UPSC CAPF Archives

41. In India, Cardamom Hills are regarded as a continuation of the

In India, Cardamom Hills are regarded as a continuation of the

Eastern Ghats

Mizo Hills

Naga Hills

Western Ghats

Answer is Right!

Answer is Wrong!

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CAPF – 2021

Download PDF Attempt Online

Cardamom Hills are regarded as a continuation of the Western Ghats.

The Cardamom Hills (Yelamalai) are located in the southern section of the Western Ghats in South India.

The Western Ghats is a mountain range that runs parallel to the western coast of the Indian peninsula. It is a UNESCO World Heritage Site and one of the eight “hottest hot spots” of biological diversity in the world. The Cardamom Hills form the southern extent of this range, located in Kerala and Tamil Nadu. They are named after the cardamom spice grown there. Other important ranges in the Western Ghats include the Anaimalai Hills, Nilgiri Hills, and Palani Hills.

Join Our Telegram Channel

42. If 35% of a number is 416 more than 27% of the same number, then the n

If 35% of a number is 416 more than 27% of the same number, then the number is

Join Our Telegram Channel

5200

2600

3900

3328

Answer is Right!

Answer is Wrong!

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CAPF – 2021

Download PDF Attempt Online

The number is 5200.

Translate the word problem into an algebraic equation involving percentages of an unknown number.

Let the number be N.
35% of the number = 0.35 * N
27% of the number = 0.27 * N
The problem states that 35% of the number is 416 more than 27% of the same number.
So, 0.35N = 0.27N + 416
Subtract 0.27N from both sides:
0.35N – 0.27N = 416
0.08N = 416
To find N, divide 416 by 0.08:
N = 416 / 0.08
N = 416 / (8/100)
N = 416 * (100/8)
N = (416/8) * 100
N = 52 * 100
N = 5200
The number is 5200.

43. How much water is to be added to 75 ml of alcohol so that the mixture

How much water is to be added to 75 ml of alcohol so that the mixture contains 25% of alcohol?

100 ml

225 ml

250 ml

125 ml

Answer is Right!

Answer is Wrong!

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CAPF – 2021

Download PDF Attempt Online

225 ml of water is to be added to the alcohol.

To achieve a target percentage of a component in a mixture, set up an equation where the amount of the component divided by the total volume of the mixture equals the target percentage (as a decimal).

Initial amount of alcohol = 75 ml.
The initial mixture is pure alcohol, so it contains 75 ml of alcohol and 0 ml of water, with a total volume of 75 ml.
Let ‘x’ be the amount of water added in ml.
After adding ‘x’ ml of water, the amount of alcohol remains 75 ml, and the total volume of the mixture becomes (75 + x) ml.
The target is for the mixture to contain 25% alcohol.
Percentage of alcohol = (Amount of alcohol / Total volume of mixture) * 100
25 = (75 / (75 + x)) * 100
Dividing both sides by 100:
0.25 = 75 / (75 + x)
Multiply both sides by (75 + x):
0.25 * (75 + x) = 75
18.75 + 0.25x = 75
Subtract 18.75 from both sides:
0.25x = 75 – 18.75
0.25x = 56.25
Divide by 0.25:
x = 56.25 / 0.25
x = 5625 / 25
x = 225
Therefore, 225 ml of water must be added.

Join Our Telegram Channel

44. The difference of compound interest and simple interest of a sum of mo

The difference of compound interest and simple interest of a sum of money at the rate of 5% per year for 2 years is ₹250. The sum is

₹1,00,000

₹80,000

₹40,000

₹1,20,000

Answer is Right!

Answer is Wrong!

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CAPF – 2021

Download PDF Attempt Online

The principal sum of money is ₹1,00,000.

The difference between compound interest (CI) and simple interest (SI) for a sum P at rate R% per annum for 2 years is given by the formula: CI – SI = P * (R/100)^2.

