UPSC IAS

41. With reference to the Pradhan Mantri Shram Yogi Maan-dhan (PM-SYM) Yoj

With reference to the Pradhan Mantri Shram Yogi Maan-dhan (PM-SYM) Yojana, consider the following statements:

  • 1. The entry age group for enrolment in the scheme is 21 to 40 years.
  • 2. Age specific contribution shall be made by the beneficiary.
  • 3. Each subscriber under the scheme shall receive a minimum pension of ₹ 3,000 per month after attaining the age of 60 years.
  • 4. Family pension is applicable to the spouse and unmarried daughters.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Join Our Telegram Channel
1, 3 and 4
2 and 3 only
2 only
1, 2 and 4
This question was previously asked in
UPSC IAS – 2024
Download PDFAttempt Online
Statement 1 is incorrect; the entry age for PM-SYM Yojana is 18 to 40 years, not 21 to 40. Statement 2 is correct; the monthly contribution by the beneficiary is indeed age-specific. Statement 3 is correct; the scheme guarantees a minimum monthly pension of ₹3,000 after attaining the age of 60 years. Statement 4 is incorrect; family pension is applicable only to the spouse (receiving 50% of the pension) upon the death of the subscriber, not also to unmarried daughters.
PM-SYM is a voluntary and contributory pension scheme for unorganized workers, providing a minimum assured pension of ₹3000 after age 60 with age-specific contributions.
The scheme is jointly funded by the beneficiary and the Central Government, with equal contributions. It targets unorganized sector workers with monthly income below ₹15,000 and who are not covered by other statutory social security schemes. Family pension rules under PM-SYM specifically mention the spouse as the beneficiary upon the death of the subscriber.

Subscribe on YouTube

42. With reference to the ‘Pradhan Mantri Surakshit Matritva Abhiyan’, con

With reference to the ‘Pradhan Mantri Surakshit Matritva Abhiyan’, consider the following statements:

Join Our Telegram Channel
  • 1. This scheme guarantees a minimum package of antenatal care services to women in their second and third trimesters of pregnancy and six months post-delivery health care service in any government health facility.
  • 2. Under this scheme, private sector health care providers of certain specialities can volunteer to provide services at nearby government health facilities.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

1 only
2 only
Both 1 and 2
Neither 1 nor 2
This question was previously asked in
UPSC IAS – 2024
Download PDFAttempt Online
Statement 1 is incorrect. The Pradhan Mantri Surakshit Matritva Abhiyan (PMSMA) guarantees a minimum package of antenatal care services on the 9th of every month for pregnant women in their second and third trimesters at government health facilities. It does not explicitly cover six months of post-delivery health care services as a guaranteed package under *this specific scheme*. Statement 2 is correct. Under PMSMA, private sector healthcare providers, especially specialists, are encouraged to volunteer their services for free check-ups at government facilities.
PMSMA focuses on providing assured, comprehensive antenatal care services on a fixed day every month through the involvement of private sector volunteers and public health facilities.
The scheme aims to detect high-risk pregnancies early and ensure adequate care. Services provided include comprehensive antenatal check-ups, screening for conditions like anemia, gestational diabetes, and hypertension, and counseling. The involvement of private practitioners is a unique feature intended to supplement the efforts of the public health system.

Subscribe on YouTube

43. With reference to the Digital India Land Records Modernisation Program

With reference to the Digital India Land Records Modernisation Programme, consider the following statements :

  • To implement the scheme, the Central Government provides 100% funding.
  • Under the Scheme, Cadastral Maps are Digitised.
  • An initiative has been undertaken to transliterate the Records of Rights from local language to any of the languages recognized by the Constitution of India.

Which of the statements given above are correct ?

