Indian Polity and Governance Archives

141. According to the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, whi

According to the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, which one of the following statements is correct ?

[amp_mcq option1=”No reasons are required to be given for seeking information.” option2=”Information is to be supplied free of cost after two weeks from the date of making the application.” option3=”Where an application is made to a public authority for information which is held by another public authority, the application must be transferred within one week to that public authority having the information.” option4=”If an information relates to the life of a person, the information must be supplied within one week under section 7(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.” correct=”option1″]

This question was previously asked in

UPSC SO-Steno – 2017

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct answer is A. No reasons are required to be given for seeking information.

Section 6(2) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, explicitly states that an applicant making a request for information shall not be required to give any reason for requesting the information. This is a fundamental principle of the Act, enabling citizens to access information without needing to justify their request.
Statement B is incorrect. Information is to be supplied within 30 days normally (Section 7(1)). While fees apply, information is supplied free of cost *only* if it is not provided within the specified time limit (Section 7(6)). Two weeks is not the standard free supply period.
Statement C is incorrect. If an application is transferred to another public authority under Section 6(3), the transfer must be made as expeditiously as possible but *not later than five days* from the date of receipt of the application.
Statement D is incorrect. Where the information sought concerns the life or liberty of a person, the information must be supplied within *forty-eight hours* of the receipt of the request (Section 7(1) proviso).

The RTI Act imposes specific time limits for providing information, generally 30 days, but a shorter 48-hour limit for matters concerning life or liberty. Failure to adhere to these limits without reasonable cause can lead to penalties for the Public Information Officer.

142. Which of the following statements is/are correct under the Right to In

Which of the following statements is/are correct under the Right to Information Act, 2005 ?

1. It is not necessary to supply all kinds of information.
2. Information pertaining to corruption in Central Reserve Police Force must be supplied.
3. Information pertaining to violation of human rights in Intelligence Bureau must be supplied.

Select the correct answer using the code given below :

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

This question was previously asked in

UPSC SO-Steno – 2017

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct answer is D (1, 2 and 3). All three statements are correct under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Statement 1 is correct because the RTI Act provides for certain exemptions from disclosure under Sections 8 and 9. Therefore, it is not necessary to supply all kinds of information.
Statement 2 and 3 are correct based on Section 24 of the RTI Act. Section 24 generally exempts certain security and intelligence organisations listed in the Second Schedule from the purview of the Act. However, the proviso to Section 24(4) (for Central organisations) explicitly states that information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall *not* be excluded from the application of the Act. Both the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) and the Intelligence Bureau (IB) are listed in the Second Schedule. Thus, information relating to corruption in CRPF and human rights violations in IB must be supplied under the Act.

The Second Schedule of the RTI Act lists organisations like IB, RAW, Directorate of Enforcement, Narcotics Control Bureau, Border Security Force, CRPF, Indo-Tibetan Border Police, Central Industrial Security Force, National Security Guard, Assam Rifles, Sashastra Seema Bal, etc. The exemption under Section 24 is subject to the crucial exception regarding corruption and human rights violations. For human rights violations, disclosure is permissible only with the approval of the Central or State Information Commission, as the case may be.

143. According to the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, whi

According to the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, which one of the following statements is *not* correct ?

[amp_mcq option1=”An application for information must be made only in English or in Hindi.” option2=”An application seeking information must accompany prescribed fee except for persons below poverty line.” option3=”No personal details need to be given while seeking information except those necessary for contacting the applicant.” option4=”Information can be sought even orally.” correct=”option1″]

This question was previously asked in

UPSC SO-Steno – 2017

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct answer is A. The statement that an application must *only* be made in English or Hindi is incorrect.

Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, states that a person seeking information may make a request in writing or through electronic means in English or Hindi or in the official language of the area in which the application is being made. Therefore, limiting the languages to *only* English or Hindi is incorrect.
Statement B is correct as per Section 6(1) and Rule 3 of the RTI Rules, fees are prescribed, but persons below the poverty line are exempted.
Statement C is correct as per Section 6(2), the applicant is not required to give any reason for requesting the information or any personal details except those necessary for contacting him.
Statement D is correct in spirit as the proviso to Section 6(1) states that where a request is made orally, the public information officer shall render all reasonable assistance to the person making the request orally to reduce it in writing. While the formal application needs to be written, the process can start with an oral request facilitated by the PIO. Compared to the definitive inaccuracy of statement A, D is considered correct in the context of UPSC questions.

