UPSC CAPF Archives

31. Consider the following statements: Statement I: James Prinsep, an o

Consider the following statements:

Join Our Telegram Channel

Statement I: James Prinsep, an officer in the mint of the East India Company, deciphered Brahmi and Kharosthi scripts which were used in the earliest inscriptions and coins
Statement II: James Prinsep found that most of the scripts mentioned a king referred to as Piyadassi – meaning ‘pleasant to behold’

Both the statements are individually true and Statement II is the correct explanation of Statement I

Both the statements are individually true but Statement II is not the correct explanation of Statement I

Statement I is true but Statement II is false

Statement I is false but Statement II is true

Answer is Right!

Answer is Wrong!

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CAPF – 2014

Download PDF Attempt Online

Both statements are individually true, but Statement II is not the correct explanation of Statement I.

– Statement I is true. James Prinsep (1799-1840), a scholar and officer in the mint of the East India Company in Calcutta, is credited with deciphering the Brahmi and Kharosthi scripts in the 1830s. These scripts were used in ancient Indian inscriptions, most notably the rock and pillar edicts of Emperor Ashoka.
– Statement II is true. While deciphering these inscriptions, Prinsep found that many of them referred to a ruler using titles like ‘Devanampiya’ (beloved of the gods) and ‘Piyadassi’ (pleasant to behold). It was later confirmed that this ‘Piyadassi’ was Emperor Ashoka Maurya.
– Statement I describes the historical achievement of deciphering the scripts. Statement II describes a significant discovery made *as a result* of that deciphering process. Statement II does not explain *how* Prinsep deciphered the scripts or *why* he was able to do it; it merely states one of the key findings from the deciphered texts. Therefore, Statement II is not the explanation for Statement I.

– Prinsep’s decipherment was crucial for understanding the history of the Mauryan Empire and the reign of Ashoka, as these inscriptions provided direct insights into his policies, administration, and spread of Buddhism.
– The decipherment relied on comparing bilingual inscriptions and coins where available, using known scripts (like Greek on some coins) as keys.

32. Consider the following statements: Statement I: Impeachment procedu

Consider the following statements:

Statement I: Impeachment procedure is a quasi-judicial procedure and the President of India can be impeached only on the grounds of violation of the Constitution
Statement II: The impeachment procedure can be initiated in either House of the Parliament

Both the statements are individually true and Statement II is the correct explanation of Statement I

Both the statements are individually true but Statement II is not the correct explanation of Statement I

Statement I is true but Statement II is false

Statement I is false but Statement II is true

Answer is Right!

Answer is Wrong!

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CAPF – 2014

Download PDF Attempt Online

Both statements are individually true, but Statement II is not the correct explanation of Statement I.

– Statement I is true. The impeachment procedure for the President of India, as outlined in Article 61 of the Constitution, is a quasi-judicial process involving investigation of charges and voting by Parliament. The only ground specified for impeachment is “violation of the Constitution”.
– Statement II is true. Article 61(2) states that the charge for impeachment “may be preferred by either House of Parliament”. The process can begin in either the Lok Sabha or the Rajya Sabha.
– Statement I describes the *nature* of the impeachment process (quasi-judicial) and the *grounds* for it (violation of the Constitution). Statement II describes *where* the process can be initiated (either House). The fact that the process can start in either House does not explain why it is quasi-judicial or why the ground is violation of the Constitution. They are distinct facts about the procedure.

– No President of India has been impeached to date.
– The procedure involves a notice signed by a minimum number of members, investigation of the charges by the other House, and passage of a resolution by a special majority in both Houses.

Join Our Telegram Channel

33. Consider the following statements: Statement I: The Rajya Sabha is

Consider the following statements:

Join Our Telegram Channel

Statement I: The Rajya Sabha is not subject to dissolution and the members enjoy a tenure of six years
Statement II: According to Article 83 of the Constitution of India, one third of members of Rajya Sabha retire every two years

Both the statements are individually true and Statement II is the correct explanation of Statement I

Both the statements are individually true but Statement II is not the correct explanation of Statement I

Statement I is true but Statement II is false

Statement I is false but Statement II is true

Answer is Right!