Join Our Telegram Channel
1 and 2 only
2 and 3 only
1 and 3 only
1, 2 and 3
This question was previously asked in
UPSC IAS – 2024
Download PDFAttempt Online
Statement 1 is correct as the Digital India Land Records Modernisation Programme (DILRMP) is a Central Sector Scheme, implying 100% funding by the Central Government. Statement 2 is correct as a key objective of DILRMP is the digitization of cadastral maps. Statement 3 is incorrect as the primary focus is on digitizing records and integrating them with maps, not necessarily transliterating them into *any* recognized language, although accessibility in the local language and sometimes English is considered.
DILRMP is a Centrally funded scheme aiming to digitize land records and maps for improved land management.
The DILRMP aims to build an integrated land information system. Components include computerization of land records, digitization of cadastral maps, survey/re-survey, computerization of registration, and capacity building. The scheme focuses on accurate, transparent, and easily accessible land information systems. Transliteration to *any* of the constitutionally recognized languages for all records is not a stated core objective.

Subscribe on YouTube

44. Consider the following statements : Statement-I : Recently, Venezuela

Consider the following statements :
Statement-I : Recently, Venezuela has achieved a rapid recovery from its economic crisis and succeeded in preventing its people from fleeing/emigrating to other countries.
Statement-II : Venezuela has the world’s largest oil reserves.
Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above statements ?

Join Our Telegram Channel
Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct and Statement-II explains Statement-I
Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct, but Statement-II does not explain Statement-I
Statement-I is correct, but Statement-II is incorrect
Statement-I is incorrect, but Statement-II is correct
This question was previously asked in
UPSC IAS – 2024
Download PDFAttempt Online
Statement-I is incorrect because Venezuela is still grappling with a severe economic crisis that has led to widespread emigration. Statement-II is correct as Venezuela possesses the world’s largest proven oil reserves. Therefore, Statement-I is incorrect, but Statement-II is correct.
Statement-I inaccurately portrays Venezuela’s economic situation and migration trends, while Statement-II correctly identifies its status regarding oil reserves.
Venezuela’s economy has suffered significantly from hyperinflation, shortages of goods, and political instability, resulting in millions of Venezuelans leaving the country in recent years. While oil reserves are vast, mismanagement and international sanctions have impacted oil production and export, contributing to the economic woes rather than preventing them.

Subscribe on YouTube

45. Consider the following statements : Statement-I : The European Parliam

Consider the following statements :
Statement-I : The European Parliament approved The Net-Zero Industry Act recently.
Statement-II : The European Union intends to achieve carbon neutrality by 2040 and therefore aims to develop all of its own clean technology by that time.
Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above statements ?

Subscribe on YouTube
Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct and Statement-II explains Statement-I
Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct, but Statement-II does not explain Statement-I
Statement-I is correct, but Statement-II is incorrect
Statement-I is incorrect, but Statement-II is correct
This question was previously asked in
UPSC IAS – 2024
Download PDFAttempt Online
Statement-I is correct: The European Parliament recently approved the Net-Zero Industry Act. This act is a key part of the EU’s Green Deal Industrial Plan. Statement-II is incorrect: The European Union’s target year for achieving carbon neutrality is **2050**, not 2040. While the Net-Zero Industry Act aims to strengthen the EU’s domestic manufacturing capacity for clean technologies, the goal is tied to meeting the 2050 climate target, not necessarily developing *all* technology domestically by 2040.
– The Net-Zero Industry Act was proposed by the EU Commission and approved through the EU legislative process.
– The Act aims to boost the manufacturing of strategic net-zero technologies within the EU.
– The primary EU target for climate neutrality (net-zero emissions) is set for 2050.
The Net-Zero Industry Act is intended to make the EU’s economy more resilient and competitive in the transition to clean energy, reducing reliance on imports for crucial technologies like solar panels, wind turbines, and batteries. The 2050 climate neutrality target is enshrined in the European Climate Law.

Join Our Telegram Channel

46. With reference to the Parliament of India, consider the following stat

With reference to the Parliament of India, consider the following statements:

  • Prerogation of a House by the President of India does not require the advice of the Council of Ministers.
  • Prerogation of a House is generally done after the House is adjourned sine die but there is no bar to the President of India prorogating the House which is in session.
  • Dissolution of the Lok Sabha is done by the President of India who, save in exceptional circumstances, does so on the advice of the Council of Ministers.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct ?

