Pre-cum-Mains GS Foundation Program for UPSC 2026 | Starting from 5th Dec. 2024 Click Here for more information
Daily Quiz: April 17, 2019
Test-summary
0 of 7 questions completed
Questions:
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
Information
Click on ‘Start Test’ button to start the Quiz.
Click Here For More Details on Prelims Marathon
All the Best!
You have already completed the test before. Hence you can not start it again.
Test 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 7 questions answered correctly
Your time:
Time has elapsed
You have reached 0 of 0 scores, (0)
| Average score | |
| Your score | |
Categories
- Not categorized 0%
- Polity 0%
- polity 0%
- polity 0%
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Answered
- Review
- Question 1 of 7
1. Question
1 pointsConsider the following statements:
- Parliament and state legislatures can restrict the fundamental rights of the members of armed forces.
- Law restricting fundamental rights of armed forces cannot be challenged in any court.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Correct
Article 33 empowers the Parliament to restrict or abrogate the FR of the members of armed forces, para military forces, police forces, intelligence agencies and analogous forces. This power is conferred only on Parliament and not on state legislatures.
Any such law made by Parliament cannot be challenged in any court on the ground of contravention of any of the Fundamental Rights.
A parliamentary law enacted under Article 33 can also exclude the court martials (tribunals established under the military law) from the writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the high courts, so far as the enforcement of Fundamental Rights is concerned.
Incorrect
Article 33 empowers the Parliament to restrict or abrogate the FR of the members of armed forces, para military forces, police forces, intelligence agencies and analogous forces. This power is conferred only on Parliament and not on state legislatures.
Any such law made by Parliament cannot be challenged in any court on the ground of contravention of any of the Fundamental Rights.
A parliamentary law enacted under Article 33 can also exclude the court martials (tribunals established under the military law) from the writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the high courts, so far as the enforcement of Fundamental Rights is concerned.
- Question 2 of 7
2. Question
1 pointsCategory: PolityConsider the following statements regarding Rajya Sabha elections:
- There is no model code of conduct for the elections of Rajya Sabha.
- All the members of a state legislative assembly take part in voting.
- All the states have equal representation in Rajya Sabha.
Select the correct answer using the code given below.
Correct
There is no concept of model code of conduct for Rajya Sabha elections.
The representatives of states in the Rajya Sabha are elected by the elected members of state legislative Assemblies (not nominated members). The election is held with the system of proportional representation by means of single transferable vote. The seats are allotted to the states on the basis of population, hence states have varying representation in Rajya Sabha. Out of seven UTs, only two (Delhi and Pondicherry) have representation in Rajya Sabha. States do not have equal representation in Rajya Sabha
Incorrect
There is no concept of model code of conduct for Rajya Sabha elections.
The representatives of states in the Rajya Sabha are elected by the elected members of state legislative Assemblies (not nominated members). The election is held with the system of proportional representation by means of single transferable vote. The seats are allotted to the states on the basis of population, hence states have varying representation in Rajya Sabha. Out of seven UTs, only two (Delhi and Pondicherry) have representation in Rajya Sabha. States do not have equal representation in Rajya Sabha
- Question 3 of 7
3. Question
1 pointsCategory: PolityConsider the following statements about Tribunals:
- Tribunals can be established both by the Parliament and the State legislatures.
- Judicial remedies are available against the orders of tribunals.
- Administrative tribunal is guided by the principals of natural justice.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Correct
The original Constitution did not contain provisions with respect to tribunals. The 42nd Amendment Act of 1976 added a new Part XIV-A to the Constitution entitled as ‘Tribunals’ and consists of two Articles- 323 A dealing with administrative tribunals and 323 B dealing with tribunals for other matters.
While tribunals under 323 A can be established only by Parliament, those under 323 B can be established both by the Parliament and state legislatures with respect to matters falling within their legislative competence.
In Chandra Kumar case, the Supreme Court declared those provisions of these two articles which excluded the jurisdiction of the high courts and the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. Hence, the judicial remedies are now available against the orders of these tribunals.
The Central Administrative tribunal is not bound by the procedure laid down in the Civil ProcedureCode of 1908. It is guided by the principles of natural justice.
Incorrect
The original Constitution did not contain provisions with respect to tribunals. The 42nd Amendment Act of 1976 added a new Part XIV-A to the Constitution entitled as ‘Tribunals’ and consists of two Articles- 323 A dealing with administrative tribunals and 323 B dealing with tribunals for other matters.
While tribunals under 323 A can be established only by Parliament, those under 323 B can be established both by the Parliament and state legislatures with respect to matters falling within their legislative competence.
In Chandra Kumar case, the Supreme Court declared those provisions of these two articles which excluded the jurisdiction of the high courts and the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. Hence, the judicial remedies are now available against the orders of these tribunals.
