[WpProQuiz 44]
Daily Quiz : UPSC Prelims Marathon – February 22
Comments
108 responses to “Daily Quiz : UPSC Prelims Marathon – February 22”
-
0/5
-
Daily Quiz: February 22
Results
1 of 5 questions answered correctly
Your time: 00:02:13
You have reached 1 of 5 scores, (20%) -
You have reached 3 of 5 scores, (60%)
-
its clear
but its too micro to read between line n upsc does gives so minute eng comprehension in exam gs paper
-
3/5 , Time 2:02
Learning – Read the question carefully and don’t be in a hurry
1. ‘Right against bundh called by a political party or organisation’ is covered under – Right to form associations or unions or co-operative societies. Marked wrong as I did not emphasize on “Political Party”
2. Prohibition of Discrimination under article 15 – OBC Quota Act was enacted under this article. -
2/5
-
i think Q3 has some problem
can anyone explain? -
Very nice questions asked….
-
See, what firms do is to RESIDE in TAX HAVEN nations (such as Cyprus, Mauritius, etc) and have PRODUCTION in SOURCE nations such as India, so that they would avoid taxation in SOURCE nations, where taxes are RELATIVELY HIGH and have to pay low taxes in RESIDENCE NATION.
New DTAA provides that TAXATION will take place where there is SOURCE of PRODUCTION.
I hope it is clear now -
– Are available against all of the arbitrary actions of private individuals
Please take care of – ” ALL ARBITRARY ACTIONS of individuals” – if it would not have been ALL – 2 would have been correct.
Right against UNTOUCHABILITY – If pvt individual is engaged in such practice as considered to be defined as UNTOUCHABILITY under art 17 – then that individual will be under scanner of violation of FR.
But, let’s say pvt firm does not provide equal opportunity to candidates – it does not employ you, but you are more capable than others – it is a part of ARBITRARY ACTION by that firm – then for this ARBITRARY ACTION , you do not have FR as per article 16.
Wording of article 16 – it provides for equality of opportuniy for all citizens in matters of employment or appointment or office under the STATE.I hope, I made it clear for you.
-
EXPLAIN HIGHLIGHTED potion https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/eae2888650e212a866a7b9facded45e6329fd27dcd2bfc38db90108c265f2a2d.png
-
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/eae2888650e212a866a7b9facded45e6329fd27dcd2bfc38db90108c265f2a2d.png PLEASE EXPLAIN HIGHLIGHTED POORTION
-
PLEASE EXPLAIN HIGHLIGHTED PORTION
-
can u plz elaborate q2 fr r availablle against pvt individuals 2
-
both r correct
read article 13(3) law includes any Ordinance, order, bye law, rule, regulation, notification, custom or usages having in the territory of India the force of law; laws in force includes laws passed or made by Legislature or other competent authority in the territory of India before the commencement of this Constitution and not previously repealed, notwithstanding that any such law or any part thereof may not be then in operation either at all or in particular areas
-
Q 2 FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS ARE ALSO AVAILABLE AGAINST ARBITRARY ACTION BY PVT INDIVIDUALS
-
HI all 🙂
Why q5 is not b as well? -
4 out of 5 correct today
-
Yes it’s possible I think .not sure though.
-
Interesting. Thanks for the clarification.
-
Sorry Q no . 3 is answered wrongly
-
Q no 2 answered wrongly
-
Yes. Constitutional Amendment is not a law and can be used to curtail FR; Article 13 (4). Constitutional Amendment can not be challenged for mere infringement of rights unless those rights for a part of basic structure.
-
Laws apply within the territory of country. If an alien commits crime in India, he/she will be tried under India law, excepts for people having diplomatic immunity. Italian marine case is in example; India asserts the shooting took place in India’s territorial waters, hence marines will face trail in India. Italy claimed the shooting tool place in international waters, hence they will be tried at home.
Article 14 mentions persons (hence covering foreigners) while 15, 16, 19, 29 and 30 use the word citizen.
-
Yes lord u are right.. some misunderstanding i had wrt that.. ordinance are laws and in no way can the ordinance abridge our funtamental rights too..
In context of repromulgation, it is exe overreach.. thanks????
And wrt to art15,16,19,29,30- they are explicitly stated in the articles in question itself, if u go thru the article text.. -
3/5…… 60%
-
They are not suspended during the operation of National emergency, but the right to move to the court in case these Fundamental rights are violated is suspended as per the order of President (Article 359).
3rd one is obviously wrong – Article 17 : Right against UNTOUCHABILITY is available against arbitrary action of individuals also. -
3,4 and 5 …u think the answers to these questions are correct ?
-
Q4 .answer should be all of above.
-
Phhod dia Maine…..