Subscribe on YouTube
1 only
1 and 2
2 and 3
3 only
This question was previously asked in
UPSC IAS – 2024
Download PDFAttempt Online
Statement 1 is incorrect: The President exercises the power of prorogation (and summoning a session) on the advice of the Council of Ministers, specifically the Government’s recommendation conveyed by the Prime Minister. Statement 2 is correct: Prorogation brings a session of the House to an end. While it is usually done after the House has been adjourned sine die (indefinitely), the President has the power to prorogue the House even while it is in session. Statement 3 is correct: Dissolution of the Lok Sabha is done by the President. While the President typically acts on the advice of the Council of Ministers (especially after a government loses confidence or completes its term), there can be exceptional circumstances (like a hung Parliament where no viable government can be formed) where the President might exercise some discretion, though the primary convention is to act on advice.
– Prorogation is the termination of a Parliament session by the President.
– Dissolution is the termination of the life of the Lok Sabha, requiring fresh elections.
– Both powers are generally exercised by the President on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.
– Prorogation can occur while the House is sitting, not just after sine die adjournment.
The powers of summoning, prorogation, and dissolution are constitutional prerogatives of the President but are exercised subject to the principles of parliamentary democracy, where the executive (Council of Ministers) is accountable to the legislature (Lok Sabha). The advice of the CoM is binding on the President in normal circumstances.

Join Our Telegram Channel

47. With reference to the Indian Parliament, consider the following statem

With reference to the Indian Parliament, consider the following statements :

Subscribe on YouTube
  • 1. A bill pending in the Lok Sabha lapses on its dissolution.
  • 2. A bill passed by the Lok Sabha and pending in the Rajya Sabha lapses on the dissolution of the Lok Sabha.
  • 3. A bill in regard to which the President of India has notified his/her intention to summon the Houses to a joint sitting lapses on the dissolution of the Lok Sabha.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct ?

Join Our Telegram Channel
1 only
1 and 2
2 and 3
3 only
This question was previously asked in
UPSC IAS – 2024
Download PDFAttempt Online
Statement 1 is correct: A bill pending in the Lok Sabha (either introduced there and not passed, or passed by Rajya Sabha and pending for consideration/amendment in Lok Sabha) lapses on the dissolution of the Lok Sabha. Statement 2 is correct: A bill passed by the Lok Sabha but pending in the Rajya Sabha (either for passage or due to disagreement) lapses on the dissolution of the Lok Sabha. Statement 3 is incorrect: According to Article 108(5), if the President has notified his intention to summon a joint sitting of both Houses under Article 108 in respect of a bill, such bill does not lapse on the dissolution of the Lok Sabha.
– Dissolution of the Lok Sabha terminates the life of the House, and pending business generally lapses.
– Bills originating and pending in Rajya Sabha do not lapse on Lok Sabha dissolution.
– Bills passed by both Houses but pending President’s assent do not lapse.
– Bills where a joint sitting has been notified by the President before dissolution do not lapse.
The rules regarding the lapsing of bills upon dissolution of the Lok Sabha are outlined in Article 107 of the Constitution. These rules are crucial for understanding the legislative process and continuity in the Indian Parliament. The exception for bills headed for a joint sitting is designed to ensure that deadlock-resolving mechanisms initiated before dissolution are not nullified.

48. With reference to the Speaker of the Lok Sabha, consider the following

With reference to the Speaker of the Lok Sabha, consider the following statements :
While any resolution for the removal of the Speaker of the Lok Sabha is under consideration

Join Our Telegram Channel
  • 1. He/She shall not preside.
  • 2. He/She shall not have the right to speak.
  • 3. He/She shall not be entitled to vote on the resolution in the first instance.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct ?

