CIVIL SERVICES PRELIMS, 2024 Model Questions (for GS Paper ) Set No. 48 {Prepared on 14.6.2024 }

 

CIVIL SERVICES PRELIMS, 2024

Model Questions (for GS Paper )

Set No.   48    {Prepared on     14.6.2024 }

 

Also useful for

TGPSC GROUP I  Prelims and Mains 2024

                                                                   For Study purpose only

Prepared by :Praturi Potayya Sarma,MA(OU),LLB(OU),PGDIRPM

 

MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTIONS on   Acts and Constitution of India

 

 

 

 

Question: UCC  Uttarakhand

1)Consider the following :

1)Uttarakhand has now become the first State in Independent India to have a Uniform Civil Code after President Droupadi Murmu on Wednesday 12.3.2024 gave assent to the UCC Bill, 2024.

2)The Bill, which has kept tribal people out of its ambit, has banned practices like halala, iddat, and talaq (customs related to marriage and divorce in Muslim Personal Law).

3)The Assembly passed the Bill on on February 7,2024 . It ensures that women are given equal rights in matters related to property and inheritance rights.

4)“Under Article 201 of the ‘Constitution of India’, the President gave assent to the ‘Uniform Civil Code Uttarakhand 2024’ Bill passed by the Uttarakhand Legislative Assembly, on March 11 and it is published as Act Number 3, the year 2024, of Uttarakhand for general information,” read the gazette notification issued by the State on Wednesday.

5)The Bill was one of the poll promises of the BJP during the Assembly election in Uttarakhand in 2022.

6)Chief Minister Pushkar Singh Dhami said that with the implementation of the UCC law, the government was committed to providing equal rights to all citizens.

7)The Bill, which has 392 Sections under seven Schedules, is based on a 750-page draft, spread over four volumes, prepared by an expert committee formed by the government in June 2022, to examine the way UCC can be introduced in the State.

Which of the following is correct?

(a)1 and 2 only

(b)2 and 3 only

( c ) 3 only

(d) 1,2,3,4,5,6,7

Ans : d

 

 

============================================================================= 

 

Question : Bureaucrats joining politics

2)Consider the following :

1)Recently a Calcutta High Court judge and a senior IPS officer in West Bengal resigned from their posts and joined political parties. This has once again raised questions of propriety about independent constitutional authorities and other senior government officials joining political parties after demitting office.

2)The Constitution works on the principle of checks and balance between various organs. The executive is accountable to the legislature. An independent judiciary keeps a check on both these branches of the State. There are also other independent bodies like the Election Commission, Public Service Commission, Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) who are required to perform their constitutional duties without any interference from the government. The independence of these institutions is ensured through guaranteeing fixed tenure, financial independence, stringent removal procedure and restrictions after demitting office. A judge of a Supreme Court after ceasing to hold office cannot appear as a lawyer before any court or authority in India. A judge of a High Court has similar restrictions except for appearance before the Supreme Court or other High Courts. The CAG and the chairman/members of the Public Service Commission cannot take up any other employment with Central or State governments after demitting office. These restrictions are laid down to avoid favouritism, during the period of holding such positions, towards the government in power with an intent of securing any post-retirement benefit.

3)There are no restrictions when it comes to joining political parties, contesting elections or being nominated to certain posts. There are notable instances of persons who held independent constitutional posts and later went on to join politics or were nominated to various posts. There have been two Supreme Court judges in 1967 and 1983, who resigned from their posts to contest the presidential and parliamentary elections from Assam, respectively. Another Supreme Court judge joined a political party in Tamil Nadu and contested elections five years after his retirement in 1999. A former Chief Election Commissioner became a Rajya Sabha member and Minister in 2004, three years after his retirement. Recently, a retired Chief Justice of India was nominated to the Rajya Sabha in 2020 within four months of his retirement. There have also been occasions where retired CAG and judges have been appointed as Governors of States. Numerous bureaucrats have also joined political parties and contested elections after resigning from service or soon after their retirement.

4)The Election Commission had in 2012 recommended to the Union government to provide for a cooling-off period for top bureaucrats after their retirement before they could join political parties and contest elections. However, the Government had rejected this recommendation based on the opinion of the Attorney General that this may not be in line with constitutional provisions and democratic values. The Supreme Court had dismissed a writ petition in May 2022 that sought a direction from the top court to the legislature to frame a law imposing a cooling-off period for retired bureaucrats before joining politics. The court observed that it is for the legislature to determine whether a cooling-off period is required for bureaucrats before they join politics after retirement.

