2017

41. Which one of the following statements is correct ?

Which one of the following statements is correct ?

Join Our Telegram Channel
Directive Principles of State Policy are not justiciable.
Legislations included in Ninth Schedule are not justiciable.
Laws enacted under Article 323-A are not justiciable.
Ordinances promulgated by the President of India are not justiciable.
This question was previously asked in
UPSC SO-Steno – 2017
Download PDFAttempt Online
Statement A is correct. Article 37 of the Constitution, which is part of Part IV containing the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs), clearly states, “The provisions contained in this Part shall not be enforceable by any court”. This means DPSPs are non-justiciable, i.e., they cannot be enforced through legal action in courts.
Statement B is incorrect. While laws placed in the Ninth Schedule were initially considered immune from judicial review, the Supreme Court in the I.R. Coelho case (2007) ruled that laws placed in the Ninth Schedule after April 24, 1973 (the date of the Kesavananda Bharati judgment) are subject to judicial review if they violate the basic structure of the Constitution.
Statement C is incorrect. Laws enacted under Article 323-A (Administrative Tribunals) establish tribunals whose decisions are subject to judicial review by High Courts (under Articles 226/227) and the Supreme Court (under Article 136), as established in the L. Chandra Kumar case (1997).
Statement D is incorrect. Ordinances promulgated by the President under Article 123 or Governors under Article 213 are laws and are subject to judicial review on grounds such as lack of legislative competence, violation of fundamental rights, or malafide intent (as established in cases like D.C. Wadhwa vs. State of Bihar).
Directive Principles of State Policy are explicitly made non-justiciable by Article 37 of the Constitution.
Justiciability refers to the ability to enforce rights or principles through court action. While DPSPs are non-justiciable, they are fundamental in the governance of the country and are expected to guide the State in making laws.

Subscribe on YouTube

42. Which of the following statements with regard to preventive detention

Which of the following statements with regard to preventive detention is/are correct ?

Subscribe on YouTube
  • 1. The detenu has no rights other than those mentioned in clauses (4) and (5) of Article 22 of the Constitution of India.
  • 2. The detenu can get bail on the ground that he had been in prison beyond twenty-four hours without an order of the magistrate.

Select the correct answer using the code given below :

1 only
2 only
Both 1 and 2
Neither 1 nor 2
This question was previously asked in
UPSC SO-Steno – 2017
Download PDFAttempt Online
Statement 1 is correct. Article 22 of the Constitution deals with protection against arrest and detention. Clauses (1) and (2) provide rights to persons arrested under ordinary law (right to be informed of grounds, right to consult a lawyer, and production before a magistrate within 24 hours). However, Article 22(3)(b) explicitly states that clauses (1) and (2) do not apply to persons arrested or detained under any law providing for preventive detention. The rights specifically granted to a person under preventive detention are contained in Article 22(4) and (5), which relate to the maximum period of detention without reference to an Advisory Board and the right to be informed of the grounds of detention and make a representation. Within the framework of Article 22 concerning detention rights, these are the only rights available to a detenu.
Statement 2 is incorrect. The requirement to produce an arrested person before a magistrate within 24 hours is under Article 22(2), which, as per Article 22(3)(b), does not apply to a person detained under preventive detention law. Therefore, failure to produce within 24 hours is not a valid ground for bail or release for a preventive detenu under this constitutional provision.
Article 22 distinguishes between rights related to ordinary arrest/detention and preventive detention; specific safeguards for preventive detention are outlined in clauses (4) and (5), excluding those in (1) and (2).
While Article 22(1) and (2) do not apply, a detenu still has other fundamental rights, but their enforcement can be limited by the preventive detention law itself, provided it is constitutional and follows procedures like Advisory Board review. The Supreme Court has also held that the detenu has a right to effectively represent against the detention order.