Subscribe on YouTube
1 only
1 and 2 only
2 and 3 only
1, 2 and 3
This question was previously asked in
UPSC IAS – 2024
Download PDFAttempt Online
Statement 1 is correct: Article 96(1) of the Constitution of India states that while a resolution for the removal of the Speaker is under consideration, the Speaker shall not preside at the sitting of the House. Statement 2 is incorrect: Article 96(2) explicitly states that the Speaker shall have the right to speak in and otherwise take part in the proceedings. Statement 3 is incorrect: Article 96(2) states that the Speaker shall be entitled to vote only in the first instance on such resolution or any other matter during such proceedings but not in the case of an equality of votes. This means they can vote in the first instance, unlike the general rule where the Speaker only votes in case of a tie (casting vote) when presiding. The statement says they shall *not* be entitled to vote in the first instance, which is the opposite of the constitutional provision.
– The procedure for the Speaker’s removal is laid down in Article 96 of the Constitution.
– The Speaker cannot preside when their removal resolution is being considered.
– The Speaker retains the right to speak and participate in the debate.
– The Speaker can vote in the first instance on such a resolution.
The provisions ensure that the Speaker, while facing a potential removal, has the opportunity to defend themselves in the House, but cannot use the chair’s power to influence the process. The right to vote in the first instance is a specific exception to the normal rule of the Speaker’s casting vote.

49. Consider the following statements : Statement-I : India does not im

Consider the following statements :

  • Statement-I : India does not import apples from the United States of America.
  • Statement-II : In India, the law prohibits the import of Genetically Modified food without the approval of the competent authority.

Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above statements ?

Subscribe on YouTube
Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct and Statement-II explains Statement-I
Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct, but Statement-II does not explain Statement-I
Statement-I is correct, but Statement-II is incorrect
Statement-I is incorrect, but Statement-II is correct
This question was previously asked in
UPSC IAS – 2024
Download PDFAttempt Online
Statement-I claims India does not import apples from the United States of America. This is incorrect. India has historically been a market for US apples, although trade volumes and tariffs have fluctuated due to policy changes and trade disputes. Statement-II states that in India, the law prohibits the import of Genetically Modified food without the approval of the competent authority. This is correct. India has regulations under the Environment Protection Act, 1986, and rules thereunder that govern the import of genetically modified organisms and products, requiring approval from bodies like the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC).
– India is a significant importer of various agricultural products, including fruits.
– US apples are among the fruits imported into India, albeit subject to trade dynamics.
– India has a regulatory framework in place for genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and products.
– Import of GM food requires specific regulatory approval in India.
Trade relations between India and the USA involving agricultural products like apples have been subject to discussions and tariff adjustments. Regarding GM food imports, India maintains a cautious approach, and rigorous risk assessment and approval processes are mandated by law before any GM food item can be imported.

Join Our Telegram Channel

50. Consider the following statements : Statement-I : There is instabil

Consider the following statements :

Subscribe on YouTube
  • Statement-I : There is instability and worsening security situation in the Sahel region.
  • Statement-II : There have been military takeovers/coups d’état in several countries of the Sahel region in the recent past.

Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above statements ?

Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct and Statement-II explains Statement-I
Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct, but Statement-II does not explain Statement-I
Statement-I is correct, but Statement-II is incorrect
Statement-I is incorrect, but Statement-II is correct
This question was previously asked in
UPSC IAS – 2024
Download PDFAttempt Online
Statement-I claims there is instability and a worsening security situation in the Sahel region. This is correct; the region faces severe challenges from terrorism, inter-communal violence, organized crime, and the impacts of climate change. Statement-II states that there have been military takeovers/coups d’état in several Sahel countries recently. This is also correct; countries like Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger, and Chad have experienced coups or attempted coups in the past few years. The military takeovers have often exacerbated existing instability and security problems by disrupting governance, weakening state institutions, and sometimes fueling further conflict. Therefore, Statement-II provides a significant explanation for the situation described in Statement-I.
– The Sahel region is a vast area south of the Sahara Desert facing multiple crises, including security.
– Recent years have seen a rise in successful military coups in several Sahelian nations.
– Military takeovers often destabilize political systems and can worsen security environments by creating power vacuums or diverting resources.
The instability in the Sahel is a complex issue driven by various factors, including poverty, weak governance, ethnic tensions, environmental degradation, and the spread of extremist groups. The recent wave of coups has been a major blow to democratic transitions in the region and has further complicated international efforts to address the security crisis.

Join Our Telegram Channel
Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5
Test 1Test 2Test 3Test 4Test 5Test 6Test 7Test 8Test 9Test 10Test 11Test 12Test 13Test 14Test 15Test 16Test 17Test 18Test 19Test 20Test 21Test 22Test 23Test 24