Daily Quiz: UPSC Prelims Marathon – March 6, 2019

The Central Information Commission was established by the Central Government in 2005. It was constituted through an Official Gazette Notification under the provisions of the Right to Information Act (2005). Hence, it is not a constitutional body. The Commission consists of a Chief Information Commissioner and not more than ten Information Commissioners. They are appointed by the President on the recommendation of a committee consisting of the Prime Minister as Chairperson, the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha and a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister. The Chief Information Commissioner and an Information Commissioner hold office for a term of 5 years or until they attain the age of 65 years, whichever is earlier. They are not eligible for reappointment. The President can remove the Chief Information Commissioner or any Information Commissioner on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity.

NHRC (National Human Rights Commission) consists of:

• A Chairperson, retired Chief Justice of India
• One Member who is, or has been, a Judge of the Supreme Court of India
• One Member who is, or has been, the Chief Justice of a High Court
• Two Members to be appointed from among persons having knowledge of, or practical experience in, matters relating to human rights
• In addition, the Chairpersons of four National Commissions of ( 1.Minorities 2.SC and ST 3.Women) serve as ex officious members.

Hence option 1 is incorrect.

National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) of India is an autonomous public body. It is a statutory body. Its recommendations carry great value, but are not binding in nature.

Hence statement 2 is correct

Chairperson and members of the NHRC are appointed by the President of India, on the recommendation of a committee consisting of:

• The Prime Minister (chairperson)
• The Home Minister
• The Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha (House of the People)
• The Leader of the Opposition in the Rajya Sabha (Council of States)
• The Speaker of the Lok Sabha (House of the People)
• The Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha (Council of States)

Ranks of some of the persons in Table of Precedence

1. President
2. Vice-President
3. Prime Minister
4. Governors of States within their respective States
5. Former Presidents 5A. Deputy Prime Minister
6. Chief Justice of India Speaker of Lok Sabha
7. Cabinet Ministers of the Union. Chief Ministers of States within their respective States Deputy Chairman, Planning Commission Former Prime Ministers Leaders of Opposition in Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha 7A. Holders of Bharat Ratna decoration
8. Ambassadors Extraordinary & Plenipotentiary and High Commissioners of Commonwealth countries accredited to India; Governors of States outside their respective States; Chief Ministers of States outside their respective States
9. Judges of the Supreme Court
10. Deputy Chairman of Rajya Sabha
11. Attorney General of India 
12. Members of Parliament

By 26th amendment Government decided to terminate the privy purses and privileges of the Rulers of former Indian States. Hence option 1 is correct.

21st Amendment of the Constitution of India amended the Eighth Schedule to the Constitution so as to include Sindhi as one of the languages, thereby raising the total number of languages listed in the schedule to fifteen.Hence option 2 is incorrect

51st amendment was to provide reservation to Scheduled Tribes in Nagaland, Meghalaya, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assemblies. Hence option 3 is incorrect.

Anti defection law was introduced by 52nd Constitutional amendment act. 91st amendment added the words “or co-operative societies” after the word “or unions” in Article 19(l)(c) and insertion of article 43B i.e., Promotion of Co-operative Societies. Hence option 4 is correct.

Article 341 The President may with respect to any State or Union Territory and where it is a State after consultation with the Governor thereof, by public notification specify the castes, races or tribes or parts of or groups within castes, races or tribes which shall for the purposes of this Constitution be deemed to be Scheduled Castes in relation to that State . or Union Territory.

Article 342 The President may with respect to any State or. Union Territory and where it is a State, after consultation with the Governor thereof by public notification, specify the tribes or tribal communities or parts of or groups within tribes or tribal communities which shall for the purpose of this Constitution be deemed to be Scheduled Tribes in relation to that State or Union Territory, as the case may be.

Money Bills are those Bills which contain only provisions dealing with all or any of the matters specified in sub-clauses (a) to (f) of clause (1) of article 110 of the Constitution.

As per the provisions of article 109 of the Constitution, the Rajya Sabha has limited powers with respect to Money Bills.  A Money Bill after having been passed by the Lok Sabha, and sent to Rajya Sabha for its recommendations, has to be returned to Lok Sabha by the Rajya Sabha, with in a period of fourteen days from the date of its receipt, with or without recommendations.

It is open for the Lok Sabha, to either accept or reject all or any of the recommendations of the Rajya Sabha.

1. If the Lok Sabha accepts any of the recommendations of the Rajya Sabha, the Money Bill is deemed to have been passed by both Houses with the amendments recommended by the Rajya Sabha and accepted by the Lok Sabha.
2. If the Lok Sabha does not accept any of the recommendations of the Rajya Sabha, the Money Bill is deemed to have been passed by both Houses in the form in which it was passed by the Lok Sabha without any of the amendments recommended by the Rajya Sabha.

In case a Money Bill is not returned by the Rajya Sabha to the Lok Sabha within a period of fourteen days from the date of its receipt, it is deemed to have been passed by both Houses in the form in which it was passed by the Lok Sabha after the expiry of said period.

The Supreme Court in Kesavananda Bharati Case declared that Art.368 did not enable the Parliament to alter the basic structure or framework of the Constitution and Parliament could not use its amending power under Art.368 to ‘damage’, ’emasculate’, ‘destroy’, ‘abrogate’, ‘change’ or ‘alter’ the ‘basic structure’ or framework of the Constitution. In Golaknath v. State Of Punjab, or simply the Golaknath case, Supreme Court ruled that Parliament could not curtail any of the Fundamental Rights in the Constitution. In  Sankari Prasad Singh Deo and Sajjan Singh cases Supreme Court upheld the power of Parliament to amend any part of the Constitution including fundamental rights.