UPSC IAS Archives

21. Consider the following statements : 1. 21st February is declared to

Consider the following statements :

1. 21st February is declared to be the International Mother Language Day by UNICEF.
2. The demand that Bangla has to be one of the national languages was raised in the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan.

Which of the above statements is/are correct?

1 only

2 only

Both 1 and 2

Neither 1 nor 2

This question was previously asked in

UPSC IAS – 2021

Download PDF Attempt Online

Statement 1 is incorrect. 21st February is indeed observed as International Mother Language Day, but it was proclaimed by the General Conference of UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) in November 1999, not UNICEF (United Nations Children’s Fund).
Statement 2 is correct. The demand that Bangla should be one of the national languages of Pakistan was raised forcefully by the Bengali-speaking population of East Pakistan immediately after the formation of Pakistan in 1947. This demand was voiced within the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan, leading to the Language Movement which peaked on 21st February 1952 when students demonstrating for the recognition of Bangla were killed by police.

– International Mother Language Day (Feb 21) was declared by UNESCO.
– The demand for recognizing Bangla as a national language was raised in the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan as part of the Language Movement.

The Language Movement in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) was a significant factor leading to the independence of Bangladesh in 1971. The denial of equal status to the Bengali language, despite it being spoken by the majority of Pakistan’s population, was a major source of political and cultural alienation for East Pakistan.

22. With reference to India, consider the following pairs: Action

With reference to India, consider the following pairs:

Action	The Act under which it is covered
1. Unauthorized wearing of police or military uniforms	: The Official Secrets Act, 1923
2. Knowingly misleading of otherwise interfering with a police officer or military officer when engaged in their duties	: The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
3. Celebratory gunfire which can endanger the personal safety of others	: The Arms (Amendment) Act, 2019

How many of the above pairs are correctly matched?

Only one

Only two

All three

None

This question was previously asked in

UPSC IAS – 2023

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct answer is A) Only one.

Pair 1 is incorrect: Unauthorized wearing of police or military uniforms is primarily dealt with under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), such as Section 140 (wearing garb or carrying token used by soldier, sailor or airman with intent to personate) or Section 171 (wearing garb or carrying token used by public servant with fraudulent intent), not the Official Secrets Act, 1923, which pertains to matters of state security and secrecy.
Pair 2 is incorrect: Knowingly misleading or interfering with a police or military officer on duty is a criminal offense dealt with under the IPC (e.g., Section 186 for voluntarily obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions) or other relevant laws concerning public order or specific force acts, not the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which governs the admissibility and relevance of evidence in court.
Pair 3 is correct: Celebratory gunfire which can endanger personal safety is explicitly made a punishable offense under Section 25(9) of the Arms Act, 1959, as amended by The Arms (Amendment) Act, 2019. The 2019 amendment specifically aimed to curb such dangerous practices.

The Arms Act, 1959 and its subsequent amendments regulate the acquisition, possession, manufacture, sale, transport, import, export, and use of firearms and ammunition in India. The 2019 amendment introduced stricter penalties and new offenses, including for celebratory firing.

23. With reference to Finance Bill and Money Bill in the Indian Parliament

With reference to Finance Bill and Money Bill in the Indian Parliament, consider the following statements:
1. When the Lok Sabha transmits Finance Bill to the Rajya Sabha, it can amend or reject the Bill.
2. When the Lok Sabha transmits Money Bill to the Rajya Sabha, it cannot amend or reject the Bill, it can only make recommendations.
3. In the case of disagreement between the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha, there is no joint sitting for Money Bill, but a joint sitting becomes necessary for Finance Bill.
How many of the above statements are correct?

Only one

Only two

All three

None

This question was previously asked in

UPSC IAS – 2023

Download PDF Attempt Online

Statement 1 is correct. Finance Bills in India can be of two types: Finance Bill (Part A) and Finance Bill (Part B). While Finance Bill (Part A) contains aspects that make it close to a Money Bill and requires the President’s recommendation for introduction, it is overall treated as an ordinary bill concerning the powers of the Rajya Sabha. Rajya Sabha has the power to amend or reject a Finance Bill.

Statement 2 is correct. Money Bills, as defined under Article 110, have a special procedure outlined in Article 109. Money Bills can only be introduced in the Lok Sabha. Once passed by the Lok Sabha, they are transmitted to the Rajya Sabha, which cannot amend or reject the Bill. Rajya Sabha can only make recommendations, which the Lok Sabha may or may not accept. If Rajya Sabha does not return the Bill within 14 days, it is deemed to have been passed by both Houses in the form passed by the Lok Sabha.

Statement 3 is correct. Article 108 of the Constitution provides for a joint sitting of both Houses to resolve disagreements on ordinary Bills. Money Bills are specifically excluded from the scope of joint sittings; the special procedure under Article 109 ensures that the Lok Sabha’s will prevails. Finance Bills, being treated primarily as ordinary bills (except for introduction requirements for Part A), are subject to the joint sitting mechanism in case of a deadlock between the Houses.

– Rajya Sabha can amend/reject Finance Bills but only make recommendations on Money Bills.
– Money Bills have a special procedure giving Lok Sabha pre-eminence.
– Joint sitting is available for ordinary Bills and Finance Bills, but not for Money Bills.

The Speaker of the Lok Sabha has the final authority to decide whether a Bill is a Money Bill or not, and this decision cannot be questioned in any court.