[Results] Prelims 2020 Over - Gearing for 2021

@Biradar is Preamble answer d or a?

@Rangeela so u mean answer to be D ?

Rangeelasaid
For that eligible to vote can be made a minister question, SC has given guidelines long back (2001) in Jayalalitha case. Pasting from an article in The Hindu
As a general rule, a person can become a Minister only if he is a member of the Legislative Assembly or the Legislative Council. Article 164(4) states that a person cannot continue as Minister for more than six months if he is not a member of the legislature by that period.

Eligible MLA first, Minister later

Ms. Jayalalithaa filed nominations for four constituencies for the Tamil Nadu Assembly elections. On April 24, 2001, three of these nominations were rejected on account of her conviction in the TANSI case and consequent disqualification under Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The fourth nomination was rejected on the ground that she had filed her nomination for more than two seats. The rejection of her nomination papers had not been challenged by Ms. Jayalalithaa.
After the elections, she was unanimously elected the leader of the party and was sworn in Chief Minister on May 14, 2001. At that time, there was a suggestion that she should not occupy the Chief Minister's office until her appeals were disposed of and she is either acquitted or the sentence reduced to less than two years. She insisted that the mandate of the people was that she should become the Chief Minister. Had she shown a dignified restraint, a healthy convention would have been set.
Article 173 prescribes qualifications for the membership of any State legislature. Briefly, a potential candidate must be at least 25 years of age (30 for the Legislative Council), a citizen of India and must possess such other qualifications as prescribed under any law by Parliament. Article 191 sets out the disqualifications and these are: holding office of profit with the Government of India or any State Government, being of unsound mind, an undischarged insolvent, a foreigner, and, lastly, any disqualification under any law made by Parliament. Ms. Jayalalithaa's case was concerned with disqualification under Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. With her conviction and two-year sentence, Ms. Jayalalithaa's election nomination papers were rejected. The fact that her appeals were pending and the sentence suspended made no difference. Thus, she could not contest the election and become a member of the Legislative Assembly.
As a general rule, a person can become a Minister only if he is a member of the Legislative Assembly or the Legislative Council. Article 164(4) states that a person cannot continue as Minister for more than six months if he is not a member of the legislature by that period. Ms. Jayalalithaa became Chief Minister on May 14. Her anxiety to get her appeal disposed of was in the hope that if she was acquitted, she could contest a by-election and become a member of the Legislative Assembly on or before November 14, 2001. At the same time, the larger issue that came up for consideration before the Supreme Court was whether a person who is not eligible to stand for election could be appointed as Minister at all. Article 164(4) is completely silent on this issue.
While the Constitution provides for qualification and disqualification for membership to the Assembly, there is no provision as to any qualification or disqualification for a person to be appointed a Minister. This constitutional vacuum has now been filled up by the Supreme Court.
Article 164(4) has now been given a novel interpretation. Hereafter, a non-member of the legislature can be made Chief Minister or Minister only if he has the qualifications prescribed by Article 173 and does not suffer any disqualification as set out in Article 191. Consequently, unless a person is theoretically eligible to be a member of the Legislative Assembly, he cannot be appointed a Minister.
https://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-miscellaneous/tp-others/eligible-mla-first-minister-later/article27980109.ece

Again the OPTIONS NEVER SAID ALL OR ANY VOTER CAN BE A MINISTER.

CAN A PERSON ELIGIBLE TO VOTE BE A MINISTER FOR 6 MONTHS? YES.

THERE ARE NO LIMITING TERMS LIKE ALL OR ANY USED IN THE STATEMENT SO ALL THIS DISSECTION IS USELESS.

THIS UNREQUIRED ASSUMPTIONS OF THE PERSON HAVING CRIMINAL RECORD OR BEING LESS THAN 25 YEARS ARE USELESS, THE OPTIONS HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH SUCH ASSUMPTIONS

beginn371316said
@Biradar is Preamble answer d or a?

Rangeela .

Okay, Biradar leave all assumptions, let's only see what is written clearly in the question.

The statement says, "According to Constitution", so tell me which article or schedule of the Constitution says so?

The only related article is 164(4), which is as below

A Minister who for any period of six consecutive months is not a member of the Legislature of the State shall at the expiration of that period cease to be a Minister.

So from this how do we conclude that a person who is eligible to vote can be made a minister?

Percival .

People just file your representations soon rather than debating questions here. Only 2 hours as 6PM is deadline. I have found main wrongs in:

1. Civilians for fort william college.

2. Gandhi Irwin pact translation error

3. Aadhar question, ambiguity in some options

4. Plueripotent human cells into pig (the experiment was not successful)

5. Social cost of carbon: multiple ptions correct

6. Zero tillage

7. MPLADS: Not compulsory to create durable infrastructure

Any other questions, please add

Oatmeal .

zeesh_udr6610said
Oatmealsaid
Which is the most reliable key for csat passages?
Go through Shankarias & Rausias key

How would you rate nextIAS?

aadhi_rocz623 .

