[WpProQuiz 50]
Daily Quiz : UPSC Prelims Marathon – March 1
Comments
130 responses to “Daily Quiz : UPSC Prelims Marathon – March 1”
-
2/5
-
You have reached 3 of 5 scores, (60%)
-
q5- president can return the constitutional amedment act… he can’t return only the money bill.
-
4 of 5 questions answered correctly
Your time: 00:04:24
You have reached 4 of 5 scores, (80%)
q1 -
Don’t know what does it mean by not in first question ??♂️
-
5/5
-
Results
4 of 5 questions answered correctlyYour time: 00:02:49
You have reached 4 of 5 scores, (80%)
Average score 45.49%
Your score 80%
CategoriesPo
-
Daily Quiz: March 1
Results
2 of 5 questions answered correctly
Your time: 00:01:42
You have reached 2 of 5 scores,Average score 45.37%
Your score 40% -
thanks aastha !!!
All the best for prelims – I have also read your answers. You write great !!!
Keep persevering hard. -
thank you so much buddy it is really superb explanation….actually I replied to you…but I dont know why it was not showing…today I think of reading it again…then saw..:P 😛
all the best buddy….. 🙂 🙂
-
very nice
-
Thanks fr this ☺
-
But, Q1 statement 2 is correct. DPSP is taken from INSTRUMENT OF INSTRUCTIONS from GoI Act 1935. Wth?
-
😛 thanks for reminding
-
Thanks for sharing. 🙂
By the way, we can only tag those people who have commented in this particular thread.
-
Please tag so that more aspirants can benefit out of it.
-
@night_thinker:disqus@disqus_yES30dl2Js:disqus@ggrwlknl:disqus@Civilserviceaspirant:disqus@disqus_U0PDZMF7yl:disqus@disqus_pPuMkbdzq0:disqus
Sharing a small and crisp piece to sum up the clash of DPSP and FR (For mains exam purpose) https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/42d28e7a503223961e98ceea3a1be6f6d1f6dd1d54666f1f553a74ee4ee4a900.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e90c4ec101eb7089311bbd85f2c7fe516b442eacefcc3eed4939f5a4596ae0b7.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e7f977bf758c33ba08bca5e352caadf43cf5e6f518bed9942cf13d6f57e856e4.jpg
-
Q5 2 &3 shld b d ans
-
yes i feel the same. @forumias please provide explanations to question 1 and 3
-
In Q3, although option 3 is right, ‘non-justiciable’ doesn’t imply it ?
-
Hmm !! you are right
-
but there is a difference between law enforced by court but parliament is free – free is term changing the statement to enforce them by law which can be positive intervention.
-
ok give me your mail id I will help you directly.. in this thing…buddy hope you dont mind I actually we all are running short of time..so either give me your id I will let you know the exact thing…or else no issue…have a nice productive day full of studies..I am also going to study… all the best..
-
Ohh ok …but you know his course is for 3 months and tests start after substantial part of course is done ..so I don’t think in coming three months you will able to do this because of prelims(I mean you can but I am a person who is worried about prelims so giving more time to that)…so either join after prelims… and can read yourself…actually buddy I can help you in some way but I cannot tell it right now…..I am deleting this comment after you read for some reason…dont think I am suspicious ..:p I am way too normal but there is some reason 😛
-
Even i wondered the same thing, but nahi hai seats, that’s the problem. Because it seems that the online students can submit their answers for checking and he is accepting maximum of 250 such candidates in one batch, so these seats have already been taken.
