Daily Quiz: UPSC Prelims Marathon – December 6

In 1963, the State of Nagaland was formed by taking the Naga Hills and Tuensang area out of the state of Assam.

In 1966, the State of Punjab was bifurcated to create Haryana, the 17th state of the Indian Union, and the union territory of Chandigarh.

In 1971, the union territory of Himachal Pradesh was elevated to the status of a state (18th state of the Indian Union).

In 1972, the political map of Northeast India underwent a major change.Thus, the two Union Territories of Manipur and Tripura and the Sub-State of Meghalaya got statehood and the two union territories of Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh (originally known as North-East Frontier Agency—NEFA) came into being. With this, the number of states of the Indian Union increased to 21 (Manipur 19th, Tripura 20th and Meghalaya 21st).

Statement 1 is correct:

The Directive Principles resemble the ‘Instrument of Instructions’ enumerated in the Government of India Act of 1935. In the words of Dr B R Ambedkar, ‘the Directive Principles are like the instrument of instructions, which were issued to the Governor-General and to the Governors of the colonies of India by the British Government under the Government of India Act of 1935. What is called Directive Principles is merely another name for the instrument of instructions. The only difference is that they are instructions to the legislature and the executive’.

Statement 2 is Incorrect:

The Directive Principles are non-justiciable in nature, that is, they are not legally enforceable by the courts for their violation. Therefore, the government (Central, state and local) cannot be compelled to implement them. Nevertheless, the Constitution (Article 37) itself says that these principles are fundamental in the governance of the country and it shall be the duty of the State to apply these principles in making laws.

Statement 3 is correct:

The Directive Principles, though non-justiciable in nature, help the courts in examining and determining the constitutional validity of a law. The Supreme Court has ruled many a times that in determining the constitutionality of any law, if a court finds that the law in question seeks to give effect to a Directive Principle, it may consider such law to be ‘reasonable’ in relation to Article 14 (equality before law) or Article 19 (six freedoms) and thus save such law from unconstitutionality.

Article 262 of the Constitution provides for the adjudication of inter-state water disputes. It makes two provisions:

(i) Parliament may by law provide for the adjudication of any dispute or complaint with respect to the use, distribution and control of waters of any inter-state river and river valley.

(ii) Parliament may also provide that neither the Supreme Court nor any other court is to exercise jurisdiction in respect of any such dispute or complaint.

Under this provision, the Parliament has enacted two laws [the River Boards Act (1956) and the Inter-State Water Disputes Act (1956)]. The River Boards Act provides for the establishment of river boards for the regulation and development of inter-state river and river valleys. A river board is established by the Central government on the request of the state governments concerned to advise them. The Inter-State Water Disputes Act empowers the Central government to set up an ad hoc tribunal for the adjudication of a dispute between two or more states in relation to the waters of an inter-state river or river valley. The decision of the tribunal would be final and binding on the parties to the dispute. Neither the Supreme Court nor any other court is to have jurisdiction in respect of any water dispute which may be referred to such a tribunal under this Act. The need for an extra judicial machinery to settle inter-state water disputes is as follows: “The Supreme Court would indeed have jurisdiction to decide any dispute between states in connection with water supplies, if legal rights or interests are concerned; but the experience of most countries has shown that rules of law based upon the analogy of private proprietary interests in water do not afford a satisfactory basis for settling disputes between the states where the interests of the public at large in the proper use of water supplies are involved.”

Inter-State Council consists of the following members:

(i) Prime minister as the Chairman

(ii) Chief ministers of all the states

(iii) Chief ministers of union territories having legislative assemblies

(iv) Administrators of union territories not having legislative assemblies

(v) Governors of States under President’s rule

(vi) Six Central cabinet ministers, including the home minister, to be nominated by the Prime Minister.

Five Ministers of Cabinet rank / Minister of State (independent charge) nominated by the Chairman of the Council (i.e., Prime Minister) are permanent invitees to the Council.

Effects of National Emergency on the Centre–State Relations:

While a proclamation of Emergency is in force, the normal fabric of the Centre–state relations undergoes a basic change. This can be studied under three heads, namely, executive, legislative and financial.

(a) Executive: During a national emergency, the executive power of the Centre extends to directing any state regarding the manner in which its executive power is to be exercised. In normal times, the Centre can give executive directions to a state only on certain specified matters. However, during a national emergency, the Centre becomes entitled to give executive directions to a state on ‘any’ matter. Thus, the state governments are brought under the complete control of the Centre, though they are not suspended.

(b) Legislative: During a national emergency, the Parliament becomes empowered to make laws on any subject mentioned in the State List. Although the legislative power of a state legislature is not suspended, it becomes subject to the overriding power of the Parliament. Thus, the normal distribution of the legislative powers between the Centre and states is suspended, though the state Legislatures are not suspended. In brief, the Constitution becomes unitary rather than federal. The laws made by Parliament on the state subjects during a National Emergency become inoperative six months after the emergency has ceased to operate. Notably, while a proclamation of national emergency is in operation, the President can issue ordinances on the state subjects also, if the Parliament is not in session. Further, the Parliament can confer powers and impose duties upon the Centre or its officers and authorities in respect of matters outside the Union List, in order to carry out the laws made by it under its extended jurisdiction as a result of the proclamation of a National Emergency. The 42nd Amendment Act of 1976 provided that the two consequences mentioned above (executive and legislative) extends not only to a state where the Emergency is in operation but also to any other state.

(c) Financial: While a proclamation of national emergency is in operation, the President can modify the constitutional distribution of revenues between the centre and the states. This means that the president can either reduce or cancel the transfer of finances from Centre to the states. Such modification continues till the end of the financial year in which the Emergency ceases to operate. Also, every such order of the President has to be laid before both the Houses of Parliament.

The judicial powers and functions of the President are:

(a) He appoints the Chief Justice and the judges of Supreme Court and high courts.

(b) He can seek advice from the Supreme Court on any question of law or fact. However, the advice tendered by the Supreme Court is not binding on the President.

(c) He can grant pardon, reprieve, respite and remission of punishment, or suspend, remit or commute the sentence of any person convicted of any offence:

• In all cases where the punishment or sentence is by a court martial;
• In all cases where the punishment or sentence is for an offence against a Union law; and
• In all cases where the sentence is a sentence of death.

Statement 1 is correct:

Municipality has three authorities, namely, the council, the standing committees and the chief executive officer.

The council is the deliberative and legislative wing of the municipality. It consists of the councillors directly elected by the people. The council is headed by a president/chairman. He is assisted by a vice-president/vice-chairman. He presides over the meetings of the council.

Statement 2 is incorrect:

Unlike the Mayor of a municipal corporation, he plays a significant role and is the pivot of the municipal administration. Apart from presiding over the meetings of the Council, he enjoys executive powers. The standing committees are created to facil-itate the working of the council. They deal with public works, taxation, health, finance and so on.

Statement 3 is correct:

The chief executive officer/chief municipal officer is responsible for day-to-day general administration of the municipality. He is appointed by the state government.