5)One of the essential features of a democracy is every citizen’s right to contest elections. The Attorney General while providing his opinion against the 2012 recommendation of Election Commission had said that maintenance of independence and neutrality will be relevant during the period a person is in service. There are rules at present which restrict a senior bureaucrat from joining a private job for at least one year after he or she retires from government service. The Attorney General had opined that such restriction for commercial employment is based on intelligible differentia to avoid conflicts of interest. However, such a restriction against officials contesting polls may not be a valid classification and would not be in harmony with democratic principles in the Constitution.

6)While the opinion of Attorney General is based on sound legal principle, it is equally imperative to remember the famous judicial quote that ‘justice should not only be done but should also be seen to be done’. This applies equally to judges, independent constitutional authorities and senior bureaucrats. It is an indispensable trait while discharging their official functions. Extending this principle even after they demit office will have a salutary effect. This may be achieved by prescribing a cooling-off period of say at least two years for joining political parties or being nominated to political posts by the government. This will instil confidence in the public at large and negate any allegation of quid pro quo.

Which of the following is correct?

(a)1 and 2 only

(b)2 and 3 only

( c ) 3 only

(d) 1,2,3,4,5,6

Ans : d

 

 

=======================================================  

 

Question : How Election Commisisoners are selected ?

 

3)Consider the following :

1)The President has appointed Gyanesh Kumar and Sukhbir Singh Sandhu, both retired IAS officers, as Election Commissioners (ECs) to fill up two vacancies in the three-member Election Commission of India. The two officials are the first to be appointed under the new law governing appointments to the constitutional body, the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.

2)In terms of the new law, the two ECs were selected by a three-member Selection Committee, comprising Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Union Home Minister Amit Shah, and the Leader of the Indian National Congress in the Lok Sabha, Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury, as leader of the largest party in the Opposition. They were chosen out of a shortlisted panel of six names. The shortlisting was done by a committee which, according to the Act, is headed by the Union Minister for Law and Justice and includes two officials of the rank of Secretary to the government.

3)Article 324 of the Constitution vests the “superintendence, direction and control of elections” in an Election Commission. It also says the EC shall consist of the Chief Election Commissioner and such number of other Election Commissioners, if any, as the President may fix from time to time. This provision was subject to any law made in that behalf by Parliament. However, for nearly 40 years from the adoption of the Constitution, the EC only had a Chief Election Commissioner (CEC). It was not until October 1989 that it became a multi-member body. However, the appointment of two Election Commissioners was rescinded within a short time, that is on January 1, 1990.

4)A law was enacted in 1991 to fix the conditions of service of the CEC and the ECs, and amended in 1993. However, it did not provide for any appointment process. In the absence of any particular process being laid down by parliamentary law, the President has been appointing the CEC and ECs. The only known process is that the Law Ministry puts up a panel of names to the Prime Minister, who recommends the appointment of one of them as EC to the President. It had become a convention to appoint officials as ECs first and then, on the completion of the tenure of the CEC, the senior EC was elevated as CEC.

5)In Anoop Baranwal versus Union of India, a five-member Constitution Bench ruled that it was the intention of the makers of the Constitution that the power to appoint the CEC and other ECs was not meant to be given exclusively to the executive and that the power was to be exercised “subject to any law made by Parliament”. Noting that no such law was enacted since the inception of the Constitution, the court laid down an interim arrangement for the appointment. This was to operate until Parliament made its own law. The court said the appointments should be made by a three-member committee comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha (or the leader of the party that is largest in the Opposition) and the Chief Justice of India. It was in response to this that Parliament enacted the 2023 Act, which received presidential assent and was notified late in December 2023.

6)The foremost criticism from those who have challenged the new Act is that it has removed the CJI from the selection panel and has made a Union Minister a member instead. This gives the executive a two-one majority in the three-member committee. The government has argued that the Act does not really remove the CJI from the appointment process, as the inclusion of the CJI was only a stop-gap arrangement put in place until the enactment of a law. The Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected attempts to obtain a stay on the new Act. The petitioners have approached the court again against the appointment of the two ECs. Their primary argument is that the Act violates the main principle in the Constitution Bench judgment — the need to free the appointment process from the executive.

Which of the following is correct?

(a)1 and 2 only

(b)2 and 3 only

( c ) 3 only

(d) 1,2,3,4,5,6

Ans : d

 

 

================================= 

 

Dt: 23.4.2024

Question: CM and his arrest

 

4)Consider the following :

1)Questions are being asked about whether Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal can continue to occupy a public office that demands a high degree of morality after being remanded in judicial custody.

2)Earlier judgments in the Supreme Court and High Courts have concluded that constitutional morality, good governance, and constitutional trust are the basic norms for holding a public office.

