Vision IAS Prelims Test Series 2023 Test 01 (41-60 UPSC MCQ)

If any foreign territory becomes a part of India, the Government of India specifies the persons who among the people of the territory shall be the citizens of India. Such persons become the citizens of India from the notified date. For example, when Pondicherry became a part of India, the Government of India issued the Citizenship (Pondicherry) Order, 1962, under the Citizenship Act, 1955.

• Statement 1 is correct: Article 17 states that "Untouchability" is abolished and its practice in any form is forbidden. • Statement 2 is not correct: Untouchability has not been defined by the constitution but various court judgments have expanded its meaning. • Statement 3 is not correct: It is available against both the state and private individuals. Protection of Civil Rights Act,1955 contains many provisions for this. • Statement 4 is correct: Article 17 only states that the enforcement of any disability arising out of "Untouchability" shall be an offense punishable in accordance with the law. Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 contains the detailed provisions for this.

• Scientists have discovered recently evolved regions that codes for proteins in DNA outside our genes associated with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder that can have profound impact on people's lives. These DNA outside of the regions conventionally defined as genes are known as dark genome. They are genes/proteins for which there is minimal knowledge on biological function and allied to this limited tools for their analysis such as antibodies. Thus it adversely affects the precision medicine initiative.

• A State Public Service Commission consists of a chairman and other members appointed by the governor of the state. The Constitution does not specify the strength of the Commission but has left the matter to the discretion of the Governor. Further, no qualifications are prescribed for the commission's membership except that one-half of the members of the commission should be such persons who have held office for at least ten years either under the government of India or under the Government of a state. The Constitution also authorizes the governor to determine the conditions of service of the chairman and members of the Commission. Hence statement 1 is not correct. • Although the chairman and members of an SPSC are appointed by the governor, they can be removed only by the President (and not by the governor). The President can remove them on the same grounds and in the same manner as he can remove a chairman or a member of the UPSC. Hence statement 2 is not correct.

• Both the Dhar commission and JVP committee rejected language as the basis for the reorganization of states. Fazl Ali's commission broadly accepted language as the criteria for the reorganization of states, however, it rejected one- language - state policy.

• The Protection of Human Rights Act of 1993 provides for the creation of the National Human Rights Commission and State Human Rights Commission at the state level. • A State Human Rights Commission can inquire into violation of human rights only in respect of subjects mentioned in the State List and the Concurrent List of the Constitution. • However, if any such case is already being inquired into by the National Human Rights Commission or any other Statutory Commission, then the State Human Rights Commission does not inquire into that case. • The chairperson and members of SHRC are appointed by the Governor. Whereas, in the case of NHRC, they are appointed by the President of India. Hence, statement 1 is not correct. • Although the chairperson and members of an SHRC are appointed by the governor, they can be removed only by the President. Hence statement 2 is correct.

• The Supreme Court has held that a religious denomination must satisfy three conditions: • It should be a collection of individuals who have a system of beliefs (doctrines), which they regard as conducive to their spiritual well-being. • It should have a common organization • It should be designated by a distinctive name. • Hence only options 1, 2, and 3 are correct.

• Option1 is one of the fundamental duties mentioned in Part IV-A of the Indian constitution. • Option 2 is a part of Directive Principles of State Policy. • Swaran Singh Committee recommended duty to pay taxes should be included in the fundamental duties but it was not accepted. Hence, option 3 is not a fundamental duty. • Casting vote is also not included in the fundamental duties so option 4 is also not correct.

• The doctrine of Basic structure of the Constitution was laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Kesavananda Bharati v/s State of Kerala (1973). Based on various judgements of the Court, the following are some of the elements included in the Basic structure: Supremacy of the Constitution; Secular character of the Constitution; Sovereign, democratic and republic nature of polity; Separation of powers between the legislature, judiciary and executive; Unity and Integrity of the nation; Welfare state; Rule of Law; Parliamentary system; Effective access to justice; Principle of reasonableness etc • Socialist state is not included in the Basic structure.

• Pressure groups are organizations that attempt to influence government policies. But unlike political parties, pressure groups do not aim to directly control or share political power. These organizations are formed when people with common occupations, interests, aspirations, or opinions come together in order to achieve a common objective. • We often hear the word people’s movement to describe many forms of collective action: Narmada Bachao Andolan, Movement for Right to Information, Anti-liquor Movement, Women’s Movement, Environmental Movement. • Like an interest group, a movement also attempts to influence politics rather than directly take part in electoral competition. But unlike the interest groups, movements have a loose organization. Their decision-making is more informal and flexible. They depend much more on spontaneous mass participation than an interest group.

The procedure for the amendment of the Constitution as laid down in Article 368 is as follows: o An amendment of the Constitution can be initiated only by the introduction of a bill for the purpose in either House of Parliament and not in the state legislatures. o The bill can be introduced either by a minister or by a private member and does not require prior permission of the president. Hence, statement 1 is not correct. o The bill must be passed in each House by a special majority, that is, a majority (that is, more than 50 per cent) of the total membership of the House and a majority of two-thirds of the members of the House present and voting. Hence, statement 2 is not correct. o Each House must pass the bill separately. In case of a disagreement between the two Houses, there is no provision for holding a joint sitting of the two Houses for the purpose of deliberation and passage of the bill. o If the bill seeks to amend the federal provisions of the Constitution, it must also be ratified by the legislatures of atleast half of the states by a simple majority, that is, a majority of the members of the House present and voting. o After duly passed by both the Houses of Parliament and ratified by the state legislatures, where necessary, the bill is presented to the president for assent. o The President must give his assent to the bill. He can neither withhold his assent to the bill nor return the bill for reconsideration of the Parliament.