“ZERO”…….if there had been Negative Marking……toh “NEGATIVE”…!! -
> Quota Act is a central act, certainly must refer to employment as education quotas also depend on state laws.
> q3 should be answer (a) [ 1 only]
-
1. yes it applies to foreigners, so constitution maintains difference between citizen and person in FR’s
2. OBC in Educational institutions through 15(4) and employment through 16(4)
3. No problem with ordinance question as they can be voided also, only problem with CA -
You are right, after SC judgement on Keshavananda Bharati, Parliament has power to take away FR only in consistence with Basic Doctrine, i just thought of golaknath case and marked it, and unfortunately forum also made mistake and i got 5 correct 😀
-
Results
5 of 5 questions answered correctlyYour time: 00:02:52!!
Yesterday full, today also!! something is wrong with me! two back to back all correct! 😀
-
2/5
-
sir ji optional?
i vaguely rem pol sc hai shayd?Ans write krenge till march?kum se kum paper 1 k pyq ho jayenge.i fail to keep momentum going. -
3/5
-
Thanks @Niharika:disqus for reply, got the second part.
What about the first part? As parliament can make laws to enforce the DPSP and then violation of this law which is inspired from DPSP becomes enforceable. For example 73rd and 74th amendment act to give effect to panchayati raj and munisipality respectively. WDYT??? -
oh thanks for drawing attention to this.ye additional requriement wali baat notice nhi ki thi.
another conclusion would be not all fundamental rights are part of basic structure.. -
Your time: 00:01:07
You have reached 2 of 5 scores, (40%)
-
4/5
-
ans me to both hi dia hai..
-
DPSP are non justiciable in nature that is they are not enforceable by the courts for their violation. Justiciable and enforceable are the same I think .
-
which are the doubtful answers bhai?
-
Q3 , answer should be both .
Laws inconsistent with FRs include : temporary laws like ordinances and also SC ruled in Kesavanada case that a constitutional amendment can be challenged if it violates any FRs which from the ‘Basic structure’ – Freedom , Principle of equality -
Results
4 of 5 questions answered correctlyYour time: 00:06:40
prabhu !
aaj to sab kuch alag hai sab kuch naya hai wali feel aa gyi -
Helo guys..Need your help in understanding the below question ——–
With reference to the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP), consider the following statement
1. They are non-enforceable by law but, justiciable in nature
Is this true or false? If true then what is the explanation of “justiciable in nature”??
-
Results
0 of 5 questions answered correctlyYour time: 00:03:30
-
Results
3 of 5 questions answered correctlyYour time: 00:02:22
You have reached 3 of 5 scores, (60%)
Average score 27.11%
Your score 60%
CategoriesPolity60%
Thanks for attempting the Quiz -
we are not here to ratufy the bare act with secs, read Lakmikanth !
-
Daily Quiz: February 22
Results
2 of 5 questions answered correctlyYour time: 00:01:36
But m sure :
answer to 3, 4 and 5 should be a,b and a respc -
Daily Quiz: February 22
Results
2 of 5 questions answered correctly
Your time: 00:01:32
Kal mains mein nahi hua. Aj polity mein 2 marks.
Retirement ka waqt agya hai lagta hai. 🙁
-
Results
2 of 5 questions answered correctly
? -
Agreed. But where in the Constitution is it mentioned? I can’t recall which section, please cite.
-
13(3):: “…unless the context otherwise requires law includes any Ordinance, order, bye law, rule, regulation, notification, custom or usages having in the territory of India the force of law.”
Ordinances are laws independently, whether or not they are approved. The day they are taken away is the day Central Government loses all control on States and India’s federal polity collapses.
And you have wrong information. SC hasn’t ruled any such thing on ordinances.
SC has only ruled that repromulgating ordinances without getting them passed is executive overreach, definitely not a true ban yet.
-
Right against bundh called by a political party or organisation
Logically, yes there is some kind of association formation. Whether one wants to join this association (as a means of protest) or not – is FR of a person. Your logic looks solid.
I was just going through Lakshmikanth – there it is given under implicit meanings of ”Freedom of speech and expression” – It can also be thought of as an expression of person – not to support any political bundh.
Let some polity specialist clarify -
Logically bandhs are some sort of association in which everyone agrees for ex to not open their shops no trading etc.
I marked c for it n got it right..But I’m still not sure!! -
1st, 3rd and 4th questions — I think the answers provided are not right.
-
Results
2 of 5 questions answered correctlyYour time: 00:02:54
-
Keshvanandan Bharti case – SC held Art 24 as valid – which stated that word ‘LAW’ does not include Const amendment. But additional requirement was CA should not violate basic features of the constitution.
So, answer should be A
So, if wordings of judgement are carefully interpreted, one can come to the conclusion, that Law does not include const amendment.