The Central Administrative tribunal is not bound by the procedure laid down in the Civil ProcedureCode of 1908. It is guided by the principles of natural justice.
- Question 4 of 7
4. Question
1 pointsCategory: polityWhich of the following writs is/are issued against judicial or quasi-judicial authorities only?
- Prohibition
- Certiorari
- Quo-warranto
Select the correct answer using the code given below.
Correct
Prohibition is the only writ which is issued against judicial or quasi-judicial authorities only. It is issued by higher court to lower court to prevent the latter from exceeding its jurisdiction.
Certiorari: It is issued by higher court to a lower court or administrative authority over excess of jurisdiction or error of law.
Quo warranto: It is issued by the court to enquire into the legality over a public office claimed by an individual. It cannot be issued against ministerial office or private office. Ministerial office or private office.
Incorrect
Prohibition is the only writ which is issued against judicial or quasi-judicial authorities only. It is issued by higher court to lower court to prevent the latter from exceeding its jurisdiction.
Certiorari: It is issued by higher court to a lower court or administrative authority over excess of jurisdiction or error of law.
Quo warranto: It is issued by the court to enquire into the legality over a public office claimed by an individual. It cannot be issued against ministerial office or private office. Ministerial office or private office.
- Question 5 of 7
5. Question
1 pointsCategory: polityUnder the Third Schedule of the Indian Constitution, forms of Oaths or Affirmations are given for which of the following?
- The Union Minister
- The Comptroller and Auditor General of India
- The Election Commissioner of India
- Chairman of Panchayat
Select the correct answer using the code given below.
Correct
THIRD SCHEDULE
Form of oath of office for a Minister for the Union
Form of oath of secrecy for a Minister for the Union
Form of oath or affirmation to be made by a candidate for election to Parliament
Form of oath or affirmation to be made by a member of Parliament
Form of oath or affirmation to be made by the Judges of the Supreme Court and the Comptroller and Auditor-General of India
Form of oath of office for a Minister for a State
Form of oath of secrecy for a Minister for a State
Form of oath or affirmation to be made by a candidate for election to the Legislature of a State
Form of oath or affirmation to be made by a member of the Legislature of a State
Form of oath or affirmation to be made by the Judges of a High Court
Incorrect
THIRD SCHEDULE
Form of oath of office for a Minister for the Union
Form of oath of secrecy for a Minister for the Union
Form of oath or affirmation to be made by a candidate for election to Parliament
Form of oath or affirmation to be made by a member of Parliament
Form of oath or affirmation to be made by the Judges of the Supreme Court and the Comptroller and Auditor-General of India
Form of oath of office for a Minister for a State
Form of oath of secrecy for a Minister for a State
Form of oath or affirmation to be made by a candidate for election to the Legislature of a State
Form of oath or affirmation to be made by a member of the Legislature of a State
Form of oath or affirmation to be made by the Judges of a High Court
- Question 6 of 7
6. Question
1 pointsCategory: polityWhich of the following is/are not allowed for further office either in center or state after they ceases to hold their respective offices?
- Chief Election Commissioner
- CAG
- Advocate General
- Chairpersons of National Commission of Scheduled Castes
Select the correct answer using the codes given below.
Correct
CAG is the only constitutional post which are not allowed for further office either with the centre or state after they ceases their offices.
Incorrect
CAG is the only constitutional post which are not allowed for further office either with the centre or state after they ceases their offices.
- Question 7 of 7
7. Question
1 pointsCategory: polityAs per the Constitution of India, which of the following is/are the grounds to impose President’s rule in a state?
- When the State government is not able to govern in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution
- When the State government fails to comply with the directions given by the Centre
- When there is persistence of corruption cases in the administration
Select the correct answer using the code given below.
Correct
The President’s rule can be proclaimed under Article 356 on two grounds- one mentioned in Article 356 itself and another in Artile 365. Article 356 empowers the President to issue a proclamation, if he is
satisfied that a situation has arisen in which the government of a state cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the constitution. Notable, the President can act wither on a report by the Governor of the state of otherwise too.
Article 365 says that whenever a state fails to comply with or to give effect to any direction from the Centre, it will be lawful for the President to hold that a situation has arisen in which the state government cannot be carries on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.
As per various supreme court rulings, persistence of corruption can’t be a criteria for imposing president rule in a state.
Incorrect
The President’s rule can be proclaimed under Article 356 on two grounds- one mentioned in Article 356 itself and another in Artile 365. Article 356 empowers the President to issue a proclamation, if he is
satisfied that a situation has arisen in which the government of a state cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the constitution. Notable, the President can act wither on a report by the Governor of the state of otherwise too.
Article 365 says that whenever a state fails to comply with or to give effect to any direction from the Centre, it will be lawful for the President to hold that a situation has arisen in which the state government cannot be carries on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.
As per various supreme court rulings, persistence of corruption can’t be a criteria for imposing president rule in a state.