3)A recent judgment by the Madras High Court in S. Ramachandran versus V. Senthilbalaji referred to arguments made in court on whether a Minister must forfeit his right to occupy a public office that demands a high degree of morality if he is accused of a “financial scandal”. Mr. Senthilbalaji, a former Tamil Nadu Minister, was arrested by the ED on money-laundering charges last year. He continued to be a Minister without portfolio while he was in judicial custody.

4)The High Court heard arguments on whether he “has virtually forfeited his office as a Minister on account of being arrested and detained in prison”.

5)The arguments referred to a 2014 Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in Manoj Narula versus Union of India, which had held that the basic norm for holding a public office was constitutional morality, that is, to avoid acting in a manner contradictory to the rule of law. The second norm was good governance. It was argued in the Madras High Court that “the government has to rise above narrow private interests or parochial political outlook and aim at doing good for the larger public interest”. The third was constitutional trust, that is, to uphold the high degree of morality attached to a public office.

6)The Madras High Court judgment highlighted discussions by lawyers in court about the practical difficulties of being a Minister while in custody. For one, a “Minister sitting in prison cannot ask the Secretary of the State to get the files concerning any of the departments without breaching the oath of office”, it was pointed out.

7)On the other hand, should a person be paid salary from the State exchequer while occupying a public office without performing any duty attached to the office he held, it was asked in the High Court.

8)The High Court agreed that these were arguments based “more on the concern for public morality or constitutional morality” as Mr. Senthilbalaji did not “completely suffer a disqualification as an MLA under the Representation of the People Act, 1951”.

9)However, the High Court had agreed that citizens expect, and “legitimately so”, that persons in power had high standards of moral conduct.

10)“Political compulsion cannot outweigh the public morality, requirements of good/clean governance and constitutional morality,” the High Court had observed.

Which of the following is correct?

(a)1 and 2 only

(b)2 and 3 only

( c ) 3 only

(d) 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10

Ans : d

 

 

========================================

 

Question: CAA

DT: 23.3.2024

 

5)Consider the following :

1)Union Home Minister , while speaking at a conclave recently, gave two reasons, during the discussion, for the exclusion of Muslims from Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh in the recently implemented Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA), 2019. The first is Partition and the second is that as these Muslim countries are officially Islamic states, the case of persecution against Muslims does not arise.

2)The argument that all Muslims are responsible for Partition is a fundamentally flawed one. Partition was a Muslim elite-driven project, mainly supported by Muslim landlords in North India. Among others, the Hindu right’s dream project, of a Hindu Rashtra (which was already taking institutional shape by the late 1920s) was a major trigger that caused alienation among the Muslim elites in addition to the colonial state’s divide and rule policy. It was not just some Muslim elites. The legendary southern leader Periyar championed Dravidistan as he was convinced that the political freedom that India’s nationalist elites, largely drawn from an upper caste background, were working for, would not bring genuine freedom to the oppressed and marginalised people of the South.

3)The truth is that a vast majority of Indian Muslims were fiercely opposed to Partition and chose to stay back in India. Besides this, tall figures such as Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, Sheikh Abdullah, and many others including the religious leadership of Deoband were opposed to Partition.

4)The most decisive blow to Jinnah’s two-nation theory came from iconic secular Muslim leader Bangabandhu Mujibur Rahman, who gave leadership to the liberation of Bangladesh in 1971. If the Hindu right seeks to justify Muslim exclusion owing to Partition, it needs to be blamed for deliberately failing to appreciate the resistance that Muslims launched against Partition and who have demonstrated their love for India with sacrifices since then. To put it bluntly, this argument of Partition as the basis for Muslim exclusion in the CAA 2019 reflects the Hindu right’s vengeance in the form of collective punishment to Muslims.

5)On top of it, a vast number of the Muslim masses and Muslim middle class remained confused on how to respond to the new situation arising out of the creation of Pakistan. According to Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, when he learnt that the Muslim League was inciting all Muslim officials working in the Central Secretariat, New Delhi, to leave for Pakistan, he pushed the government of India to issue a circular that Muslims who would stay back in India would be given their rights. Azad’s effort was fully backed by Jawaharlal Nehru and Lord Mountbatten. As a result, 23,233 officers and sub-ordinate staff in the Central Secretariat who had opted to move to Pakistan changed their mind and applied to remain in India; of them, 19,676 personnel were retained. Similarly, another 16,090 Muslims who had applied to move to Pakistan, had left the job. Of them, 13,018 Muslims were re-employed when they changed their mind. This is just a small example to show the enormity of confusion the average Muslim was going through at the time of Partition.