You can read it further in laksmikanth – chapter on Amendment to the constitution – BASIC STRUCTURE Doctrine evolution. -
1) eg : the ordinance saying that 500n1000 note would not be liability……
-
I think both 1 n 2 should be answer.
1) if ordinances are not laws then how come demonetization took place.
2) if CA is not law then how can SC say that it can be declared as null and void -
😛
-
A) our constitution explicitly mentions article 15,16,19,29,30 to be exclusive to the citizens and not foreigners.. they apply to them as our constitution beleives in equality before law, equal protection of law irrespective of person belonging to any religion,race, caste sex, birth place
-
High5! 😛
-
Mere se aap dono theek ho 😛
-
Ordinances become laws recognised under article 13 once approved by the parliament.. they are not laws independently.. this can be linked to the ongoing debate wrt the executive intruding in the parliamentary powers by repromulgating the ordinances, tht sc clearly mandated to be unconstitutional..
-
this test proves that i am yet to be thorough with even fundamental rights >> laxmikanth here i come!!
-
Question has two themes , if stressed on is it law or not , yes constitutional amendment is not a law , but soul of article 13 is making such laws void which are such , in keshvanand bharti case S.C said that they can be declared void if violating fundamental right.
-
except minority institutions, not including them – read full statement
-
also in q4…2nd option should also be correct as lakshmi page 7.6 says exception to this rule for making special procision for advancement of social and educational backward class
-
Please provide explanation also .. it will a nice additions
-
Constitutional amendment comes under doctrine of basic structure
-
I think most answers are given wrong today.
-
And in Q 4 thre should option 2&3
-
Article 13 (3) : Ordinances shall be treated as laws.
-
Dont worry ..we are all learning here ?
-
1/5
-
q1. Does A-14 apply to foreigners? How can foreigners be tried under Indian law?
q3. Ordinances are laws. A-13(3) to the rescue. 100% wrong answer.
q4. Pretty sure OBC quota was under A-16. 100% wrong answer.
q5. Which judgement? Where’s the source? Logically should be (b)So A N G E R Y
-
i think answer should be c as in lakshikant p-7.3…..says that in savananda bharti case 1973 the constitution amendment can be challenged on ground of violation of FR that forms part of basic structure….
-
ditto
-
Yes that can be one situation but the ques asks in general circumstances in my thinking..?
-
And in Q1 1& 2 are state not person so I think only 3.
-
Q 3 both 1&2
-
Constitutional amendent acts are not law under article 13. Parliament has 2 powers: ordinary legislative powers and constituent powers. Acc to 25 th constitutional amendment, the govt ruled tht fundamental rights can be amended but they are not laws under article 13, the sc in keshavnanda bharti case upheld the same. Only ordinary laws are under the domain of article 13
-
its kk…bhai…..chalta hai yaar,,,,,revision nhi kiya to aise hi hota h
-
i think, ordinance are not laws under the article 13 of the constitution unless they are approved by parliament after both houses reassemble follwoing which they qualify as law under the definition of law u/a13. Ordinance is a temporary adjustments made by executive exclusive of legislative arm tht is constitutionally empowered for the job..
Ordinance are subjected to judicial review. -
1/5 here….hahahaha
-
Mindblowing performance by me today.
0/5Jai ho. God save me.
-
maine bhi vahi kiya tha….lekin galat ho gaya..
-
Yes I have read that part of Lakshmikant. But then, if you read the previous page whereby certain fundamental rights can indeed be suspended during emergencies, then the situation becomes dicey. Waise I agree with the answer being (a), but just for the sake of justifying what might have been going on in the paper setters mind, i have put forth the argument.
-
Lakshmikanth clearly mentions it yaar.
-
Keshvanandan Bharti case – SC held Art 24 as valid – which stated that word ‘LAW’ does not include Const amendment. But additional requirement was CA should not violate basic features of the constitution.
So, answer should be A -
Answer is D only.
Justification: Take an example where a temporary ordinance is passed which is against certain fundamental rights. Now consider that this is happening during a national emergency, hence it will not be void for the duration of the temporary period.
-
same here croft
-
Jai polity 🙂 , need to revise this chapter
-
Question no. 3 , first option is correct and in second whether article 13 says constitutional amendment is not a law but in keshvanand Bharti case s.c says it can be reviewed , what’s the correct answer ?
-
mere se to theek hi hai…..1/5
😛
-
Den my score 3/5 ?
-
maine a nhi lagaya tha – lekin A hi hoga 🙁 , my bad – scored poorly today (2/5)
-
lagaya to maine bhi wahi tha….galat ho gaya
-
Q5 ka a hoga.
-
Yes, Tomb raider – true
-
yes
-
Q3 – i think it should be 1 only. Anyone with same thoughts ?
-
Shouldn’t answer of 3 be A?
-
3/5
Leave a Reply