-
ohh that is nice ..I mean about your MBA thing..ok I hope you will figure out someway but I wonder since it is online how come the question of seats come…anyway if you will not find any other suitable option I will tell you some way…
-
Ok thanks. I had enquired about mitra’s classes on neostencil, but there are no more seats for this session. Guess I am a little too late :/ will have to figure it out myself I guess. Anyway thanks for your candidness. 🙂
P.s: My graduation background is economics + finance and post graduation is in social sciences + an MBA, so I actually do have some experience with theoretical subjects. Hope that works in my favour. :p
-
I think you are doing good in GS for both prelims and mains…for philosophy what I can suggest is first go through Patanjali notes…books should be read but first notes so that your studies will be in line with syllabus of upsc otherwise in books initially you may get distracted…for understanding philosophy If you are feeling comfortable then it is good… otherwise…like I was not able to understand properly while I am reading from my own.. so I joined mitra’s online classes via neostancil…like me you are also not from humanities background so our approach is bit changed and initially we find it bit tough to read utterly theoretical subjects…hence you can join mitra for better understanding..online lectures may help to you get it clear with no loss of time as you will be reading in your room with no extra loss of time…then after prelims you can join test series for philo answer writing… all the best
-
3 of 5 scores, 60%
-
Thank ypu that was of great help
-
Nice!
Although I have never given the exam till now, my situation is not very different. I was doing a job after my mba but the job didn’t make me happy so I left my job in August to start my upsc preparations. Joined insights test series right away in September. I’ve given all the test diligently and marks are decent, have also been writing secure answers regularly so im am quite confident of my gs. The problem that is arising is that till 2 weeks back my optional was psir, however two days before the notification was released i decided to be true to my ‘interests’ and changed my optional to philosophy. :p Therefore, I applied the notification with Philo as optional and now I’m realizing I’m even less than zero in this. :p :p Don’t know what to do now, so just asking fellow aspirants about how to go about it. Not sure if I have made a blunder. 🙁 -
4/5
-
hi buddy I am fine…so this is my first genuine attempt at UPSC..I am saying genuine as I have give one attempt just after completing my graduation and while I had also joined a new job(I know UPSC should not be given like that with minimum studies..but anyway I gave and hardly any surprise I did not clear it..). Now I have quit my job, studying only for UPSC from past many months..
As far as strategy is concerned earlier I used to read for both mains and prelims in a balance…also did answer writing for few months…one month on insights as well but as of now focusing more on prelims and optional..reading static +current+ solving quiz/test papers/previous years questions…Will start writing here again from 20th june if everything goes well on 18th june.. _/_
Further about philosophy my situation is not very good…so far I have covered only patanjali + mitra notes…tried reading some books as well but was not able to focus much as I am feeling first be through the notes properly then will do books…I am making notes of philosophy as of now…after prelims I will solve previous years question of philosophy and will join some test series…at the same time I will try to read few books if I find them suitable…this is about me..what about you ??…I will be happy to know
-
Enough!
Wrong answers with no explanations – It will have negative impact on our ongoing preparations.Wont be attempting this quiz now on.
-
Wrong question/answer….que no 1
-
4/5
-
mine too same question wrong, otherwise full! 🙁
-
Hey Aastha, hope you’re doing good! I actually saw a few of your answers on a philosophy optional board. Wanted to know your story regarding how many prelims and mains you have given, + philosophy strategy etc. It would be a huge help 🙂
-
See, In capacity of a constitutional Law Honors scholar, one thing i can say without any fear of contradiction that things like this is open to writ large debate and discussion with differing opinions and interpretations. That is exactly the beauty of our Constitution. Some find their way into the majority opinion, some concurring and some dissenting.
But in capacity of UPSC aspirant, i tried to give the best possible explanation.
-
Thank you for the explanation Bhai, but I think it’s a grey area. I truely appreciate your efforts to provide the best possible explanation 🙂
-
Forumias sabse bada fraud hai saala
-
Bhai, ap bilkul correct ho.
and i am not Supreme court of India, my interpretation is not binding. 😀
I tried to give best possible explanation.Non justiciable with ref to FD:
FD are duties, a moral obligation on citizens to follow. No point of violation. Further, FD can be enforecd by Parlia making it mandatory to follow (Ex. Parliament made law regarding disrespect to National Flag, Right to education etc). Even more, the recent trend shows that SC is directly enforcing FD through cases like Shyam Narayan Chomski vs. Union of India (National Anthem case) -
Am I correct? ForumIAS Please explain if possible.