Join Our Telegram Channel

43. The Supreme Court of India has no power to grant special leave to appe

The Supreme Court of India has no power to grant special leave to appeal against

Subscribe on YouTube
the decisions of the National Green Tribunal
the decisions of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
against the decisions of all those tribunals for which appeal is provided under the legislation
any judgment passed by any Court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the armed forces
This question was previously asked in
UPSC SO-Steno – 2017
Download PDFAttempt Online
Article 136 of the Constitution grants the Supreme Court broad power to grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence, or order passed by any court or tribunal in India. However, Article 136(2) explicitly carves out an exception: “Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to any judgment, determination, sentence or order passed or made by any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces.” This means the Supreme Court cannot entertain a special leave petition against the decisions of military courts or tribunals.
The special leave petition power of the Supreme Court under Article 136 is exceptionally wide but specifically excludes decisions of courts and tribunals related to the armed forces.
The decisions of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) are subject to appeal or special leave petition to the Supreme Court. While legislation may provide for specific appeal routes for tribunal decisions, Article 136 provides an overriding power for the Supreme Court to grant special leave in exceptional circumstances, except for military tribunals.

Join Our Telegram Channel

44. The Constitution of India under Part XXI does not contain special prov

The Constitution of India under Part XXI does not contain special provision for which one of the following States ?

Subscribe on YouTube
Maharashtra
Gujarat
Andhra Pradesh
Bihar
This question was previously asked in
UPSC SO-Steno – 2017
Download PDFAttempt Online
Part XXI of the Constitution of India contains “Temporary, Transitional and Special Provisions”. This part includes specific articles providing special provisions for certain states. Article 371 contains special provisions for Maharashtra and Gujarat. Articles 371A to 371J provide special provisions for Nagaland, Assam, Manipur, Andhra Pradesh (and Telangana), Sikkim, Mizoram, Arunachal Pradesh, Goa, and Karnataka, respectively. Bihar is not among the states for which special provisions are made under Part XXI of the Constitution.
Part XXI of the Constitution enumerates special provisions for a specific set of states, primarily to address unique historical, social, or economic circumstances.
Article 371 covers Maharashtra and Gujarat. Article 371D and 371E cover Andhra Pradesh (and Telangana). Other states with special provisions in this part include Nagaland (371A), Assam (371B), Manipur (371C), Sikkim (371F), Mizoram (371G), Arunachal Pradesh (371H), Goa (371I), and Karnataka (371J).

Join Our Telegram Channel

45. Which one of the following statements is correct ?

Which one of the following statements is correct ?

Subscribe on YouTube
Any citizen of India above eighteen years of age can be appointed as the Prime Minister.
The Union Council of Ministers is collectively responsible to the Parliament.
While deciding any question regarding the age of a judge of a High Court, the President shall take advice of the Chief Justice of India.
While deciding any question regarding disqualification of a Member of Parliament, the President has power to decide the question after consulting the Supreme Court.
This question was previously asked in
UPSC SO-Steno – 2017
Download PDFAttempt Online
Statement C is correct. According to Article 217(3) of the Constitution, any question regarding the age of a Judge of a High Court shall be decided by the President after consultation with the Chief Justice of India, and the decision of the President shall be final.
Statement A is incorrect; the minimum age to be appointed as Prime Minister is linked to the minimum age for being a Member of Parliament (25 for Lok Sabha, 30 for Rajya Sabha), not just being a citizen above eighteen. Statement B is incorrect; the Union Council of Ministers is collectively responsible to the House of the People (Lok Sabha) only, as per Article 75(3), not the entire Parliament. Statement D is incorrect; while the President decides on the disqualification of an MP under Article 102(1), the President must obtain the opinion of the Election Commission and act according to that opinion, not consult the Supreme Court, as per Article 103(2).
The procedure for deciding the age of a High Court judge is crucial for matters related to their tenure and retirement. The final decision rests with the President, based on the advice of the Chief Justice of India.

Join Our Telegram Channel

46. Defence Research and Development Organisation has successfully carried

Defence Research and Development Organisation has successfully carried out joint user trials of indigenously developed Helina and Dhruvastra Anti-Tank Guided Missiles (ATGM) from the Advanced Light Helicopter in

Subscribe on YouTube
Odisha
Rajasthan
Tamil Nadu
Punjab
This question was previously asked in
UPSC SO-Steno – 2017
Download PDFAttempt Online
Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) successfully conducted joint user trials of the indigenously developed Helina (Army version) and Dhruvastra (Air Force version) Anti-Tank Guided Missiles (ATGMs) from the Advanced Light Helicopter (ALH) in Rajasthan. These trials took place at the Pokhran range.
Helina and Dhruvastra are helicopter-launched versions of the Nag ATGM, designed to engage and destroy enemy tanks and armoured vehicles.
Pokhran range in Rajasthan is a significant test site for various missile systems and defence technologies developed by DRDO and the Indian armed forces.

