Indian Polity and Governance

161. Consider the following statements : According to the RTI Act, 2005, as

Consider the following statements :
According to the RTI Act, 2005, as far as exempted organizations are concerned, the exemption applies to

  • 1. certain organizations of the Central Government as listed in the Second Schedule and to the information submitted by these organizations to Central Government.
  • 2. certain organizations of the State Governments as may be notified by them in the Official Gazette, but not to the information furnished by these organisations to the respective State Governments.

Which of the above statements is/are correct ?

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

This question was previously asked in
UPSC Combined Section Officer – 2024
Download PDFAttempt Online
Statement 1 is incorrect. Section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005 exempts certain intelligence and security organizations listed in the Second Schedule (established by the Central Government) and those notified by State Governments from the purview of the Act. However, this exemption is for the organization itself and the information it holds, with a crucial proviso that information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights violations is not exempt. Statement 1 incorrectly suggests that the exemption also applies to information *submitted by* these organizations to the Central Government. Once information is submitted to a non-exempt public authority, its accessibility is governed by the general provisions of the Act applicable to that public authority, not the S. 24 exemption of the originating body.
Statement 2 is correct. Section 24(4) allows State Governments to notify intelligence and security organizations as exempt. The proviso regarding corruption and human rights violations also applies to these state organizations. The statement correctly notes that the exemption applies to certain State Government organizations. The phrase “but not to the information furnished by these organisations to the respective State Governments” implies that information submitted by these exempted state bodies to the state government (a non-exempt entity) is not covered by the S. 24 exemption, which is consistent with the interpretation that the exemption applies to the organization and its records, not to information transmitted elsewhere.
– Section 24 of the RTI Act exempts certain intelligence and security organizations.
– The exemption is primarily for the organization and the information it holds.
– Information pertaining to corruption and human rights violations is not exempt under Section 24.
– Information furnished by an exempted organization to a non-exempt public authority is generally subject to the RTI Act provisions applicable to the receiving authority, not the S. 24 exemption of the originating body.
The Second Schedule lists various Central intelligence and security agencies like IB, RAW, Directorate of Enforcement, etc. State Governments can similarly notify their intelligence and security agencies. The rationale is to protect sensitive information critical for national or state security and intelligence gathering. However, the accountability for corruption and human rights abuses by these agencies is maintained through the proviso allowing access to such information.

162. How many schedules does the RTI Act, 2005 have ?

How many schedules does the RTI Act, 2005 have ?

[amp_mcq option1=”5″ option2=”10″ option3=”2″ option4=”8″ correct=”option3″]

This question was previously asked in
UPSC Combined Section Officer – 2024
Download PDFAttempt Online
The RTI Act, 2005 has 2 schedules.
– The First Schedule contains the form of oath or affirmation to be made by the Chief Information Commissioner, Information Commissioners, State Chief Information Commissioner and State Information Commissioners.
– The Second Schedule lists the intelligence and security organizations established by the Central Government which are exempted from the purview of the Act.
While certain organizations listed in the Second Schedule are exempted, information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights violations is not excluded, provided that such information is given only after the approval of the Central Information Commission.

163. Consider the following statements : 1. The Second Schedule of the R

Consider the following statements :

  • 1. The Second Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005 lists the intelligence and security organizations established by the Central Government that are exempted from the purview of the RTI Act, 2005.
  • 2. All the Government organisations come under the purview of RTI Act, 2005.
  • 3. all departmental information of Central and State Governments.

Which of the above statements is/are correct ?

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

This question was previously asked in
UPSC Combined Section Officer – 2024
Download PDFAttempt Online
Only statement 1 is correct. Statements 2 and 3 are incorrect.
– Statement 1 is correct as the Second Schedule lists the specific intelligence and security organizations exempted from the Act’s purview.
– Statement 2 is incorrect. Not all government organizations come under the Act. Certain organizations (listed in the Second Schedule) are exempted, and also the Act defines ‘public authority’ which covers government bodies and substantially funded NGOs/bodies, but not necessarily *all* organizations related to the government in some way.
– Statement 3 is incorrect. The RTI Act provides for exemptions from disclosure of certain types of information under Sections 8 and 9, such as information affecting national security, international relations, commercial confidence, personal privacy, etc. Therefore, not *all* departmental information of Central and State Governments is accessible under the Act.
The RTI Act aims to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority, but it balances this with the need to protect certain sensitive information and the operational capabilities of specific organizations.

