Election Commission

1. Which one of the following Articles of the Constitution of India deals

Which one of the following Articles of the Constitution of India deals with the provisions of Election Commission of India ?

[amp_mcq option1=”Article 324″ option2=”Article 330″ option3=”Article 336″ option4=”Article 339″ correct=”option1″]

This question was previously asked in
UPSC Combined Section Officer – 2024
Download PDFAttempt Online
Article 324 of the Constitution of India deals with the provisions of Election Commission of India.
Article 324 provides for the superintendence, direction and control of elections to Parliament, to the Legislature of every State and to the offices of President and Vice-President held by the Election Commission. It establishes the Election Commission as an independent constitutional body.
Part XV of the Constitution (Articles 324 to 329) deals with elections. Article 324 is the foundational article for the Election Commission, specifying its composition, powers, and functions related to conducting free and fair elections in India.

2. Which of the following is not among the functions of the Election Comm

Which of the following is not among the functions of the Election Commission of India ?

[amp_mcq option1=”To conduct elections to the Parliament and State Legislatures” option2=”To supervise, direct and control the preparations of the electoral rolls in a State” option3=”To conduct elections to the offices of the President and the Vice-President” option4=”To conduct elections to local bodies like municipalities etc.” correct=”option4″]

This question was previously asked in
UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2022
Download PDFAttempt Online
The Election Commission of India (ECI) is responsible for conducting elections to the Parliament, State Legislatures, President, and Vice-President. It also supervises, directs, and controls the preparation of electoral rolls. However, elections to local bodies like municipalities and panchayats are conducted by separate State Election Commissions, which are constitutional bodies under state laws.
– The ECI is established under Article 324 of the Constitution.
– State Election Commissions were created following the 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendment Acts to conduct elections to Panchayati Raj Institutions and Urban Local Bodies.
The State Election Commission is independent of the Election Commission of India. Its composition and appointment procedures vary across states.

3. With regard to the event of deployment of CISF during election duties,

With regard to the event of deployment of CISF during election duties, which one of the following statements is *not* correct?

[amp_mcq option1=”They should be absolutely impartial and ensure that the spirit of the law is not violated.” option2=”Even if the Presiding Officer asks to arrest, CISF personnel deployed on duty, cannot make arrest.” option3=”Does not hesitate to use force if there is instance of booth capturing.” option4=”In the event of attack on the polling station by miscreants, the CISF will not hesitate to use force.” correct=”option2″]

This question was previously asked in
UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2021
Download PDFAttempt Online
The question asks which statement about CISF deployment during election duties is *not* correct.
A) CISF personnel must be impartial and ensure the spirit of the law is not violated. This is correct behavior for any security force during elections.
B) Even if the Presiding Officer asks to arrest, CISF personnel deployed on duty, cannot make arrest. This statement is incorrect. CISF personnel have powers of arrest without warrant under Section 11 of the CISF Act for offences committed under the Act or any other law, particularly cognizable offences committed in their presence. Disturbing elections, booth capturing, or attacking polling stations are offences. While their primary role is to assist and hand over to police, stating they *cannot* make an arrest is an overstatement of their limitations and therefore incorrect.
C) Does not hesitate to use force if there is instance of booth capturing. This is correct; preventing booth capturing is a key duty, and force may be necessary.
D) In the event of attack on the polling station by miscreants, the CISF will not hesitate to use force. This is correct; protecting the polling station is a primary duty.
Therefore, the statement that is not correct is that they cannot make an arrest.
CISF personnel possess powers of arrest under Section 11 of the CISF Act for relevant offences. While standard procedure during election duty may involve detaining and handing over to the police, stating they cannot make an arrest at all is inaccurate.
CISF’s role in election duties is crucial for maintaining law and order, ensuring free and fair polls, and protecting polling personnel and voters. Their actions are guided by election laws, the CISF Act, and directives from the Election Commission and local administration.

4. Consider the following statements : 1. In India, there is no law res

Consider the following statements :

  • 1. In India, there is no law restricting the candidates from contesting in one Lok Sabha election from three constituencies.
  • 2. In 1991, Lok Sabha Election, Shri Devi Lal contested from three Lok Sabha constituencies.
  • 3. As per the existing rules, if a candidate contests in one Lok Sabha election from many constituencies, his/her party should bear the cost of bye-elections to the constituencies vacated by him/her in the event of him/her winning in all the constituencies.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

[amp_mcq option1=”1 only” option2=”2 only” option3=”1 and 3″ option4=”2 and 3″ correct=”option2″]