The RTI Act promotes transparency and accountability. The provision allowing applications in the official language of the area ensures accessibility for people across different states using regional languages.

144. Which of the following statements about Attorney General of India is c

Which of the following statements about Attorney General of India is correct ?

[amp_mcq option1=”He has the right to take part in the proceedings and vote in either House of Parliament.” option2=”He has the right to take part in the proceedings but has no right to vote in either House of Parliament.” option3=”He cannot attend a joint sitting of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha.” option4=”He cannot take part in the Committee meetings of Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha.” correct=”option2″]

This question was previously asked in

UPSC SO-Steno – 2017

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct answer is B. The Attorney General has the right to take part in proceedings but not to vote.

According to Article 88 of the Constitution of India, the Attorney General of India has the right to speak in, and otherwise to take part in the proceedings of, either House, any joint sitting of the Houses, and any committee of Parliament of which he may be named a member. However, he does not have the right to vote in Parliament.

The Attorney General is the highest law officer of the country, appointed by the President (Article 76). He is the legal advisor to the Government of India. He holds office during the pleasure of the President.

145. Which of the following statements is/are correct with regard to Lok Sa

Which of the following statements is/are correct with regard to Lok Sabha ?

1. The procedure for summoning of Lok Sabha for an emergency session is generally not same as for a regular session.
2. The assurances given by Ministers on the floor of the House, which are pending for implementation are deemed not to lapse on the dissolution of the Lok Sabha.
3. Business pending before parliamentary committees of the Lok Sabha do not lapse on dissolution of Lok Sabha.

Select the correct answer using the code given below :

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

This question was previously asked in

UPSC SO-Steno – 2017

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct answer is C, meaning only statement 2 is correct.

Statement 1 is incorrect. The procedure for summoning Lok Sabha for any session, regular or emergency, is generally the same, initiated by the President on the recommendation of the government. The urgency might affect the notice period, but the fundamental procedure remains similar.
Statement 2 is correct. Assurances given by Ministers on the floor of the House are examined by the Committee on Government Assurances. The business of this committee and the assurances given by Ministers do *not* lapse upon the dissolution of the Lok Sabha. They are carried over to the new Lok Sabha.
Statement 3 is incorrect. Business pending before parliamentary committees of the Lok Sabha *lapses* upon the dissolution of the Lok Sabha. This includes Bills pending before Select/Joint Committees constituted by Lok Sabha, and other matters before various standing or ad-hoc committees appointed by the Lok Sabha. Exceptions exist mainly for committees appointed by Rajya Sabha or specific joint committees where Rajya Sabha members continue.

Dissolution of the Lok Sabha results in the lapse of most business pending before it or its committees. This includes Bills originating and pending only in Lok Sabha, Bills originating in Rajya Sabha but pending in Lok Sabha, Bills passed by Lok Sabha but pending in Rajya Sabha, and all notices, motions, and resolutions pending in Lok Sabha. However, some matters, like Bills pending in Rajya Sabha but not passed by Lok Sabha, do not lapse. Similarly, parliamentary assurances carry over.

146. Which of the following statements is/are correct with regard to the ef

Which of the following statements is/are correct with regard to the effect of dissolution of Lok Sabha ?
1. Supplementary Demands for grants do not lapse.
2. A motion given in pursuance of Section 3(1) of Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 for presenting an address to the President praying for removal of a Judge, if admitted, will not lapse on the dissolution of the Lok Sabha.
3. Anything said or done during the existence of a House, can be raised as a privilege issue after that House has been dissolved.
Select the correct answer using the code given below :