@Rangeela bro he desperately wants that option to be correct.. that question was asked to check our understanding on qualifications to become minister. Thats why criminal sentence option followed.. if we are taking 1st statement as part of larger statement then same logic can be applied to that fertilizer question.. there 'except urea' or 'all fertilizer' was not used..

Rangeelasaid
Okay, Biradar leave all assumptions, let's only see what is written clearly in the question.
The statement says, "According to Constitution", so tell me which article or schedule of the Constitution says so?
The only related article is 164(4), which is as below
A Minister who for any period of six consecutive months is not a member of the Legislature of the State shall at the expiration of that period cease to be a Minister.
So from this how do we conclude that a person who is eligible to vote can be made a minister?

Read the article again

A minister who is not a member shall be reqd to become a member by 6 MONTHS.

Mandatory qualification for every minister is to be a voter in the first place, vide qualification en listed under art 174.

Thus, a voter is eligible to be a minister. Any voter however is not eligible.

See i did both this and the CAD one wrong due to over thinking. I did D here and 3 only there coz readtoo much into the word presently . So don't be like me. Don't over read the question. This isn't vision abhyas that they are playing 5D chess everywhere.

Thanks

Equalizer .

Rangeelasaid
For that eligible to vote can be made a minister question, SC has given guidelines long back (2001) in Jayalalitha case. Pasting from an article in The Hindu
As a general rule, a person can become a Minister only if he is a member of the Legislative Assembly or the Legislative Council. Article 164(4) states that a person cannot continue as Minister for more than six months if he is not a member of the legislature by that period.

Eligible MLA first, Minister later

Ms. Jayalalithaa filed nominations for four constituencies for the Tamil Nadu Assembly elections. On April 24, 2001, three of these nominations were rejected on account of her conviction in the TANSI case and consequent disqualification under Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The fourth nomination was rejected on the ground that she had filed her nomination for more than two seats. The rejection of her nomination papers had not been challenged by Ms. Jayalalithaa.
After the elections, she was unanimously elected the leader of the party and was sworn in Chief Minister on May 14, 2001. At that time, there was a suggestion that she should not occupy the Chief Minister's office until her appeals were disposed of and she is either acquitted or the sentence reduced to less than two years. She insisted that the mandate of the people was that she should become the Chief Minister. Had she shown a dignified restraint, a healthy convention would have been set.
Article 173 prescribes qualifications for the membership of any State legislature. Briefly, a potential candidate must be at least 25 years of age (30 for the Legislative Council), a citizen of India and must possess such other qualifications as prescribed under any law by Parliament. Article 191 sets out the disqualifications and these are: holding office of profit with the Government of India or any State Government, being of unsound mind, an undischarged insolvent, a foreigner, and, lastly, any disqualification under any law made by Parliament. Ms. Jayalalithaa's case was concerned with disqualification under Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. With her conviction and two-year sentence, Ms. Jayalalithaa's election nomination papers were rejected. The fact that her appeals were pending and the sentence suspended made no difference. Thus, she could not contest the election and become a member of the Legislative Assembly.
As a general rule, a person can become a Minister only if he is a member of the Legislative Assembly or the Legislative Council. Article 164(4) states that a person cannot continue as Minister for more than six months if he is not a member of the legislature by that period. Ms. Jayalalithaa became Chief Minister on May 14. Her anxiety to get her appeal disposed of was in the hope that if she was acquitted, she could contest a by-election and become a member of the Legislative Assembly on or before November 14, 2001. At the same time, the larger issue that came up for consideration before the Supreme Court was whether a person who is not eligible to stand for election could be appointed as Minister at all. Article 164(4) is completely silent on this issue.
While the Constitution provides for qualification and disqualification for membership to the Assembly, there is no provision as to any qualification or disqualification for a person to be appointed a Minister. This constitutional vacuum has now been filled up by the Supreme Court.
Article 164(4) has now been given a novel interpretation. Hereafter, a non-member of the legislature can be made Chief Minister or Minister only if he has the qualifications prescribed by Article 173 and does not suffer any disqualification as set out in Article 191. Consequently, unless a person is theoretically eligible to be a member of the Legislative Assembly, he cannot be appointed a Minister.
https://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-miscellaneous/tp-others/eligible-mla-first-minister-later/article27980109.ece

Everybody agree with your inference. However u r not understanding the rationale behind the debate around this question. What u r saying is absolutely correct. Problem arises due to the use of word "a person" in English and any person in hindi version. As per English version answer should be A. As per hindi version D.

Nandu_v .