6)There is truth in the Hindu right’s argument that religious minorities in Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan experience enormous persecution. So do some Muslim sects such as the Ahmedias. Even the Nobel Prize winning Pakistani physicist, Professor Abdus Salam, was not spared due to his Ahmadi heritage. Indeed, some leadership of the Shia community considered the Pakistan project as Sunnistan and were fiercely opposed to it. Also, the argument that India’s so-called secular governments did not address this issue with urgency is also valid. In a nutshell, it is true that India was partitioned on religious lines but all Muslims cannot be blamed for it. Ayesha Jalal captures the complexity of Partition in a preface to her classic, The Sole Spokesman: Jinnah, the Muslim League and the Demand for Pakistan (1994) in the following words: “Partition of 1947 was no more than a partial solution to the minority problem in the sub-continent. The point has been made more poignant by the resurgence of communal tensions in India and repercussions in Pakistan and Bangladesh. Apart from targeting their own non-Muslim minorities, citizens of Pakistan and Bangladesh can merely look helplessly across borders at the plight of India’s Muslim minority under siege.”

7)In this unfolding national debate on the CAA, 2019, the most unfortunate intervention has been from the Delhi Chief Minister, Arvind Kejriwal. To abuse asylum seekers who are genuine victims of hardline theocratic politics as criminals is xenophobic. This is identical to depicting them as termites. It is perhaps the Aam Aadmi Party leader’s ambivalence over how to address the Muslim question and secularism issue that has encouraged him to resort to such xenophobic arguments.

8)This Muslim exclusion issue in the CAA 2019 needs to be seen in the broader context of the Hindu right’s ideological politics. The decision not to field Muslim candidates by the Bharatiya Janata Party, the witch hunt of madrasas particularly in Uttar Pradesh and Assam, the singling out of darghas and masjids for their legal status when combined with Muslim exclusion in the CAA 2019 has more to it than the context of Partition. What is unfolding, slowly and steadily, is a comprehensive ideological project of a de-Islamisation of India. And neither the secular political class nor Muslims have any well-crafted political response to it.

Which of the following is correct?

(a)1 and 2 only

(b)2 and 3 only

( c ) 3 only

(d) 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8

Ans : d

 

 

========================================================================= 

 

Quesiton: Supreme Court of India and Governor,Tamil Nadu

6)Consider the following:

1)Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud on Thursday slammed Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi for “defying the Supreme Court” by refusing to re-induct Dravid Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) leader K. Ponmudy as Minister despite an apex court order suspending his conviction in a disproportionate assets case.

2)The court gave the Governor overnight to “set the constitutional position right”.

3)Mr. Ravi has refused to administer oath to Mr. Ponmudy as Higher Education Minister, saying it is against “constitutional morality”.

4)The Governor has argued that the court’s stay of the conviction of Mr. Ponmudy on March 8 did not rub off the fact that he had indeed been convicted of moral turpitude.

5) “We are seriously concerned about the conduct of the Governor in this case. We did not want to say it aloud in court. He is defying the Supreme Court of India… When a two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court stayed the conviction of Ponmudy, the Governor had no business to tell us that the suspension order did not wipe out the conviction or made it non-existent,” Chief Justice Chandrachud told Attorney-General R. Venkataramani, appearing for the Governor.

6)“If we don’t hear from you [the Governor] in a positive manner tomorrow, we will pass an order… We thought of passing an order right now, but we want to give you an opportunity to act in accordance with law. We will give you overnight,” Chief Justice Chandrachud, heading a three-judge Bench, made the stand of the court clear to Mr. Venkataramani.

7)The Attorney-General questioned the conduct of Tamil Nadu for approaching the Supreme Court to defend a man convicted of moral turpitude. “What fundamental right of the State is violated here?” Mr. Venkataramani challenged.

8)Chief Justice Chandrachud asked what else the State was supposed to do. “If the Governor does not follow the Constitution, what does the State do except come to a constitutional court.”

9)The Chief Justice asked Mr. Venkataramani whether this was the “best argument the Governor had — that ‘I will defend my constitutionally illegal conduct by pointing fingers at how the State has come to the Supreme Court’”.

10)“We don’t know who had advised the Governor, but the advice was not in accordance with the law,” the Chief Justice told the Attorney-General.

11)Chief Minister M.K. Stalin wrote to the Governor on March 13 communicating the State Cabinet’s decision to have Mr. Ponmudy back as Minister, saying he was the best man suitable for the job. The State had moved the top court after the Governor wrote back refusing to play ball on the ground of constitutional morality.

12)“Does the Governor mean the Supreme Court also acted against constitutional morality by suspending his conviction?” senior advocate A.M. Singhvi appearing for Tamil Nadu asked.

13)Senior advocate P. Wilson, also for Tamil Nadu, said the Governor had no individual discretion in the appointment of a State Minister or suitability of a candidate. “The Governor has to follow the advice of the Chief Minister-led State Cabinet under Article 164 (1) of the Constitution,” Mr. Wilson, assisted by advocate Sabarish Subramanian, submitted.