This question was previously asked in
UPSC IAS – 2021
Download PDFAttempt Online
The correct answer is B) 2 only.
Statement 1 is incorrect. Section 33(7) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, was amended in 1996 to restrict a candidate from contesting a general election or a group of bye-elections or elections to Rajya Sabha/Legislative Councils from more than two constituencies. Therefore, contesting from three constituencies is not allowed under the current law.
Statement 2 is correct. Before the 1996 amendment, there was no such restriction. Shri Devi Lal, among others (like Atal Bihari Vajpayee in 1957), contested from multiple constituencies. In the 1991 Lok Sabha election, Shri Devi Lal contested from Sikar, Rohtak, and Amethi constituencies.
Statement 3 is incorrect. There have been recommendations from the Election Commission and Law Commission to hold candidates or parties responsible for the cost of bye-elections caused by a candidate winning multiple seats and vacating all but one. However, these recommendations have not been enacted into law. The cost of conducting bye-elections is currently borne by the public exchequer.
The restriction to two constituencies was introduced to prevent candidates from winning multiple seats and then causing expensive bye-elections by vacating all but one.

5. Consider the following statements: 1. According to the Constitution

Consider the following statements:

  • 1. According to the Constitution of India, a person who is eligible to vote can be made a minister in a State for six months even if he/she is not a member of the Legislature of that State.
  • 2. According to the Representation of People Act, 1951, a person convicted of a criminal offence and sentenced to imprisonment for five years is permanently disqualified from contesting an election even after his release from prison.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct ?

[amp_mcq option1=”1 only” option2=”2 only” option3=”Both 1 and 2″ option4=”Neither 1 nor 2″ correct=”option1″]

This question was previously asked in
UPSC IAS – 2020
Download PDFAttempt Online
Statement 1: Article 164(4) of the Constitution states that a Minister who for any period of six consecutive months is not a member of the Legislature of the State shall at the expiration of that period cease to be a Minister. This implies that a person who is otherwise eligible can be appointed as a minister for a period of up to six months, during which time they must get elected to the legislature. Eligibility to vote is a basic requirement for being a legislator, so a voter is generally eligible to be considered for ministerial post for this period. Thus, statement 1 is correct.
Statement 2: Section 8 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 deals with disqualification on conviction for certain offences. If a person is convicted of any offence and sentenced to imprisonment for two years or more, he shall be disqualified from the date of such conviction and shall continue to be disqualified for a further period of six years after his release. A sentence of five years imprisonment falls under this category. The disqualification is for the period of sentence plus six years after release, not “permanently”. Thus, statement 2 is incorrect.
– A non-legislator can be a minister for a maximum of six months (Article 164(4)).
– Disqualification under RPA, 1951 for conviction and sentence of 2+ years is for the sentence duration plus six years after release, not permanent.
Statement 1 reflects the flexibility in the Indian parliamentary system to allow experts or individuals not currently in the legislature to be appointed as ministers for a short duration, provided they get elected within six months. Statement 2 highlights the specific provisions for criminal disqualification of candidates under the RPA, 1951, which are aimed at keeping persons with criminal backgrounds out of the legislature for a specified period.

6. Consider the following statements: 1. The Election Commission of Ind

Consider the following statements:

  • 1. The Election Commission of India is a five-member body.
  • 2. Union Ministry of Home Affairs decides the election schedule for the conduct of both general elections and bye-elections.
  • 3. Election Commission resolves the disputes relating to splits/mergers of recognised political parties.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct ?

[amp_mcq option1=”1 and 2 only” option2=”2 only” option3=”2 and 3 only” option4=”3 only” correct=”option4″]

This question was previously asked in
UPSC IAS – 2017
Download PDFAttempt Online
The correct option is D, as only statement 3 is correct.
Statement 1 is incorrect: The Election Commission of India is currently a three-member body, consisting of the Chief Election Commissioner and two Election Commissioners. While its composition has varied in the past (single-member or multi-member with different numbers), it is not a five-member body.
Statement 2 is incorrect: The Election Commission of India, not the Union Ministry of Home Affairs, is responsible for deciding the election schedule for both general elections and bye-elections. The Ministry of Law and Justice is the nodal ministry for the ECI regarding legislative matters, but the schedule is the ECI’s prerogative.
Statement 3 is correct: A key function of the Election Commission of India is to settle disputes related to splits and mergers of recognised political parties. This is based on the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order.
The Election Commission of India is an independent constitutional body established under Article 324 of the Constitution of India. Its primary function is to superintend, direct and control the preparation of electoral rolls and the conduct of all elections to Parliament and to the Legislature of every State and of elections to the offices of President and Vice-President held under the Constitution.