Answer is Wrong!

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CAPF – 2014

Download PDF Attempt Online

Both statements are individually true, and Statement II is the correct explanation of Statement I.

– Statement I is true. The Rajya Sabha is the upper house of the Indian Parliament and is a permanent body, not subject to dissolution. Its members are elected for a six-year term.
– Statement II is true. Article 83(1) of the Constitution states that the Rajya Sabha shall not be subject to dissolution and that “as nearly as may be, one-third of the members thereof shall retire as soon as may be on the expiration of every second year”.
– Statement II explains how the Rajya Sabha maintains its permanent character despite having members with fixed tenures. The system of one-third of members retiring every two years ensures a continuous body with staggered terms, preventing the dissolution of the entire house at once, as is the case with the Lok Sabha. Thus, the rotational retirement mechanism is the basis for the Rajya Sabha’s permanence mentioned in Statement I.

– The system of biennial elections for one-third of the seats helps in maintaining continuity and bringing in new perspectives regularly while retaining experienced members.
– The Vice-President of India is the ex-officio Chairman of the Rajya Sabha.

34. Statement I: When a piece of brick lying on grass for a number of days

Statement I: When a piece of brick lying on grass for a number of days is removed, the covered part of the grass appears pale.
Statement II: Synthesis of chlorophyll, which gives green pigment, occurs in presence of sunlight.

Both the statements are individually true and Statement II is the correct explanation of Statement I

Both the statements are individually true but Statement II is not the correct explanation of Statement I

Statement I is true but Statement II is false

Statement I is false but Statement II is true

Answer is Right!

Answer is Wrong!

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CAPF – 2013

Download PDF Attempt Online

Both statements are individually true, and Statement II is the correct explanation of Statement I.

– Statement I describes an observed phenomenon: grass covered by an opaque object (like a brick) becomes pale. This is a common observation.
– Statement II provides a scientific fact: Chlorophyll, the pigment responsible for the green color in plants, requires sunlight for its synthesis. This process is part of photosynthesis.
– The paleness of the grass (loss of green color) occurs because the brick blocks sunlight, preventing the grass from synthesizing chlorophyll. Without chlorophyll, the green pigment is absent or significantly reduced. Therefore, Statement II directly explains why Statement I occurs.

– This phenomenon is an example of etiolation, a process where plants grow in the absence of light, resulting in pale, elongated stems and small leaves due to lack of chlorophyll development.

Join Our Telegram Channel

35. Which of the following recommendations of J. S. Verma Committee on cri

Which of the following recommendations of J. S. Verma Committee on crime against women was/were accepted by the Government by way of an ordinance?

Armed force personnel, who commit crime against women, could be tried under ordinary criminal law
There would be restriction of politicians facing sexual offence charges from contesting elections
Criminalization of marital rape
Question regarding moral character will not be put to the victim during cross-examination

2, 3 and 4

2 and 4 only

1, 2 and 3

4 only

Answer is Right!

Answer is Wrong!

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CAPF – 2013

Download PDF Attempt Online

Only the recommendation regarding the victim’s moral character during cross-examination was accepted and enacted by the government through the 2013 ordinance/act.