-
first statement is not correct because it cannot deny to be reasonable if law givg effect to dpsp over fundamental rights
If law tries to give effect to DPSP other than article 39(b) or (c), but it violates FRs – then SC may still consider it to be UNREASONABLE and declare it unconstitutional.
Hence, first statement is correct. Refer to my comment to Aastha Sharma -
I think its because we DPSP was borrowed from Irish Constitution not from the Government of India Act of 1935. So we can guess its not resembled from the Government of India Act of 1935.
-
3/5
-
Bhai, what you think is PERFECTLY CORRECT.
Non – justiciable does not imply – ”positive intervention by Parliament or SC/HC that they can freely enforce law by suitable legislation”
But, what SIMPLEX is saying can only be the reason, if it is, for the answer to be all 3 of them, but I am still not sure. -
I don’t think anyone who prepare these type of questions will think in such a deep manner. the answer would have been all correct if the word ‘in this context’ is used before the meaning of non-justifiable.
-
Hi Aastha,
Let me tell you a story !! Have patience, but it is important to have full knowledge about the issue for understanding it.
Title of the story will be ”Clash of FRs and DPSPs”
– FRs are fundamental – means ”guaranteed and protected by the fundamental law of land”
– DPSPs on the other hand are also fundamental in the governance of the country, but are NON-JUSTICIABLE.It’s the moral responsibility of government to implement DPSPs, but on the other hand they cannot violate FRs.
RESULT – CLASH of SUPREMACY of FRs and DPSPsNow, let us see, which round was dominated by which team (Team FR or Team DPSP)
ROUND 1 :
CHAMPAKAM DORAIRAJAN CASE :
FRs supreme in case of conflict between DPSPs and FRs.
However, Parliament can amend FRs by enacting Constitutional amendment acts.
RESULT : Parliament amended FRs to implement DPSPs.ROUND 2 :
GOLAKNATH CASE (1967) :
SC ruled that Parliament cannot take away or abridge any FR and FRs are sacrosanct.
RESULT : FRs cannot be amended by Parliament.ROUND 3 :
24th CA – Parliament can amend FRs by enacting Constitutional amendment acts.
25th CA –
Article 31C was inserted :
(1) ”No law which seeks to implement DPSP specified in article 39(b) and (c), shall be void on the ground of contravention of the FRs conferred by Article 14, Article 19 or Article 31.
(2) ” No law containing a declaration for giving effect to such policy can be questioned in any court.”RESULT : Parliament in a way snatched powers of ”Judicial review” from SC and HC. To implement Art 39(b) and (c), – if a law violated FRs – it does not make that law ”UNCONSTITUTIONAL”.
ROUND 4 :
Keshvanandan Bharti case (1973) :
First provision of Article 31C was held valid, but second provision of Article 31C was held invalid as it impinged upon basic feature of constitution, namely ”JUDICIAL REVIEW”.
RESULT : To implement Art 39(b) and (c), – if a law violated FRs – it does not make that law ”UNCONSTITUTIONAL”. – But, Court has the power to review any writ petition regarding this.
ROUND 5 :
42nd Constitutional Amendment :
Article 31C – Not only 39(b) or (c), but all the DPSPs included and if Parliament makes law to implement any DPSP and in order violate FR, then such law will not be held unconstitutional.
RESULT : DPSP for the first time was leading battle with FRs.
ROUND 6 :
Minerva Mills Case (1980)
– this extension in Article 31C to include all DPSPs was declared unconstitutional and invalid, however rights confirmed by Article 14 and Art 19 were considered to be subordinate to Article 39(b) and (c).
RESULT : FRs came back with a BANG and DPSPs became subordinate to FRs once again except one exception mentioned in Article 31C.
PRESENT SITUATION :
The Parliament can amend the Fundamental Rights for implementing the Directive Principles, so long as the amendment does not damage the basic structure of the constitution.
So, in nutshell, If law in question seeks to give effect to a Directive Principle of state policy (Art 39 (b) or (c)), SC or HC may consider such law to be reasonable in relation to Article 14 or Article 19 and thus save such law from unconstitutionality.