Join Our Telegram Channel

47. Which one of the following became the first State or Union Territory i

Which one of the following became the first State or Union Territory in India to launch Carbon Watch, a mobile application to assess the carbon footprint of an individual ?

Subscribe on YouTube
Delhi
Karnataka
Puducherry
Chandigarh
This question was previously asked in
UPSC SO-Steno – 2017
Download PDFAttempt Online
Chandigarh became the first State or Union Territory in India to launch the mobile application named “Carbon Watch”. This application is designed to assess the carbon footprint of an individual.
The initiative aims to make citizens aware of their environmental impact and encourages them to adopt more sustainable practices to reduce carbon emissions.
The “Carbon Watch” app allows individuals to calculate their carbon footprint based on factors like energy consumption, transport, waste generation, and water usage, and suggests actions to reduce it.

Join Our Telegram Channel

48. The Indian shooting contingent has topped the medals tally in the firs

The Indian shooting contingent has topped the medals tally in the first-ever Asian Online Shooting Championship, organised by

Join Our Telegram Channel
Kuwait Shooting Federation
Japan Shooting Federation
Taiwan Shooting Federation
Israel Shooting Federation
This question was previously asked in
UPSC SO-Steno – 2017
Download PDFAttempt Online
The first-ever Asian Online Shooting Championship, where the Indian shooting contingent topped the medals tally, was organised by the Kuwait Shooting Federation.
Holding shooting championships online became a practice in response to restrictions imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic, allowing athletes to compete remotely.
The championship provided valuable competitive exposure to shooters despite the global challenges posed by the pandemic and highlighted the growing prowess of Indian shooters.

Subscribe on YouTube

49. A team of scientists, doctors and photographers have launched a mobile

A team of scientists, doctors and photographers have launched a mobile application named “Snakepedia” that will present all relevant information on snakes, to help the public as well as doctors in treating snake bites. The team belongs to which one of the following states ?

Join Our Telegram Channel
Kerala
Madhya Pradesh
Tamil Nadu
Uttar Pradesh
This question was previously asked in
UPSC SO-Steno – 2017
Download PDFAttempt Online
The mobile application “Snakepedia,” aimed at providing comprehensive information on snakes to help both the public and medical professionals, was launched by a team of scientists, doctors, and photographers belonging to Kerala.
The app was developed in the context of Kerala’s rich biodiversity and the prevalence of snake-related incidents, highlighting a public health and conservation initiative.
The app serves as a digital encyclopedia and a guide for identifying snakes and providing appropriate medical aid in case of bites, featuring photographs and descriptions of various snake species found in the region.

Subscribe on YouTube

50. Which of the following statements is/are correct? Under the Right to I

Which of the following statements is/are correct?
Under the Right to Information Act, 2005, when only a part of the information is supplied severing the same from the rest of the information which cannot be supplied, the applicant must be given notice indicating

  • 1. reasons for the severance.
  • 2. address of the authority which had taken the decision.
  • 3. his/her right to review the decision.

Select the correct answer using the code given below :

Join Our Telegram Channel
1 only
2 and 3 only
1 and 3 only
1, 2 and 3
This question was previously asked in
UPSC SO-Steno – 2017
Download PDFAttempt Online
Under Section 10(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, when only part of the information requested can be supplied (severing the exempt part), the Public Information Officer must give a notice stating the reasons for the decision (Statement 1 is correct) and informing the applicant of their rights with respect to the review of the decision (Statement 3 is correct), which refers to the right to appeal under Section 19. The Act requires providing the name and designation of the person giving the decision [Section 10(1)(b)], but not explicitly the address of the authority (Statement 2 is incorrect).
Section 10 of the RTI Act ensures that when information is partially denied, the applicant is informed of the justification for the denial and their right to challenge the decision.
The notice under Section 10(1) also requires details of the fees for obtaining the supplied information and findings on any material question of fact related to the severance decision.

Subscribe on YouTube
Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5