Which of the following is correct?

(a)1 and 2 only

(b)2 and 3 only

( c ) 3 only

(d) 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13

Ans : d

 

 

=========================================================================== 

 

Question: FCU

7)Consider the following:

1)The Supreme Court on Thursday 21.3.2024 stayed a government notification of March 20 establishing the Press Information Bureau’s Fact Checking Unit (PIB FCU) to act as a “deterrent” against the creation and dissemination of fake news or misinformation regarding the “business” of the Centre.

2)The order was passed by a three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud on petitions filed by the Editors Guild of India (EGI) and stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra.

3)The Bench said the implementation of the March 20 notification would remain stayed until a third judge of the Bombay High Court took a final call on the validity of provisions of Rule 3(1)(b)(v) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. It is under this provision that the March 20 notification was issued. The case had gone to the third judge of the High Court following a split verdict by a Division Bench.

4)The notification was issued by the Centre after the third judge found no reason to stay Rule 3 on March 11.

5)The Supreme Court did not comment on the merits or legality of Rule 3(1)(b)(v), saying the impact of the provision on the fundamental rights to free speech and expression would be analysed by the High Court.

6)Appearing for Mr. Kamra, senior advocate Darius Khambata said the establishment of the FCU would result in “every social media intermediary pulling down content for fear of consequences”.

7)Mr. Khambata said the Centre setting up an FCU was like “Caesar judging Caesar”. “Why does only the business of the Central government need protection from misinformation and fake content,” Mr. Khambata asked. He said individuals needed more protection from fake content.

8)Mr. Khambata informed the Bench that the Centre had assured the High Court on April 27 last year that it would not implement Rule 3 till a final decision was taken by the court. He pointed to the timing of the issuance of the March 20 notification barely days before the Lok Sabha polls were due to start.

9)Advocate Shadan Farasat, for the EGI, said the implementation of the FCU run by the government would ensure that only the Centre would have a monopoly over the truth.

10)Solicitor General Tushar Mehta referred to several instances in the past when fake news had proliferated on social media.

11)He said the statutory mechanism was found inadequate to combat the dissemination of false content. He said the social media intermediaries had not challenged the Rule.

12)Mr. Kamra, in his petition, argued that the sweep of the Rule operated to “muzzle speech against the Central government”.

13)“By threatening intermediaries with the loss of their statutory safe harbour should they fail to take down content that the Central government’s FCU identifies as fake, false or misleading, the Rule coerces intermediaries to execute a regime of self-interested censorship of online content relating to the business of the Central government,” the petition argued.

14)It said the intermediaries, who were profit making commercial enterprises, would choose to bend rather than risk civil or criminal liability for third-party content on their online platforms.

Which of the following is correct?

(a)1 and 2 only

(b)2 and 3 only

( c ) 3 only

(d) 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14

Ans : d

 

 

============================================================================ 

 

Article : 14, 200, 201

8)Consider the following :

1)In an unprecedented move, the Kerala government on Saturday filed an appeal in the Supreme Court as President  has withheld assent for four Bills passed by the Kerala Legislature without disclosing any reasons.

2)It has also moved the Court against Kerala Governor Arif Mohammed Khan’s office for keeping the Bills pending for a long and indefinite period, and later reserving them for the consideration of the President.

3)The act of the President in withholding the assent for the four Bills without giving any reason was highly arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14, 200 and 201 of the Constitution. The reference of the seven Bills to the President has to be recalled on the grounds of Constitutional morality, the State has argued.

4)The State has listed the Secretary to the President, the Kerala Governor and the Additional Chief Secretary to the Governor as respondents in the writ petition filed before the Supreme Court.

5)Kerala would be represented in the top court by a senior lawyer, specialising in Constitutional matters and C.K. Sasi, its Standing Counsel.

 

6)The State contends that the actions of the Union government in advising the President to withhold assent to Bills passed by the Legislative Assembly 11 to 24 months back, which were wholly within the domain of the State government, subverted and disrupted the federal structure of the Constitution. It was also a grave encroachment into the domain entrusted to the State under the Constitution, it argued.

7)The reasons assigned by the Governor had nothing to do with the Union of India or the relationship between the Legislature of Kerala and the Union of India, it contends. The Governor avoided a decision from the Supreme Court by bundling up seven of the eight pending Bills and referring them to the President. The actions of the Governor lacked bona fides and were not in good faith.

8)The reservation of the Bills by the Governor after keeping them pending for up to 24 months was a deliberate attempt to avoid carrying out his constitutional duty and functions under Article 200 of the Constitution. Hence the reference of the Bills to the President has to be held to be unconstitutional, the State would argue.