Given:
Rate (R) = 5% per year
Time (T) = 2 years
Difference (CI – SI) = ₹250
Let the sum be P.
Using the formula: CI – SI = P * (R/100)^2
250 = P * (5/100)^2
250 = P * (1/20)^2
250 = P * (1/400)
P = 250 * 400
P = 1,00,000
Thus, the sum is ₹1,00,000.

Join Our Telegram Channel

45. A shopkeeper gives two consecutive discounts of 10% and 5% respectivel

A shopkeeper gives two consecutive discounts of 10% and 5% respectively on his items. He then adds 20% GST on his items. If an item has marked price ₹2,000, how much more or less of the actual price of the item a customer has to pay?

Join Our Telegram Channel

2·6% less

2·6% more

Same price

5·2% more

Answer is Right!

Answer is Wrong!

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CAPF – 2021

Download PDF Attempt Online

The customer has to pay 2.6% more than the marked price.

To calculate the final price, apply consecutive discounts first to the marked price, and then add the GST to the discounted price. Compare this final price to the original marked price.

Marked Price = ₹2,000.
Price after 1st discount (10%): ₹2000 * (1 – 0.10) = ₹2000 * 0.90 = ₹1800.
Price after 2nd discount (5%): ₹1800 * (1 – 0.05) = ₹1800 * 0.95 = ₹1710. This is the price before GST.
Price after adding 20% GST: ₹1710 * (1 + 0.20) = ₹1710 * 1.20 = ₹2052.
The final price paid by the customer is ₹2052.
The original marked price was ₹2000.
Difference = Final Price – Marked Price = ₹2052 – ₹2000 = ₹52.
The customer pays ₹52 more.
Percentage difference = (Difference / Marked Price) * 100 = (52 / 2000) * 100 = (52/20) = 2.6%.
The customer pays 2.6% more than the actual (marked) price.

46. Which one of the following statements with regard to Maneka Gandhi vs.

Which one of the following statements with regard to Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India case, 1978 is not correct?

Join Our Telegram Channel

It was held that Article 19 and Article 21 are not watertight compartments.

It was held that a law coming under Article 21 may not satisfy the requirements of Article 19.

A fair trial eliminates the biases against the accused in the trial.

The right to life under Article 21 does not include the right to die.

Answer is Right!

Answer is Wrong!

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CAPF – 2021

Download PDF Attempt Online

The Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India case (1978) is a landmark judgment by the Supreme Court of India that significantly expanded the scope and interpretation of fundamental rights, particularly Articles 14, 19, and 21.
A) It was held that Article 19 and Article 21 are not watertight compartments: This is correct. The court held that the fundamental rights are not isolated but form an integrated scheme. Any law that restricts personal liberty under Article 21 must also satisfy the requirements of Article 19 (where applicable) and Article 14.
B) It was held that a law coming under Article 21 may not satisfy the requirements of Article 19: This is incorrect. The judgment precisely held the opposite. The ‘procedure established by law’ under Article 21 must be fair, just, and reasonable, and it must also pass the test of the freedoms guaranteed under Article 19 (like freedom of movement if a passport is impounded) and the equality principle under Article 14.
C) A fair trial eliminates the biases against the accused in the trial: While the case primarily dealt with passport impoundment, the broader impact of the judgment was to introduce the concept of procedural due process into Article 21. Fair trial is a core component of a just and reasonable procedure, aiming to eliminate biases. This statement reflects the spirit of the expanded interpretation of Article 21, although not the direct context of passport impoundment.
D) The right to life under Article 21 does not include the right to die: This is correct. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the right to life under Article 21 does not extend to the right to commit suicide or the right to die.
Since the question asks for the statement that is *not* correct, option B is the answer.

– Maneka Gandhi case expanded the interpretation of Article 21.
– It established the interconnectedness of Articles 14, 19, and 21.
– Procedure under Article 21 must be ‘fair, just, and reasonable’.
– A law under Article 21 must also satisfy the requirements of Article 19 and 14.