164. Time limit for filing first appeal by an applicant under Sub-section (

Time limit for filing first appeal by an applicant under Sub-section (1) of Section 19 of RTI Act, 2005 is

[amp_mcq option1=”10 days from the receipt of PIO’s decision” option2=”30 days from the receipt of PIO’s decision” option3=”40 days from the receipt of PIO’s decision” option4=”45 days from the receipt of PIO’s decision” correct=”option2″]

This question was previously asked in
UPSC Combined Section Officer – 2024
Download PDFAttempt Online
The time limit for filing the first appeal by an applicant under Sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the RTI Act, 2005 is 30 days from the receipt of the PIO’s decision.
– Section 19(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 states: “Any person who does not receive a decision within the time specified in sub-section (1) or clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 7, or is aggrieved by a decision of the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, may within thirty days of the receipt of the decision make an appeal to such officer who is senior in rank to the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer as the case may be, in each public authority…”
– The time limit can be extended for a further period of 15 days if sufficient cause is shown by the appellant.
If the first appellate authority’s decision is not satisfactory or not provided within the stipulated time, a second appeal can be filed with the Central Information Commission (CIC) or State Information Commission (SIC) under Section 19(3) of the Act.

165. Consider the following statements regarding enactment of budget in the

Consider the following statements regarding enactment of budget in the Parliament :

  • 1. Railway Budget used to be presented before the General Budget.
  • 2. The Finance bill must be enacted within 75 days of its introduction.

Which of the above statements is/are correct ?

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

This question was previously asked in
UPSC Combined Section Officer – 2024
Download PDFAttempt Online
Both statements 1 and 2 are correct.
– Historically, the Railway Budget was presented separately before the General Budget. This practice was merged with the Union Budget in 2017.
– The Finance Bill contains the government’s financial proposals for the upcoming financial year, including tax proposals. The Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1931, allows the government to collect certain taxes for a period of up to 75 days immediately after the Finance Bill is introduced, pending its final enactment. This effectively requires the Finance Bill to be enacted within 75 days of its introduction to make these tax proposals permanent.
The budget enactment process involves several stages in Parliament, including presentation of the budget, general discussion, scrutiny by departmental standing committees, voting on demands for grants in the Lok Sabha, passing of the Appropriation Bill (authorising expenditure), and passing of the Finance Bill (giving effect to tax proposals).

166. Consider the following statements : 1. Economy cut motion asks the d

Consider the following statements :

  • 1. Economy cut motion asks the demand of grant be reduced by ₹ 100.
  • 2. The Rajya Sabha cannot move cut motions.
  • 3. Disapproval of policy cut motion states that the amount of the demand be reduced to ₹ 1.

Which of the above statements are correct ?

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

This question was previously asked in
UPSC Combined Section Officer – 2024
Download PDFAttempt Online
Statement 2 and 3 are correct. Statement 1 is incorrect as it describes a token cut motion, not an economy cut motion.
– Policy Cut: Reduces the demand to ₹ 1, signifying disapproval of the policy.
– Economy Cut: Seeks reduction by a specific amount or a lump sum, aiming at economy.
– Token Cut: Reduces the demand by ₹ 100, expressing a specific grievance.
– Cut motions can only be moved in the Lok Sabha as demands for grants are exclusively debated and voted upon there. The Rajya Sabha discusses the demands but cannot vote on them or move cut motions.
Cut motions are instruments available to the members of the Lok Sabha to express their disapproval or suggest specific changes to the demands for grants presented by the government. They are moved during the discussion on the demands for grants. The passage of a cut motion in the Lok Sabha is considered a vote of no-confidence against the government.

167. Which one of the following statements is correct regarding lapse of bi

Which one of the following statements is correct regarding lapse of bills on dissolution of the Lok Sabha?