Post liberalisation question 1991

Statement 3 seems incorrect

The growth rate of employment in rural areas reduced in agriculture

But it shows positive growth in many other areas (construction being the highest)

Source ilo report

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---asia/---ro-bangkok/---sro-new_delhi/documents/publication/wcms_501310.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiwkdrguKzsAhUTyDgGHaNqBo8QFjAAegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw2xZ2Bb0u86fKSeOX5C7CPZ

Percival .

@Biradar yes like Shubra Ranjan ma'am who has been teaching Political science for decades 🙄

aadhi_rocz623,

Equalizersaid
» show previous quotes
Rangeelasaid
For that eligible to vote can be made a minister question, SC has given guidelines long back (2001) in Jayalalitha case. Pasting from an article in The Hindu
As a general rule, a person can become a Minister only if he is a member of the Legislative Assembly or the Legislative Council. Article 164(4) states that a person cannot continue as Minister for more than six months if he is not a member of the legislature by that period.

Eligible MLA first, Minister later

Ms. Jayalalithaa filed nominations for four constituencies for the Tamil Nadu Assembly elections. On April 24, 2001, three of these nominations were rejected on account of her conviction in the TANSI case and consequent disqualification under Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The fourth nomination was rejected on the ground that she had filed her nomination for more than two seats. The rejection of her nomination papers had not been challenged by Ms. Jayalalithaa.
After the elections, she was unanimously elected the leader of the party and was sworn in Chief Minister on May 14, 2001. At that time, there was a suggestion that she should not occupy the Chief Minister's office until her appeals were disposed of and she is either acquitted or the sentence reduced to less than two years. She insisted that the mandate of the people was that she should become the Chief Minister. Had she shown a dignified restraint, a healthy convention would have been set.
Article 173 prescribes qualifications for the membership of any State legislature. Briefly, a potential candidate must be at least 25 years of age (30 for the Legislative Council), a citizen of India and must possess such other qualifications as prescribed under any law by Parliament. Article 191 sets out the disqualifications and these are: holding office of profit with the Government of India or any State Government, being of unsound mind, an undischarged insolvent, a foreigner, and, lastly, any disqualification under any law made by Parliament. Ms. Jayalalithaa's case was concerned with disqualification under Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. With her conviction and two-year sentence, Ms. Jayalalithaa's election nomination papers were rejected. The fact that her appeals were pending and the sentence suspended made no difference. Thus, she could not contest the election and become a member of the Legislative Assembly.
As a general rule, a person can become a Minister only if he is a member of the Legislative Assembly or the Legislative Council. Article 164(4) states that a person cannot continue as Minister for more than six months if he is not a member of the legislature by that period. Ms. Jayalalithaa became Chief Minister on May 14. Her anxiety to get her appeal disposed of was in the hope that if she was acquitted, she could contest a by-election and become a member of the Legislative Assembly on or before November 14, 2001. At the same time, the larger issue that came up for consideration before the Supreme Court was whether a person who is not eligible to stand for election could be appointed as Minister at all. Article 164(4) is completely silent on this issue.
While the Constitution provides for qualification and disqualification for membership to the Assembly, there is no provision as to any qualification or disqualification for a person to be appointed a Minister. This constitutional vacuum has now been filled up by the Supreme Court.
Article 164(4) has now been given a novel interpretation. Hereafter, a non-member of the legislature can be made Chief Minister or Minister only if he has the qualifications prescribed by Article 173 and does not suffer any disqualification as set out in Article 191. Consequently, unless a person is theoretically eligible to be a member of the Legislative Assembly, he cannot be appointed a Minister.
https://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-miscellaneous/tp-others/eligible-mla-first-minister-later/article27980109.ece

Everybody agree with your inference. However u r not understanding the rationale behind the debate around this question. What u r saying is absolutely correct. Problem arises due to the use of word "a person" in English and any person in hindi version. As per English version answer should be A. As per hindi version D.

Lol what did they write in hindi. Lol max. This is new info for me. UPSC literally should tell hindi people ki bhai apun ko ghanta fark parta. How can they make mistake in 2 3 questions in one simple prelims exam.

Equalizer,

Percivalsaid
@Biradar yes like Shubra Ranjan ma'am who has been teaching Political science for decades 🙄

Her record in prelims polity questions is worse than noobs appearing the exam

@Nandu_v Yes but overall rural employment growth rate reduced

I too marked only 3 thinking 3 and 4 opposite but sadly that’s not the truth

aadhi_rocz623 .

@Biradar bro this minister ques does not demand overthinking.. 25 years old is basic qualification. And that CAD ques i agree that the word presently leads to confusion. Again i think merchandise exports is not more than merchandise imports..

user_42332

Deleted

@Biradar dont lie man , you marked A thats why you are desperate to get it correct. The way you talk to.others on forum shows your frustration

And answer will.be D only whatever you say or do ...

kartikeybhatt171778 .

@aadhi_rocz623 desperate people making even genuine straightforward questions doubtful.

@kartikeybhatt171778 Can u name those questions ?