– The Justice J.S. Verma Committee submitted its report in January 2013, recommending significant changes to laws concerning crimes against women. The government subsequently passed the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 2013, which later became the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013.
– Recommendation 4 (Question regarding moral character will not be put to the victim during cross-examination) was accepted and enacted by inserting Section 53A into the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. This section makes evidence of the victim’s character or previous sexual experience irrelevant in cases of sexual offences where consent is an issue.
– Recommendation 1 (Armed force personnel… tried under ordinary criminal law): The committee recommended reviewing immunity laws like AFSPA in cases of sexual offences. While the 2013 act applied to all persons, changing the jurisdiction for armed forces personnel specifically under their respective service laws or requiring sanction for prosecution under ordinary law was not fundamentally altered by *this* act in a way that fully implements this recommendation.
– Recommendation 2 (Restriction of politicians facing sexual offence charges from contesting elections): The committee recommended disqualification, but this was a recommendation regarding electoral law and was *not* included in the criminal law amendment ordinance/act.
– Recommendation 3 (Criminalization of marital rape): The committee recommended criminalizing marital rape, but the exception for marital rape was retained in Section 375 of the IPC in the 2013 amendment. This recommendation was *not* accepted.

– The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, significantly broadened the definition of sexual offences, introduced new categories of offences like acid attack, voyeurism, stalking, and increased penalties for various crimes against women.

Join Our Telegram Channel

36. United Nations General Assembly declared the year 2013 as

United Nations General Assembly declared the year 2013 as

Join Our Telegram Channel

International Year of Water Cooperation

International Year of Space Cooperation

International Year of Air Cooperation

International Year of Science and Technology Cooperation

Answer is Right!

Answer is Wrong!

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CAPF – 2013

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct option is A.

– The United Nations General Assembly, in its resolution A/RES/65/154 adopted on 20 December 2010, declared 2013 as the International Year of Water Cooperation.
– The declaration aimed to highlight the importance of water cooperation, recognizing that water is critical for sustainable development, poverty eradication, food security, and human well-being.

– The theme focused on promoting dialogue, building trust, and finding peaceful solutions for the cooperative management of water resources.
– Other UN International Years include International Year of Biodiversity (2010), International Year of Forests (2011), International Year of Sustainable Energy for All (2012), and International Year of Family Farming (2014).

37. The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) in June 2013 has specified a

The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) in June 2013 has specified a value for the cost inflation index of 2013-14. In this regard, which of the statements given below is/are correct?

1. There has been a rise in the cost inflation index over the year 2012-13.
2. The cost inflation index helps in reducing the inflationary gains, thereby reducing the long-term capital gains tax payout for a taxpayer.

Select the correct answer using the code given below.

1 only

2 only

Both 1 and 2

Neither 1 nor 2

Answer is Right!

Answer is Wrong!

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CAPF – 2013

Download PDF Attempt Online

Both Statement 1 and Statement 2 are correct.

– The Cost Inflation Index (CII) is notified by the Central Government under the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is used to adjust the purchase price of an asset for inflation when calculating long-term capital gains.
– The CII for a financial year is typically higher than that of the previous financial year, reflecting the general trend of inflation. Given the inflationary environment in India around 2013, it is highly likely that the CII for 2013-14 was higher than that for 2012-13.
– The purpose of indexation using CII is to account for the decrease in the purchasing power of money due to inflation. By indexing the cost of acquisition and improvement, the taxable capital gain is reduced, as it accounts for only the real gain over and above inflation. This directly reduces the long-term capital gains tax liability for the taxpayer.

– CII for FY 2012-13 was 852. CII for FY 2013-14 was 939. This confirms Statement 1.
– Long-term capital gains tax is applicable on the profit made from the sale of assets held for a specified period (e.g., over 3 years for property, over 1 year for shares at that time, regulations change). Indexation benefit is available for certain long-term capital assets.

Join Our Telegram Channel

38. The Government of India on 12th June, 2013 enhanced the limit of forei

The Government of India on 12th June, 2013 enhanced the limit of foreign investments in government securities by 5 billion US dollar. In this regard, which of the following statements is not correct?

It was done in order to increase inflow of overseas capital

It will strengthen the value of rupee

The foreign institutional investors registered to SEBI are only eligible for investment in the enhanced limit of 5 billion US dollar

The investment can be made in all categories of investments across the board

Answer is Right!