But, SC / HC may still consider law to be UNREASONABLE if it violates FRs and it does not give effect to Art 39(b) or (c), but other DPSPs.
To implement other DPSPs, government may first need to amend FR and then pass the law, in case such law is violating any FR (provided that basic features are not violated).
(Moreover in Lakshmikanth too, at the starting of chapter, page 8.1 mentions this statement)
Hope it clears your doubt.
-
Q no 3 is wrong
There is legal sanctions against derogation towards national flag and anthem -
5/5 😀
Polity revision paying off finally. -
Can you explain the same with reference to FD’s, because question mentions about DPSP as well as FD’s. I still believe non-justiciable means one cannot approach the court of law in case of non-enforcement. How come enforcement be compared to justiciable
-
unless and until these are not codified.
-
A trifling explanation : It was trick question using the word ‘imply’ and not ‘mean’ that includes an indirect suggestion of the word non justiciable in context of dpsp and fr which covers statement 3 here.
-
no legal sanction against violation of duties and dpsp?..wildlife conervation act,flag code,etc are legal sanctions only.Constitutional sanctions are not there but legal??..Anybody?
-
non justifiable basically means that one cannot go to any court if any law is violated and courts can enforce them but parliament via suitable law can bring change in dpsp by convertg this non justiciable provision to justiciable or even enforce them or bringing dpsp under fundamental rights.
first statement is not correct because it cannot deny to be reasonable if law givg effect to dpsp over fundamental rights.
-
Yes.
-
4/5
-
I thought the same
-
superb explanation (Y)
-
Thanks for the explanation. So basically it comes from the court judgements and interpretations right ?
-
Daily Quiz: March 1
Results
4 of 5 questions answered correctlyYour time: 00:02:00
-
thank you..I get it…even laxmikanth says same as you…all the best…
-
First is wrong, In general any act violating DPSP can be considered reasonable other than article 38
-
I am doubtful about first statement in first question..can you plz share some knowledge about that…second is correct I know…thank you in advance buddy
-
it is dpsp only ..but I am not sure about first statement…what you say about first statement?
-
I think that was fundamental rights not DPSP
-
4 of 5 questions answered correctly
Your time: 00:01:59
You have reached 4 of 5 scores, (80%)
Q.1 needs clarification for statement 2.
-
I didn’t bet u
but parliament can make laws to enforce dpsp .
It is not ‘by default’ that parliament should consider that the legislation will pass the test of JUDICIAL REVIEW.
hope it helps. -
Results….LOL (ques 1 mei kuch Locha hain)….They are playing with Errors, words….but not with Concepts..!! Isse Accha JIO hain….Free mein b acchi quality de rahaa hain…!!
4 of 5 questions answered correctly
Your time: 00:07:29
You have reached 4 of 5 scores, (80%)
-
baat main dum to hai – this is the best possible reasoning for 3rd statement to be correct in 3rd question.
-
Plz ref to my comments on ABG bhai.
-
I mean, it is a famous saying in Constitutional laws around the world that “In a constitution, nothing goes without saying”, meaning thereby, constitution cannot be left to have implications and ‘that goes without saying’ attitude.
Take a point of Art 13 and 368, 2 times out of becoming doubly sure the point have been mentioned thaat Amendment under 368 is not covered under Art 13.
In a similar faashion, whenever Non justiciability is used in ref to DPSP, it becomes a point to mention that despite being enforced by court of law, parliament is free to enforce them by suitable legislation.
Had the meaning of Non justiciaable would have been asked without ref to DPSP, third wala is outrightly rejected, but when meaning of non justiciable is married with DPSP, it becomes a point to mention that parlia can still enforce it.
-
Bhai, Non justiciable means – not legally enforceable by the courts for the violation. when is refered in relation to DPSP, it means that they are not enforceable for violation.
In Many Apex court judgments (Keshu, Raju Ram pal, M nagraj, R C cooper cases), whenever the point of non justiciablity has been used in reference to DPSP and Article 37, the courts have taken a point to reinforce that nonetheless, parliament is free to make laws to enforce through suitable legislation.