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

This question was previously asked in

UPSC SO-Steno – 2017

Download PDF Attempt Online

Statement 1 is incorrect. Supplementary Demands for Grants are items of financial business pending before the Lok Sabha. As with most pending business, they lapse upon the dissolution of the Lok Sabha. The new Lok Sabha will need to deal with financial matters, possibly through a vote on account or fresh demands.
Statement 2 is correct. Matters relating to impeachment or removal of constitutional functionaries (like Judges) are typically considered proceedings of a quasi-judicial nature and are treated as not lapsing upon the dissolution of the Lok Sabha. A motion for presenting an address for the removal of a Judge under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, once admitted, falls into this category.
Statement 3 is incorrect. Privilege issues relate to contempt or obstruction of the House or its members in their capacity as members. Once the House is dissolved, it ceases to exist, and its privileges cannot be violated or asserted in the same manner. While contempt of the *previous* House might be investigated by the *new* House, actions or statements purely related to the proceedings *within* the dissolved House or impacting members *of that dissolved House* during its tenure generally cannot be raised as a fresh privilege issue after dissolution. Parliamentary privilege is primarily the privilege of the House in existence.

While most pending business lapses upon dissolution of Lok Sabha, certain matters of a constitutional or quasi-judicial nature, like proceedings for the removal of a Judge, are exceptions and do not lapse. Privilege issues are generally related to the House in existence.

The principle is that dissolution wipes the slate clean for the Lok Sabha regarding its legislative and most deliberative functions. However, processes initiated under specific constitutional provisions or statutes that have a character beyond ordinary legislative business may survive dissolution.

147. Which one of the following statements is correct?

Which one of the following statements is correct?

[amp_mcq option1=”A Bill can be taken up in a joint sitting of the Houses notwithstanding the dissolution of the Lok Sabha.” option2=”A Bill cannot be taken up in a joint sitting of the Houses after Lok Sabha is dissolved.” option3=”Joint session cannot be convened by the President after dissolution of Lok Sabha even though the President notified his intention to summon the Joint Sitting of the Houses.” option4=”There is express provision in the Constitution regarding the effect of dissolution on a Bill which has been passed by the two Houses and sent to the President for assent.” correct=”option4″]

This question was previously asked in

UPSC SO-Steno – 2017

Download PDF Attempt Online

Statement A is incorrect. A Bill can only be taken up in a joint sitting if it has not lapsed. Bills that cause typical deadlocks and originate in one House pending in the other often lapse upon dissolution.
Statement B is generally true for most common scenarios where a joint sitting might be required, as the Bill causing the deadlock would have lapsed.
Statement C is incorrect. Article 108(5) explicitly states that if the President has notified his intention to summon a joint sitting *before* the dissolution of the Lok Sabha, the joint sitting *can* be held and the Bill passed, *notwithstanding* the dissolution, provided the Bill has not lapsed under Article 107.
Statement D is correct. Article 107(5) is the express provision in the Constitution regarding the effect of dissolution on a Bill which has been passed by the two Houses and sent to the President for assent. It states that such a Bill *shall not lapse*.

Article 107(5) provides that Bills passed by both Houses and pending Presidential assent or returned for reconsideration do not lapse upon dissolution. Article 108(5) provides a specific condition under which a joint sitting *can* be held after dissolution if notified before, provided the Bill has not lapsed. Statement D correctly identifies the presence of an express provision concerning Bills passed by both Houses and pending assent.

The interrelationship between dissolution of Lok Sabha, lapse of Bills (Article 107), and Joint Sittings (Article 108) is a complex area of constitutional law and parliamentary practice.

148. Which of the following statements is/are correct with regard to the ef

Which of the following statements is/are correct with regard to the effects of dissolution of Lok Sabha?
1. The dissolution is irrevocable.
2. All business pending before the Lok Sabha lapses.
3. A Bill passed by the Lok Sabha immediately before its dissolution can be taken up by the Rajya Sabha.
Select the correct answer using the code given below :

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

This question was previously asked in

UPSC SO-Steno – 2017

Download PDF Attempt Online

Statement 1 is correct. Once the Lok Sabha is dissolved, it ceases to exist and cannot be revived. A general election is held to constitute a new Lok Sabha.
Statement 2 is correct. As per Article 107(5) of the Constitution, a Bill pending in Parliament shall not lapse by reason of the prorogation of the Houses. However, a Bill pending in the Lok Sabha, or a Bill which has passed by the Lok Sabha and is pending in the Rajya Sabha, shall lapse on a dissolution of the Lok Sabha. This covers most of the business pending before the Lok Sabha.
Statement 3 is incorrect. As stated in Article 107(5), a Bill passed by the Lok Sabha but pending in the Rajya Sabha lapses upon the dissolution of the Lok Sabha. Therefore, it cannot be taken up by the Rajya Sabha after the dissolution.

