. However, in the landmark Kihoto Hollohan vs. Zachillhu case (1992), the Supreme Court ruled that the Speaker’s final decision is subject to judicial review by the courts.
π Anti-Defection β’ Nominated Members
Q.29) Under the Anti-Defection Law, a nominated member of a House becomes disqualified if they join any political party after the expiry of what period from the date they take their seat?
Ans > 6 months
- Status of Nominated Members: The Constitution allows for the nomination of specific members to certain legislative bodies (like the 12 members nominated to the Rajya Sabha by the President for their special knowledge in arts, science, literature, etc.).
- Initial Non-Affiliation: When nominated, these members are not initially bound by party affiliations and are expected to operate independently based on their expertise.
- The Six-Month Grace Period: The Anti-Defection Law provides a specific six-month window. Within six months of taking their seat in the House, a nominated member is legally free to officially join any political party of their choosing without facing disqualification.
- Triggering Disqualification: However, if a nominated member chooses to officially join a political party after the expiration of this six-month grace period, they immediately attract disqualification under the Tenth Schedule, preventing opportunistic political alignments later in their term.
π Anti-Defection β’ Tenth Schedule
Q.30) Does the Constitution prescribe a specific time limit within which the presiding officer of a House must decide on an anti-defection petition?
Ans > No, there is no time limit prescribed by law (though courts have mandated deciding within a “reasonable time”)
- Statutory Silence: One of the most frequently debated loopholes in the Tenth Schedule is that the constitutional text does not prescribe any specific time limit or deadline within which the presiding officer (Speaker/Chairman) must decide on a disqualification petition.
- The Problem of Political Delay: This legal silence has often been exploited for political gain. Speakers, who are usually affiliated with the ruling party, have been known to delay decisions on defection petitions for months or even years.
- Defeating the Law’s Purpose: This indefinite delay allows defecting MLAs or MPs to continue acting as ministers or voting in the house for the ruling party, effectively defeating the very purpose of the anti-defection law.
- Supreme Court Intervention: To curb this abuse, the Supreme Court, in cases like Keisham Meghachandra Singh vs. The Hon’ble Speaker (2020), ruled that the Speaker must decide on disqualification petitions within a “reasonable time.” The Court explicitly stated that unless there are exceptional circumstances, three months is considered a reasonable time limit.
π Quick Summary β Polity Set 108
- British Acts: Government of India Act of 1919 introduced direct elections and established the first Public Service Commission.
- Statutory Commissions: The Simon Commission was appointed early in 1927.
- Communal Award: Announced by Ramsay MacDonald in 1932.
- Council Abolition: The Government of India Act of 1935 abolished the Council of India.
- Independence: The Indian Independence Bill received royal assent on July 18, 1947.
- Governor-General: C. Rajagopalachari was the first and only Indian Governor-General.
- Interim Government: Liaquat Ali Khan held Finance; Baldev Singh held Defence.
- Election Commission: Sukumar Sen was the first Chief Election Commissioner.
- Lok Sabha: G.V. Mavalankar was the first Speaker; Ananthasayanam Ayyangar was the first Deputy Speaker.
- Trade & Commerce: Part XIII deals with trade; Article 302 allows Parliament to impose restrictions.
- Martial Law: Mentioned under Article 34, allowing Parliament to indemnify state servants.
- Judicial Review: L. Chandra Kumar case placed writ jurisdictions under Basic Structure.
- Basic Structure: Minerva Mills case restored balance between Fundamental Rights and DPSPs.
- Reservations: Ram Nandan Committee (1993) identified the OBC creamy layer.
- National Commissions: SC Commission has a chair, vice-chair, and three members.
- Scheduled Tribes: The President specifies ST lists (Article 342).
- Sixth Schedule: Administers tribal areas in Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura, Mizoram via 30-member autonomous councils.
- Union & Territory: State boundaries altered (Article 3) by simple majority; Article 4 says this isn’t an Article 368 amendment.
- Article 355: Union duty to protect states from external aggression and internal disturbance.
- Anti-Defection: Speaker has final say; Nominated members have 6 months to join a party; No constitutional time limit for decisions.
Timer β³
15:00
Progress (0/30)
Click any card to flip and reveal the summarized answer!
Smart Review: Questions you got wrong appear here for focused study.