The Maneka Gandhi case overruled the earlier A.K. Gopalan vs. State of Madras case (1950), which had interpreted Article 21 narrowly, holding that ‘procedure established by law’ meant only the procedure laid down by a statute, without requiring it to be just or reasonable. The Maneka Gandhi case imported the concept of ‘due process of law’ into the Indian Constitution by interpreting ‘procedure established by law’ to mean a fair, just, and reasonable procedure.

47. Which one of the following powers has not been conferred on the Pr

Which one of the following powers has **not** been conferred on the President of India?

Join Our Telegram Channel

Appointment of Prime Minister

To decide at his/her discretion any question regarding disqualification of a Member of the Parliament

To grant pardon to a person who has been punished by a court-martial

To remove a Judge of the High Court

Answer is Right!

Answer is Wrong!

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CAPF – 2021

Download PDF Attempt Online

A) Appointment of Prime Minister: The President appoints the leader of the majority party in the Lok Sabha as the Prime Minister (Article 75). This power is conferred on the President.
B) To decide at his/her discretion any question regarding disqualification of a Member of the Parliament: Regarding disqualification of a Member of Parliament under Article 102 (except disqualification under the Tenth Schedule which is decided by the Speaker/Chairman), the question is referred to the President. However, Article 103(2) mandates that the President shall obtain the opinion of the Election Commission of India and shall act according to such opinion. Therefore, the President does not decide this question *at his/her discretion*. The power to decide is conferred, but *without* discretion. The power *to decide at discretion* is not conferred.
C) To grant pardon to a person who has been punished by a court-martial: The President has the power to grant pardons, reprieves, respites or remissions of punishment or to suspend, remit or commute the sentence of any person convicted of any offence under Article 72, including sentences by court-martial. This power is conferred.
D) To remove a Judge of the High Court: A Judge of a High Court can be removed from office by the President under Article 217(1)(b) read with Article 124(4). The removal process is initiated in Parliament, and an address by each House must be presented to the President in the same session for the President to issue the removal order. While the President issues the final order, the substantive power and decision-making process reside with Parliament. However, the *power to remove* (as the final executive act) is conferred on the President, albeit conditionally.
Comparing B and D, option B specifically highlights a power *at discretion* which is absent, making it the most accurate answer to the question asking which power *has not been conferred*. The power to decide disqualification under Art 102 *is* conferred on the President, but the associated discretion is not.

– President appoints PM, grants pardons (including court-martial sentences), and issues orders for judge removal (after parliamentary process).
– President decides on MP disqualification (under Art 102), but *must* act on ECI’s advice, thus lacking discretion.
– The question asks for a power not conferred or not conferred in the manner described (at discretion).

The President of India is the head of the Executive, and numerous powers are conferred upon this office by the Constitution. However, most of these powers are exercised on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, except for a few situations where the President may exercise discretion (e.g., appointing a PM when no party has a clear majority). Deciding MP disqualification under Art 102 is an example of a power where the President’s role is formal and bound by external advice (ECI).

48. Consider the following quote: “On the 26th January, 1950, we are going

Consider the following quote:
“On the 26th January, 1950, we are going to enter a life of contradictions. In politics we will have equality and in social and economic life we will have inequality.”
To whom among the following leaders is this quote attributed?

Mahatma Gandhi

Sarojini Naidu

B. R. Ambedkar

Somnath Lahiri

Answer is Right!

Answer is Wrong!

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CAPF – 2021

Download PDF Attempt Online

This famous quote is attributed to Dr. B. R. Ambedkar. It is from his concluding speech in the Constituent Assembly on November 25, 1949, delivered just a day before the Constitution was adopted. He spoke about the challenges India would face after becoming a republic, highlighting the contradiction of having political equality (one person, one vote) while persistent social and economic inequalities existed.