Dissolution terminates the life of the Lok Sabha. Most pending business, particularly Bills originating in or pending in the Lok Sabha, lapse upon dissolution.

Exceptions to the rule of lapse include Bills passed by both Houses and pending President’s assent or returned by the President for reconsideration (Article 107(5)). Also, Bills originating in and pending in the Rajya Sabha, which have not been sent to the Lok Sabha, do not lapse.

149. Which one of the following statements is not correct?

Which one of the following statements is not correct?

[amp_mcq option1=”Before 1923, a Bill passed by one House and transmitted to the other House of the Central Legislative Assembly did not lapse upon dissolution of the House which had passed it.” option2=”Bills passed by Lok Sabha but pending in Rajya Sabha on the date of dissolution of Lok Sabha, lapse.” option3=”Only Bills originating in Rajya Sabha which have not been passed by Lok Sabha but are still pending before Rajya Sabha, lapse.” option4=”Only Bills originating in Rajya Sabha which have not been passed by Lok Sabha but are still pending before Rajya Sabha, do not lapse.” correct=”option3″]

This question was previously asked in

UPSC SO-Steno – 2017

Download PDF Attempt Online

Statement A is likely correct as a historical point regarding the Central Legislative Assembly before 1923. Rules regarding lapse upon dissolution have changed over time.
Statement B is correct. This is explicitly stated in Article 107(5) of the Constitution: a Bill which has passed by the Lok Sabha and is pending in the Rajya Sabha, shall lapse on a dissolution of the Lok Sabha.
Statement C is incorrect. The statement claims that *only* Bills originating in Rajya Sabha which have not been passed by Lok Sabha but are still pending before Rajya Sabha, *lapse*. This is false. According to Article 107(4), a Bill pending in the Rajya Sabha which has not been passed by the Lok Sabha shall *not* lapse on a dissolution of the Lok Sabha. Such Bills originating in RS and pending in RS do *not* lapse. Furthermore, the word “Only” is incorrect, as other types of bills also lapse (e.g., bills pending in LS, bills passed by LS but pending in RS).
Statement D is correct. It states that *only* Bills originating in Rajya Sabha which have not been passed by Lok Sabha but are still pending before Rajya Sabha, *do not lapse*. While the word “Only” is incorrect as other bills also do not lapse (passed by both houses, pending assent/reconsideration), the core assertion that Bills originating and pending in Rajya Sabha (and not transmitted to LS) do not lapse is correct (Article 107(4)). However, compared to C, C’s core assertion that these bills *lapse* is fundamentally false, making C the “not correct” statement.

Bills originating in the Rajya Sabha and pending there (not having been sent to Lok Sabha) do not lapse upon the dissolution of the Lok Sabha. Statement C incorrectly claims that this category of bills *lapses*.

The rules regarding lapse of Bills upon dissolution of the Lok Sabha are crucial aspects of parliamentary procedure governed by Article 107 of the Constitution. Understanding which Bills lapse and which do not is essential.

150. The Commission of Railway Safety functions under the administrative co

The Commission of Railway Safety functions under the administrative control of the Ministry of

[amp_mcq option1=”Labour and Employment” option2=”Railways” option3=”Commerce and Industries” option4=”Civil Aviation” correct=”option4″]

This question was previously asked in

UPSC SO-Steno – 2017

Download PDF Attempt Online

The Commission of Railway Safety (CRS) is a government safety authority that investigates serious railway accidents. To ensure its independence from the operational body (Ministry of Railways), it functions under the administrative control of the Ministry of Civil Aviation.

Placing the railway safety regulator under a different ministry than the one operating the railways enhances its autonomy and impartiality in investigating accidents and recommending safety measures.

The CRS is the nodal body responsible for ensuring safety in rail travel and operations in India. Its role is crucial in accident inquiry and suggesting improvements in railway infrastructure and procedures.