Answer is Wrong!

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CAPF – 2013

Download PDF Attempt Online

Statement D is not correct.

– The government enhanced the limit of foreign investments specifically in *government securities* (G-secs) and corporate bonds by $5 billion in June 2013. This measure was aimed at attracting more foreign capital inflow to support the Indian rupee, which was facing depreciation pressure at the time.
– Increasing foreign investment limits in debt markets (like G-secs) helps increase the supply of foreign currency (US Dollars) in the Indian market, which can strengthen the demand for the Indian Rupee, potentially supporting its value.
– Foreign Institutional Investors (FIIs, now largely replaced by Foreign Portfolio Investors – FPIs) registered with SEBI are the primary channels through which foreign investments are made in the Indian securities market under specified limits and regulations. Therefore, eligibility was indeed restricted to such registered entities.
– The enhancement was specifically for investments in government securities and corporate bonds, not “all categories of investments across the board”, which would include equities, alternative investment funds, etc.

– Such measures are part of capital account management by the central bank (RBI) and the government to influence foreign exchange flows and manage the currency value and external debt.
– The total FII limit for investment in government securities was raised to $25 billion after this announcement.

Join Our Telegram Channel

39. Consider the following statements about NEOSSat launched by PSLV in Fe

Consider the following statements about NEOSSat launched by PSLV in February 2013 :

Join Our Telegram Channel

1. It is the only space telescope dedicated to searching for asteroids that might have a threat to the earth.
2. It was designed and developed by ISRO.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

1 only

2 only

Both 1 and 2

Neither 1 nor 2

Answer is Right!

Answer is Wrong!

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CAPF – 2013

Download PDF Attempt Online

Statement 1 is correct, while Statement 2 is incorrect.

– NEOSSat (Near Earth Object Surveillance Satellite) was indeed the first space telescope dedicated to searching for and tracking asteroids and space debris that could pose a threat to Earth. It was launched in February 2013.
– NEOSSat was a Canadian satellite mission, developed and operated by the Canadian Space Agency (CSA) and Defence Research and Development Canada (DRDC). ISRO’s PSLV rocket was used to launch the satellite as a co-passenger, but ISRO did not design or develop NEOSSat.

– ISRO’s PSLV-C20 mission on February 25, 2013, successfully launched NEOSSat along with other satellites like SARAL (primary payload), UniBRITE, BRITE-Austria, SAPPHIRE, and TUGSAT-1 from the Satish Dhawan Space Centre, Sriharikota.
– While other space telescopes (like Hubble or Kepler) might observe asteroids, NEOSSat was specifically designed for this dedicated purpose, giving Statement 1 validity in its context.

40. In February 2013, the International Court of Arbitration at The Hague

In February 2013, the International Court of Arbitration at The Hague ruled in favour of India’s position on the diversion of Kishanganga water setting aside the objections raised by

Join Our Telegram Channel

Pakistan

China

Nepal

Bangladesh

Answer is Right!

Answer is Wrong!

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CAPF – 2013

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct option is A.

– The Kishanganga Hydroelectric Plant is built on the Kishanganga River in Jammu and Kashmir, India. The river is a tributary of the Jhelum, which flows into Pakistan.
– Pakistan raised objections to the project, arguing it violated the Indus Waters Treaty (1960), which governs the use of water from the Indus river system shared by India and Pakistan.
– The dispute was referred to the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague.
– In February 2013, the Court ruled on certain aspects of the dispute, generally allowing India to proceed with the project while also requiring India to maintain a minimum environmental flow of water downstream.

The Indus Waters Treaty designates the Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab rivers to Pakistan and the Sutlej, Beas, and Ravi rivers to India, while allowing certain uses (like hydro-power generation with specific provisions) on the rivers allocated to the other country. Pakistan’s objection centered on the planned diversion of water, which they argued would impact downstream flows in their territory. The ruling was seen as a mixed outcome for both countries.