[amp_mcq option1=”Pending assurances that are to be examined by the Committee on Government Assurances do not lapse.” option2=”A bill passed by the Lok Sabha but pending in the Rajya Sabha does not lapse.” option3=”A bill pending in the Rajya Sabha but not passed by the Lok Sabha lapses.” option4=”All pending assurances that are to be examined by the Committee on Government Assurances lapse on the dissolution of the Lok Sabha.” correct=”option1″]

This question was previously asked in
UPSC Combined Section Officer – 2024
Download PDFAttempt Online
When the Lok Sabha is dissolved, most pending business before it, or pending before the Rajya Sabha but originating in the Lok Sabha, lapses. However, certain items do not lapse. These include:
1. A bill pending in the Rajya Sabha but not passed by the Lok Sabha.
2. A bill passed by both Houses but pending assent of the President.
3. A bill passed by both Houses but returned by the President for reconsideration.
4. Pending assurances which are to be examined by the Committee on Government Assurances.
Option A correctly states that pending assurances do not lapse. Option B is incorrect as a bill passed by Lok Sabha but pending in Rajya Sabha *does* lapse. Option C is incorrect because a bill pending in Rajya Sabha but *not* passed by the Lok Sabha *does not* lapse. Option D is the opposite of A and thus incorrect.
– Dissolution of Lok Sabha causes most pending bills to lapse.
– Bills originating and pending only in Rajya Sabha do not lapse.
– Pending assurances before the Committee on Government Assurances do not lapse.
The lapsing of bills upon dissolution is a significant feature of the parliamentary system as it reflects the mandate of the new Lok Sabha. The business that does not lapse includes items that are either outside the purview of just the Lok Sabha (like bills originating in Rajya Sabha or pending Presidential action) or relate to ongoing scrutiny (like assurances).

168. Consider the following statements: 1. The maximum gap between two se

Consider the following statements:

  • 1. The maximum gap between two sessions of Parliament cannot be more than four months.
  • 2. Presiding officer can call a sitting of the House at any time after the House has been adjourned sine die.

Which of the above statements is/are correct?

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

This question was previously asked in
UPSC Combined Section Officer – 2024
Download PDFAttempt Online
Statement 1 is incorrect: As per Article 85(1) of the Constitution, the President shall summon each House of Parliament to meet at such time and place as he thinks fit, but six months shall not intervene between its last sitting in one session and the date appointed for its first sitting in the next session. Thus, the maximum gap is six months, not four months.
Statement 2 is correct: When a House is adjourned ‘sine die’, it means the House is adjourned without naming a day for reassembly. The power to summon the House again after it has been adjourned sine die rests with the Presiding Officer (Speaker in case of Lok Sabha, Chairman in case of Rajya Sabha), who can call a sitting of the House at any time.
– The maximum gap between two sessions of Parliament is six months.
– The Presiding Officer can summon the House after it is adjourned sine die.
Adjournment sine die is a powerful tool for the presiding officer, allowing flexibility in scheduling parliamentary business. The six-month limit between sessions ensures that Parliament meets at least twice a year, although typically, there are three sessions (Budget, Monsoon, Winter).

169. Consider the following statements: 1. Presiding officer of a House d

Consider the following statements:

  • 1. Presiding officer of a House does not vote in the first instance.
  • 2. Presiding officer can permit a member to address the House in his/her mother tongue.
  • 3. Attorney General can take part in proceedings as well as vote in both Houses due to constitutional nature of the post.

Which of the above statements are correct?

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

This question was previously asked in
UPSC Combined Section Officer – 2024
Download PDFAttempt Online
Statement 1 is correct: The presiding officer (Speaker of Lok Sabha or Chairman of Rajya Sabha) does not vote in the first instance. They can exercise a casting vote only in the case of a tie to resolve a deadlock.
Statement 2 is correct: Article 120 of the Constitution allows members to speak in Hindi, English, or if they cannot adequately express themselves in either, in their mother tongue with the permission of the presiding officer. Simultaneous translation facilities are often provided.
Statement 3 is incorrect: Article 88 of the Constitution allows the Attorney General of India to take part in the proceedings of either House of Parliament, any joint sitting of the Houses, and any committee of Parliament of which he may be named a member, but he shall not by virtue of this article be entitled to vote.
– Presiding officers cast a vote only in case of a tie.
– Members can speak in their mother tongue with the presiding officer’s permission.
– The Attorney General can participate in proceedings but cannot vote.
The principle of the presiding officer not voting in the first instance is borrowed from British parliamentary practice to ensure impartiality. The provision for speaking in the mother tongue acknowledges linguistic diversity within Parliament. The Attorney General’s role is primarily advisory to the Parliament, hence the right to participate but not vote.

170. 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.
Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5