7. Right to vote and to be elected in India is a

Right to vote and to be elected in India is a

[amp_mcq option1=”Fundamental Right” option2=”Natural Right” option3=”Constitutional Right” option4=”Legal Right” correct=”option3″]

This question was previously asked in
UPSC IAS – 2017
Download PDFAttempt Online
In India, the right to vote and to be elected is considered a Constitutional Right.
Article 326 of the Constitution of India guarantees the right to vote to every adult citizen (universal adult suffrage). The right to be elected is also derived from the Constitution and specified further by laws like the Representation of the People Act.
While the mechanics of voting and elections are governed by statutory laws, the fundamental right to participate in the democratic process through voting and seeking election finds its basis and legitimacy in the Constitution itself, making it a Constitutional Right rather than merely a legal or statutory right.

8. For election to the Lok Sabha, a nomination paper can be filed by

For election to the Lok Sabha, a nomination paper can be filed by

[amp_mcq option1=”anyone residing in India.” option2=”a resident of the constituency from which the election is to be contested.” option3=”any citizen of India whose name appears in the electoral roll of a constituency.” option4=”any citizen of India.” correct=”option3″]

This question was previously asked in
UPSC IAS – 2017
Download PDFAttempt Online
The correct answer is C) any citizen of India whose name appears in the electoral roll of a constituency.
As per the Representation of the People Act, 1951, to be eligible to file a nomination for a Lok Sabha election, a person must be a citizen of India and their name must be included in the electoral roll of any parliamentary constituency in India.
Article 84 of the Constitution of India lays down the qualifications for membership of Parliament, which includes being a citizen of India and being not less than 25 years of age for the Lok Sabha. Section 4 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, further specifies that a person is not qualified to be chosen for a seat in the Lok Sabha unless they are an elector for any parliamentary constituency. This means their name must be on the voters’ list. They do not need to be a resident or elector of the specific constituency from which they wish to contest, although they must be an elector somewhere in India.

9. Which of the following statements with regard to the Anoop Barenwal v.

Which of the following statements with regard to the Anoop Barenwal v. Union of India (2023) case is/are correct ?
Select the answer using the code given below :

  • 1. The case was heard by a Constitutional Bench
  • 2. According to the judgment, the grounds for removal of Election Commissioners shall be the same as the Chief Justice of India

[amp_mcq option1=”1 only” option2=”2 only” option3=”Both 1 and 2″ option4=”Neither 1 nor 2″ correct=”option1″]

This question was previously asked in
UPSC CAPF – 2024
Download PDFAttempt Online
Statement 1 is correct. The case of Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India (2023), concerning the appointment of Election Commissioners, was heard by a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court.
Statement 2 is incorrect. The judgment primarily focused on the *appointment process* of the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners (ECs), ruling that they should be appointed by the President on the recommendation of a committee comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha, and the Chief Justice of India. While the judgment aimed to provide the ECs with greater independence similar to the CEC and Supreme Court judges, it did *not* change the constitutional provision regarding the *grounds* for removal of Election Commissioners. According to Article 324(5), an Election Commissioner cannot be removed from office except on the recommendation of the Chief Election Commissioner. The grounds for removal of the CEC (and Supreme Court judges) are “proved misbehaviour or incapacity” through a parliamentary process, but this is not explicitly stated as the grounds for other ECs when recommended for removal by the CEC in the Constitution or the judgment. The judgment reinforced the existing removal protection via the CEC’s recommendation.
The Anoop Baranwal judgment was aimed at ensuring the independence and fairness of the Election Commission by reforming the appointment process, which previously relied solely on the executive. The court called for this committee system until Parliament enacts a law on the matter. Parliament subsequently passed a law changing the composition of the appointment committee, replacing the Chief Justice of India with a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister.

10. The Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) system was used for the

The Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) system was used for the first time by the Election Commission of India in

[amp_mcq option1=”North Paravur Assembly Constituency, Kerala” option2=”Noksen Assembly Constituency, Nagaland” option3=”Mapusa Assembly Constituency, Goa” option4=”Nambol Assembly Constituency, Manipur” correct=”option2″]

This question was previously asked in
UPSC CAPF – 2019
Download PDFAttempt Online
The correct option is B.
The Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) system, which allows voters to verify that their vote has been recorded correctly by the Electronic Voting Machine (EVM) and provides a paper trail for auditing, was first used by the Election Commission of India on a trial basis. The first deployment of VVPATs occurred in a by-election for the Noksen Assembly Constituency in Nagaland held on September 4, 2013.
Following the trial in Noksen, VVPATs were gradually introduced in subsequent elections, including some parliamentary constituencies in the 2014 general election, and eventually implemented in all polling stations across India for the 2019 General Election and subsequent state assembly elections, based on a Supreme Court directive.
Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5