Which of the following is correct?

(a)1 and 2 only

(b)2 and 3 only

( c ) 3 only

(d) 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8

Ans : d

 

 

=================================================================== 

 

Question: Bail without bar on political activities

DT: 28.3.2024

9)Consider the following :

1)The Supreme Court said judges should not order accused persons to surrender their right to be politically active in return for bail.

2)A three-judge Bench led by Justice B.R. Gavai, in a recent order, said to compel a person to stay away from politics by making his or her bail conditional on that is a plain violation of fundamental rights.

3)The apex court clarified the point in a petition filed by a former Mayor of Berhampur Municipal Corporation. The man in question, Siba Shankar Das, was granted bail in a criminal case in 2022. One of the grounds laid down by the Orissa High Court was that he should “not create any untoward situation in public or be involved in any political activities, directly or indirectly”.

4)Mr. Das had moved the High Court to modify this bail condition, saying he wanted to participate in the political activities ahead of the Lok Sabha polls. In January, the High Court refused his plea. Following this, he moved the apex court.

5)“We find that the imposition of such a condition would breach the fundamental rights of the appellant [Das] and no such conditions could have been imposed. We, therefore, quash and set aside the condition imposed by the High Court,” the three-judge Bench headed by Justice Gavai held.

6)The High Court, in January, had declined to modify the bail condition on the ground that Mr. Das’s involvement in politics was a danger to himself. The Court recounted instances when death came dangerously close to him.

7)“He [Das] is always under a life threat and lifting of the condition, at this juncture, shall in all probability put the administration to enough difficulties,” the Court had reasoned.

The State government had argued that not only were murderous attempts made on Mr. Das, but he had himself been involved in new cases. The State had alleged that he was involved in 57 cases.

Which of the following is correct?

(a)1 and 2 only

(b)2 and 3 only

( c ) 3 only

(d) 1,2,3,4,5,6,7

Ans : d

 

 

============================================================= 

 

Question : When CM is jail

Dt: 29.3.2024

 

10)Consider the following :

1)The Delhi High Court on Thursday rejected a petition seeking the removal of Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal from the post, following his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate.

2)“This court is of the view that there is no scope for judicial interference. It is for the other wing of the government to examine the issue in accordance with the law,” a Bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet P.S. Arora said.

3)In his petition, Surjit Singh Yadav demanded that the Union, Delhi governments and the Principal Secretary to the Lieutenant Governor be asked to explain under what authority Mr. Kejriwal is still holding the post of Chief Minister.

4)He contended that the continuation of Mr. Kejriwal as the Chief Minister would not only lead to disruption of law and order but also lead to the breakdown of the constitutional machinery of the State.

5)The court, however, asked Mr. Yadav to show the “legal bar” which prohibits Mr. Kejriwal from acting as Chief Minister from behind bars. “If there is a constitutional failure, the President will act on it. Or the Governor will act on it. We will not act on it,” the court stressed.

6)“239AB (Provision in case of failure of constitutional machinery) is not to be exercised by the high court, it is to be exercised by the Governor. The Governor will exercise it, and it will go to the President, but the problem is, which we are asking you (petitioner) is, is there any scope for judicial interference on this issue,” the high court asked.

7)“We have read today’s newspaper, the Lieutenant Governor is examining this issue. It will go the President for examination, that is up to them. That (task) belongs to a different wing,” the Bench said.

8)“There may be practical difficulties. Even today we have matter where the Chief Secretary has been told to placed a file before the Chief Minister. We don’t know how it will operate, what will happen. But that is something else,” it added.

9)The plea argued that “sitting in jail the Chief Minister is incapable of transacting any business that the law enjoins upon him”.

Which of the following is correct?

(a)1 and 2 only

(b)2 and 3 only

( c ) 3 only

(d) 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9

Ans : d

 

 

===================================================================== 

 

Question: Article 22

11)Consider the following :

1)The Supreme Court has held that advisory boards under draconian preventive detention laws should not behave like mere “rubber-stamping authorities” for the government, but act as safety valves that stand between the capricious use of power by the state and the right to personal liberty.

2)“An advisory board must consider whether the detention is necessary not just in the eyes of the detaining authority but also in the eyes of law,” a three-judge Bench of Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, J.B. Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra observed in a recent judgment.

3)Article 22 of the Constitution makes it mandatory for preventive detention laws to form advisory boards consisting of persons qualified to be High Court judges.

4)Justice Pardiwala, who wrote the judgment, said the requirement to have people qualified to become High Court judges was not an empty formality, but a careful measure to ensure that a detention order of the government was put to robust scrutiny.