– The quote reflects on the inherent contradictions in Indian society at the dawn of the Republic.
– It contrasts political equality bestowed by the Constitution with existing social and economic disparities.
– The quote is from B.R. Ambedkar’s speech in the Constituent Assembly.

Dr. B. R. Ambedkar was the Chairman of the Drafting Committee of the Indian Constitution and is widely regarded as the chief architect of the Constitution. His speeches in the Constituent Assembly provide deep insights into the philosophy and objectives behind the constitutional provisions.

Join Our Telegram Channel

49. The Constitution of India contains no provision for the constitution o

The Constitution of India contains no provision for the constitution of municipalities in every State for

a Nagar Panchayat

a Municipal Council

a Municipal Corporation

an Urban Panchayat

Answer is Right!

Answer is Wrong!

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CAPF – 2021

Download PDF Attempt Online

Part IX-A of the Indian Constitution, introduced by the 74th Amendment Act, 1992, deals with Municipalities. Article 243Q mandates the constitution of Municipalities in every State. It specifies three types of Municipalities:
(a) a Nagar Panchayat for a transitional area (an area in transition from a rural area to an urban area);
(b) a Municipal Council for a smaller urban area; and
(c) a Municipal Corporation for a larger urban area.
The Constitution provides for Nagar Panchayats, Municipal Councils, and Municipal Corporations. It does not provide for an “Urban Panchayat”. Panchayats (Village Panchayats, Intermediate Panchayats, District Panchayats) are constitutionally provided for in Part IX for rural areas.

– Part IX-A of the Constitution deals with Municipalities.
– Article 243Q defines the types of Municipalities: Nagar Panchayat, Municipal Council, Municipal Corporation.
– The term “Urban Panchayat” is not used or defined in the Constitution for urban local governance.

The 74th Amendment aimed to provide constitutional status to urban local bodies and ensure their proper functioning. The structure of municipalities varies based on the size and characteristics of the urban area.

Join Our Telegram Channel

50. Which one of the following fundamental rights has not been provide

Which one of the following fundamental rights has **not** been provided to a person?

Protection against prosecution and punishment for the same offence more than once

To refuse to give his/her sample of handwriting as evidence to support a prosecution against him/her

To act as a witness against himself/herself

Right not to be convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in force at the time of commission of the act charged as an offence

Answer is Right!

Answer is Wrong!

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CAPF – 2021

Download PDF Attempt Online

Article 20 of the Constitution of India provides protection against arbitrary and excessive punishment. Article 20(1) deals with ex post facto laws (Option D). Article 20(2) deals with double jeopardy (Option A). Article 20(3) deals with self-incrimination, stating that “No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.” This grants the right *not* to be compelled to give incriminating testimony. The Supreme Court has held that providing physical evidence like handwriting samples or fingerprints does not fall under the category of being “compelled to be a witness against himself” because it is not testimonial compulsion. Therefore, a person does not have a fundamental right under Article 20(3) to refuse to give a handwriting sample as evidence.
Option C, “To act as a witness against himself/herself,” describes an action that is not a fundamental right; rather, the right is *not to be compelled* into this action. However, option B is a specific type of refusal, which courts have explicitly ruled is *not* a fundamental right protected by Article 20(3). Hence, the right *to refuse* a handwriting sample is not provided as a fundamental right.

– Article 20 provides protection against ex post facto laws, double jeopardy, and self-incrimination.
– The right against self-incrimination (Art 20(3)) protects against *testimonial* compulsion.
– Providing handwriting samples is generally considered non-testimonial evidence by courts.

The interpretation of Article 20(3) regarding physical evidence has evolved through case law. The phrase “to be a witness” has been interpreted narrowly to mean giving oral or documentary evidence of a testimonial character. The right to a fair trial (Option C, in a different interpretation) is considered an integral part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, but the phrasing in C is confusing. The right to die is not included in Article 21, as held by the Supreme Court in cases like Gian Kaur vs State of Punjab.

Join Our Telegram Channel