• Statement 1 is not correct: the constitution derives its authority from the people of India not from the constituent assembly, this is mentioned in the preamble part of the constitution. • Statement 2 is not correct - the American constitution was the first to begin with a Preamble. Many countries, including India, followed the practice. • Statement 3 is correct: In the Keshavananda Bharti case, SC has held that preamble is a part of the Constitution. And if there is any lack of clarity in the constitution, the judiciary turns to the Preamble in its interpretation of the relevant provisions.

• Article 359 authorises the President to suspend the right to move any court for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights during a National Emergency. This means that under Article 359, the Fundamental Rights as such are not suspended, but only their enforcement. The said rights are theoretically alive but the right to seek remedy is suspended. The suspension of enforcement relates to only those Fundamental Rights that are specified in the Presidential Order. Further, the suspension could be for the period during the operation of emergency or for a shorter period as mentioned in the order, and the suspension order may extend to the whole or any part of the country. It should be laid before each House of Parliament for approval. Hence, only option (c) is correct. • The 44th Amendment Act of 1978 restricted the scope of Article 359 in two ways. Firstly, the President cannot suspend the right to move the Court for the enforcement of fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 20 to 21. Secondly, only those laws which are related with the emergency are protected from being challenged and not other laws and the executive action taken only under such a law, is protected. • Article 359 operates in case of both when National Emergency is declared on grounds of war or external aggression as well as on the ground of armed rebellion. • Article 359 may extend to the entire country or a part of it.

Recently, doctors transplanted a pig heart into a patient in a last-ditch effort to save his life which has marked the step towards the decades-long quest of using animal organs for life-saving transplants. Xenotransplantation is a term associated with transplantation, implantation, or infusion of cells,tissues or organs among different species. It is defined by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as "any procedure that involves the transplantation, implantation or infusion into a human recipient of either (a) live cells, tissues, or organs from a nonhuman animal source, or (b) human body fluids, cells, tissues or organs that have had ex vivo contact with live nonhuman animal cells, tissues or organs. The demand for human cells, tissues and organs for clinical transplantation continues to exceed the supply. The limited availability of human allografts, coupled with recent scientific and biotechnical advances, has prompted the renewed development of investigational therapeutic approaches that use xenotransplantation products in human recipients.

• Statement 1 is not correct. Martial law has not been defined anywhere in the Constitution. It is implicit. Also, there is no specific or express provision in the Constitution that authorizes the executive to declare Martial Law. However, Article 34 provides for the restrictions on fundamental rights while Martial Law is in force in any area. • Statement 2 is correct. Both Martial Law and National Emergency can be imposed in some specific area. However, the scope of National emergency is much more. It can be imposed in the whole country as well.

• Recently, the Supreme Court on Friday turned down the Union government’s plea to do away with the requirement of collecting quantifiable data by the Centre and states to determine the representation of people belonging to Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) while implementing reservation in promotion. • State is obligated to collect quantifiable data as per the court’s judgment in M Nagaraj (2006) and Jarnail Singh (2018). Hence statement 1 is correct. • In 2006, a Constitution bench’s ruling in the M Nagaraj case made it incumbent upon the state to collect quantifiable data showing the inadequacy of representation of a section of people in public employment in addition to maintaining overall administrative efficiency. • The aspect of quantifiable data was endorsed by another Constitution bench by its 2018 ruling in the Jarnail Singh case which also mandated the exclusion of the “creamy layer” before providing for reservation in promotions. • The collection of data has to be for each category of posts for the entire service. • It added that assessment on the inadequacy of representation of the reserved categories in promotional posts should be left to the states. Hence statement 2 is not correct.

• Statement 1 is correct. Indian Councils Act of 1861 empowered Viceroys to issue ordinances without the concurrence of the legislative council, during an emergency. The life of such an ordinance was 6 months. • Statement 2 is correct. It made a beginning of representative institutions by associating Indians with the law-making process. It thus provided that the viceroy should nominate some Indians as non-official members of his expanded council. In 1862, Lord Canning, the then viceroy, nominated three Indians to his legislative council-the Raja of Benaras, the Maharaja of Patiala, and Sir Dinkar Rao. • Statement 3 is not correct. The office was created under the provisions of the Act of 1858 (Act for Good Governance of India)

'Territory of India’ is a wider expression than the ‘Union of India’ because the latter includes only states while the former includes not only the states but also union territories and territories that may be acquired by the Government of India at any future time.

• Statement 1 is not correct: In the parliamentary form of the government, there will not be a watertight separation of the powers. Here the executive will be part of the legislature. • Statement 2 is correct: It is the most defining feature of the parliamentary form of the government, where executive is answerable to the legislature, unlike the presidential form of the government, where the executive is not answerable to the legislature. • Statement 3 is not correct: Parliamentary form of government defines the governing mechanism of a state. Division of powers is nothing to do with the parliamentary form of government because division of powers is more to do with the decentralization and autonomy to the states rather than way of defining the governing mechanism itself.

• The 44th Amendment Act of 1978 abolished the right to property as a Fundamental Right by repealing Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31 from Part III. Instead, the Act inserted a new Article 300A in Part XII under the heading ‘Right to Property’. It provides that no person shall be deprived of his property except by authority of law. • Thus, the Right to property now no longer remains a fundamental right. It is not a part of the basic structure of the Constitution. The right to property as a legal right (as distinct from the Fundamental Rights) has the following implications: o It can be regulated i.e., curtailed, abridged or modified without constitutional amendment by an ordinary law of the Parliament. o It protects the private property against executive action but not against legislative action. o In case of violation, the aggrieved person cannot directly move the Supreme Court under Article 32 (right to constitutional remedies including writs) for its enforcement. He can move the High Court under Article 226. Hence only statement 3 is not correct. o No guaranteed right to compensation in case of acquisition or requisition of private property by the state.