So yes, definitely, Non justifiable when used independently would never include third wala point. But when referred in furtherance to DPSP, the courts out of abundant caution have made a point that, OK boss agreed that DPSP is not enforceable by courts, but do not forget that Parlia is still having power to enforce them. -
I think with regard to question no. 3 – although parliament is free to enact the law but this is not the meaning of non-justifiable. The word ‘non-justifiable’ means it does not have legal sanction – that’s all..
-
That’s cool.
-
How does the term Non-justiciable imply statement 3.
-
Q1, #2 is correct
See below from Indian polity, Laxmikant, DPSP chapter first page
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/65c9fb74d4d28f3ed888a0c975fe70ed61b203a0640a23d5b1c3112f48fae550.jpg -
In question no .1 it says if a court ,a court refers to what supreme court high court it is not clear there..there must be supreme court i think
-
Yes i also feel that in Ques 1, both the statement are right
-
Forumias should give explanations ?
-
When the drat of constitution was prepared. Fundamental rights were
divided into two parts, one which is enforceable by way of article 32
and one which is not enforceable. The former came to be known as Part
III (which we refer as FR) and latter became Part IV (DPSP). DPSP are
like instrument of instructions to the government. They are instructions
to the legislature and the executive. They are certainly not
enforceable directly by the courts, but a government which rests on
popular vote can hardly ignore the Directive
Principles while shaping its policy. If any government ignores them, it
will certainly have to answer for that before the electorate at the
election time.Now
with regard the third point in answer, which state that “Parliament is
free to enforce them by suitable legislation”, this comes from Article
37 of the Constitution, which stipulates ‘The provisions contained in
this Part shall not be enforceable by any court, but the principles
therein laid down are nevertheless fundamental in the governance of the
country and it shall be the duty of the State to apply these principles
in making laws.’It is the last line of Article 37 from where it
is interpreted that parliament is free to enforce them through suitable
legislation and which is why DPSP also act as a torch bearer for the
Courts in India to decide the case of constitutionality of any law. -
ABG bhai
When the drat of constitution was prepared. Fundamental rights were divided into two parts, one which is enforceable by way of article 32 and one which is not enforceable. The former came to be known as Part III (which we refer as FR) and latter became Part IV (DPSP). DPSP are like instrument of instructions to the government. They are instructions to the legislature and the executive. They are certainly not enforceable directly by the courts, but a government which rests on popular vote can hardly ignore the Directive
Principles while shaping its policy. If any government ignores them, it
will certainly have to answer for that before the electorate at the
election time.Now with regard the third point in answer, which state that “Parliament is free to enforce them by suitable legislation”, this comes from Article 37 of the Constitution, which stipulates ‘The provisions contained in this Part shall not be enforceable by any court, but the principles therein laid down are nevertheless fundamental in the governance of the country and it shall be the duty of the State to apply these principles in making laws.’
It is the last line of Article 37 from where it is interpreted that parliament is free to enforce them through suitable legislation and which is why DPSP also act as a torch bearer for the Courts in India to decide the case of constitutionality of any law.
-
Yes I agree with both your points
-
Regariding #1 of Q1
I have read that SC validates any law if it’s giving effect to DPSP but not that it may also say it as unreasonble even if DPSP is concerened.
Can anyone state any example/act where SC has stated law unreasonable when govt tries to give effect to DPSP or what are the possible instances where SC can resort to do this?
One such instance may be if it is violating any FR other than Art14 and 19 and also parliament can amend the FRs for implementing the DPSP as long as amendment is not damaging the basic structure. -
Joint sitting is allowed only for ordinary legislation. For Q1, I have marked both statements as ‘correct’ and option d which is wrong. So, I will also wait for someone to clarify. 😀
-
I think both the statement are correct.
-
@rparag:disqus Yes, Parliament is free to enforce DPSP by suitable legislation but is it included in the meaning of non-justiciability is the point.
-
Aren’t both statement correct?