5)These boards, under the various laws, have to review detention orders every three months to see whether there was sufficient cause or not.

6)The boards should consider material placed before them; call for further information; hear the detenu; and submit a report explaining whether or not detention was justified.

7)The judgment from the top court came in an appeal filed by a man ordered by the Telangana police to be detained as a ‘goonda’ under the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1986.

8)The police claimed the man was a threat to “public order”. He was a cause of panic and fear among women. The appellant was accused of making a habit of snatching the mangalsutras of his victims in broad daylight.

 

9)Justice Pardiwala said it was unfair to deny someone his personal liberty on a mere hypothesis that he was likely to commit a crime, as in the past, which may adversely affect the maintenance of public order.

10)The top court said the State had not provided any material to show that the appellant was a threat to public order.

11)Justice Pardiwala distinguished between ‘public order’ and ‘law and order’. A problem of ‘law and order’ affected only a few individuals, but an issue of public order influenced the community or the public at large or even the country.

12)“Public order is the even tempo of life of the community taking the country as a whole or even a specified locality. The distinction between the areas of ‘law and order’ and ‘public order’ is one of degree and extent of the reach,” the court noted.

13)“Inability on the part of the State’s police machinery to tackle the law and order situation should not be an excuse to invoke the jurisdiction of preventive detention,” the court said. Quashing the detention order, Justice Pardiwala said none of the FIRs against the appellant named him.

Which of the following is correct?

(a)1 and 2 only

(b)2 and 3 only

( c ) 3 only

(d) 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13

Ans : d

 

===============================================================

Question: Living Will

 

12)Consider the following :

1)On March 12, a gathering of 30 people, mostly doctors, nurses, and volunteers of the Pain and Palliative Care Society, signed ‘living wills’ in Thrissur, Kerala. A ‘living will’ is a legal document prepared in advance, detailing your preferences for medical care or for the termination of medical support in circumstances in which you are no longer able to make those decisions for yourself.

2)“Everybody wants to die with dignity. No one wants to die in the freezing ICU alone, without loved ones. But people may not be in a condition to articulate their wishes in their last days. Patients, even in the eventuality of terminal illness with no hope of recovery or irreversible coma, are often kept on life support just to delay death — perhaps under social or family pressure. These expensive treatments push many families into a huge debt trap,” says Divakaran Edasseri, Director of the Institute of Palliative Care, Thrissur.

3)The Supreme Court ruled on March 9, 2018, that in specific conditions, a person has the right to decide against artificial life-support by writing a living will. It upheld the fundamental right to die peacefully and with dignity. The judgment was made on a PIL filed by a Delhi-based NGO. The court stipulated strict conditions. In January 2023, the court modified guidelines for its 2018 order and made it simpler. The objective of the ‘group signing’ was to create awareness and ease confusion about the living will. “We want to tell society that the procedure is simple and workable,” said N. N. Gokul Das, a retired zoology professor, Sreekrishna College, Guruvayur.

4) “I am a survivor of colorectal cancer. At 75, I can make a decision that I want only palliative care, not any curative treatment, in case of a relapse. I don’t want to suffer in the ICU. I don’t want a nasogastric tube to be inserted for feeding. I want to die a comfortable death, with dignity. Why should we add a financial burden to our family? Death is a big business now,” he said.

5)This does not mean the patient should not receive treatment after signing the living will. Palliative surgery or chemotherapy can be employed to reduce pain, Mr. Das, a founding member of the Pain and Palliative Care Society, Thrissur, said.

6)People are generally scared of discussing their “inevitable” death. However, unofficial gatherings like Death Café, where people meet and discuss death over a cup of tea and a piece of cake, have become common in cities in the country. “We conducted Death Café sessions in the Thrissur Pain and Palliative Care Society. It was an enriching experience,” said Dr. Divakaran.

7)And what was the age profile of those who signed the will? Though most participants were over 50, young people did also sign up.

8)A 38-year-old nurse at the Pain and Palliative Care Society, Sini. C.S. was among those who signed the will. “I have witnessed the final days of terminally ill patients for 10 years. I have seen how patients and families suffer. I feel it is meaningless to delay death if there is no hope of recovery,” she said.

9)According to the modified guidelines, to make a living will, one must be of legal age and sound mind. The person must be aware of the conditions in which curative treatments and life support systems will be halted. The decision to prepare a living will must be taken without any compulsion.

10)The signing of the will must be witnessed by two people and should be attested by a gazetted officer or a notary. A copy must be handed over to the doctor and an assigned person (a close relative or friend). Copies of the living will should also be sent to the secretary of the local self-government and the district magistrate.