-
Yes, I too applied too same logic.
Third statement is correct in relation to DPSP and FD but in realtion to non-justiciability it doesn’t suit well. -
Can u pls explain question no.3
-
A friend of mine says, egcelinajaitly. 😛 😛
-
3 of 5 questions answered correctly
Your time: 00:02:38
-
I know right!
I have gone through Lakshmikant a good number of times, line by line, par aaj bhi I mark even the simplest and stupidest questions wrong. -
IGJAKTLY 🙂
-
Albert Einstein’s quote “Politics is more difficult than physics.”
The language of our constitution makes it suitable to quote – ”Polity is more difficult than physics.”
Polity looks simple before attempting the paper, but difficult after the answers are out.
JAI POLITY !!! -
Daily Quiz: March 1
Results
4 of 5 questions answered correctly
Your time: 00:01:49
-
The answer provided by Forum is wrong.
-
I have the same views as yours and we marked it identically.
-
same pinch!
-
4/5
-
yaar aise to concepts hill jayenge. Waise hi confidence low rehta hai 😛 🙁
-
Regarding Q1
I suppose the ans should be 1 only as Statement 2 is correct.Q3. You can take the example of Article 45
It was amended by 86th amendment act to give effect to provisions of Right to Education.
So in this way Parliament is free to enforce them by suitable legislation as and when it deems fit as per the availability of resources. -
The answer provided by Forum is not right.
Second statement is not wrong. For Sure 🙂
-
Results
3 of 5 questions answered correctlyYour time: 00:02:47
-
Same here Kunal !!!
I think ‘Non-justiciability’ imply that parliament cannot be compelled to make laws to enforce DPSPs.
If the statement would have been – ” Parliament cannot be compelled to enforce them by suitable legislation.” – it would have been better.
Just a thought, I marked 1 and 2 thinking this. May be I am wrong. So please ForumIAS sir and friends, explain me if there is fault in my reasoning. -
First question, why is the second statement wrong?
-
Results
4 of 5 questions answered correctly -
3/5
Q1 Isn’t this correct ?
Directive Principles resemble the ‘Instrument of Instructions’ enumerated in theGovernment of India Act of 1935.
It’s mentioned in laxmiQ3 . Term non justiciable implies Parliament is free to enforce by suitable legislation ???
Someone plz clarify -
3/5
-
Exactly ?
-
In ,Q1 how both are not correct…anybody pls clarify
-
4/5
-
Parliament is free enforce DPSP by SUITABLE legislation.
Law becomes suitable when it passes through big hurdle JUDICIAL REVIEW
-
thank u sir,i thought joint sitting is a must in case of deadlock
How about question no 1 -
Q-5
Constitution amendment bill can be introduced in any house by any member. *not just a minister*
There is no provision of holding a joint sitting in case of deadlock.
President has no option but to assent to a constitutional amendment bill after it is duly passed by both houses of parliament through special majority (1/2 of total members and 2/3 of present and voting)Hope this helps 🙂
-
I thought so…..
-
Q – 3 how is non-justiciability imply statement 3? Shouldn’t it be only 1&2. Statement 3 as such is factually correct but it is not implied by non-justiciability feature. Can someone clarify pls?
-
Daily Quiz: March 1
Results
3 of 5 questions answered correctlyYour time: 00:03:29
-
4/5 hahaha.
-
Q5 doubt. In some extent 2&3 correct
-
3/5
-
3/5
Quesion 1 the option no 2 is correct not sureabout option 1 thoughAnd i have doubt about question no 5,please anyone;step forward and clarify
-
Daily Quiz: March 1
Results
3 of 5 questions answered correctlyYour time: 00:02:39
You have reached 3 of 5 scores, (60%)
-
Results
3 of 5 questions answered correctlyYour time: 00:04:13
You have reached 3 of 5 scores, (60%)
Average score 20%
Your score 60%
CategoriesPolity60%
Thanks for attempting the Quiz -
You have reached 4 of 5 scores, (80%)
-
4/5
Leave a Reply