11)P.V. Ajayan, ENT Professor, Government Medical College, Thrissur, who organised the living will event, hoped that the programme would be a positive message. “After we signed , at least 60 people contacted us . Those who want to sign the document think that dying with dignity is as important as living with dignity,” Mr. Das said.

Which of the following is correct?

(a)1 and 2 only

(b)2 and 3 only

( c ) 3 only

(d) 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11

Ans : d

 

================================================================= 

13)Consider the following :

1)The Delhi High Court has given the Centre time till July 15, 2024 to notify the guidelines for making films accessible to persons with hearing and visual disabilities.

2)The court said accessibility was enforceable as a legal right and that even private parties have to take reasonable measures to enable greater accessibility for persons with hearing and visual disabilities.

3)The court observed that the Information and Broadcasting Ministry has framed draft guidelines for accessibility standards in cinema halls for persons with hearing and visual disabilities and is in the process of finalising the same.

4)“The guidelines shall now be finalised by the Ministry and shall be notified on or before July 15, 2024. It is made clear that the said guidelines shall make the provision of accessibility features mandatory and provide a reasonable period for compliance by all stakeholders, in an expeditious manner,” the court ordered.

5)The court’s order came on a petition by four persons with visual and hearing disabilities who sought directions on making films accessible to them. They argued that though various rights have been recognised for “persons with disabilities” under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPWD) Act, most films which are released in India do not cater to disabled persons despite the statute having been enacted more than five years ago.

6)The Ministry had issued various directions to the film producers’ association and to the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) in October 2019, to use audio description and subtitles and closed captions in all films.

Which of the following is correct?

(a)1 and 2 only

(b)2 and 3 only

( c ) 3 only

(d) 1,2,3,4,5,6

Ans : d

 

==========================================================================

 

Question: ED Powers , under PMLA

Dt: 3.4.2024

14)Consider the following :

1)The Supreme Court on Tuesday 2.4.2024 endorsed the sweeping powers of the Enforcement Directorate (ED), saying the Central agency could call “anybody for any information” even as it castigated four Tamil Nadu District Collectors for failing to appear in person in response to a summons issued to them by the anti-money laundering body.

2)The Tamil Nadu government and the Collectors informed a Bench headed by Justice Bela M. Trivedi that they had written to the ED expressing their inability to appear in person as the Lok Sabha election in Tamil Nadu was due on April 19 and they needed more time to collect the information sought by the Central agency about sand mining sites in their districts.

3)The Collectors said the information sought was not in their offices, but had to be collected from other branches of the district administration, verified and compiled to be presented before the ED. They had sought time till April-end.

4)The court refused to accept the Collectors’ explanation. Justice Trivedi said their conduct showed scant respect for the court’s February 27 order to appear in person before the ED on whatever date it summoned them.

5)“Such a cavalier approach may land them [District Collectors] in a difficult situation. This court had passed an order on February 27… Their conduct shows that these officers have no respect for this court, the law and much less to the Constitution. Such an approach is strongly deprecated,” Justice Trivedi addressed senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Amit Anand Tiwari, for Tamil Nadu, and senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing the District Collectors of Vellore, Ariyalur, Karur and Tiruchi.

6)Mr. Sibal submitted that the officials were still gathering the data for the ED from the various offices. They were also, as District Magistrates, saddled with the responsibility of maintaining law and order and fulfilment of programmes in their jurisdictions.

7)But Justice Trivedi said the Collectors should have respected the top court order and appeared before the ED and “said whatever they wanted to say”. Mr. Sibal asked what would have been the point of appearing before the ED without the necessary data. He said the Collectors did not also want to disturb the election process.

8)“They are neither witnesses nor accused… Can the ED call anybody like this,” Mr. Sibal asked the Bench. “Yes, they can,” Justice Trivedi replied categorically. Mr. Sibal said that was not the law “as we understand it”. He said Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) allowed for “authorised agents” to be sent in response to ED summons.

9)Justice Trivedi said 50(2) of the PMLA empowered the ED to summon “any person” whose attendance was considered necessary for giving evidence or production of records in the course of “any investigation or proceeding” under the statute. Section 50(3) mandated that the individual summoned was “bound to attend in person or through authorised agents” and would be required to make truthful statements and produce required documents.

10)The court ordered the Collectors to be present in person before the ED on April 25. It listed the case for hearing on May 6.

Which of the following is correct?

(a)1 and 2 only

(b)2 and 3 only

( c ) 3 only

(d) 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10

Ans : d

 

 

========================================================================

 

Question: Digital Birth Certificate

Dt: 5.4.2024

15)Consider the following :

 

1)When registering the birth of a child, parents will now be required to separately record the religion of the father and mother, according to Model Rules drafted by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs. These Rules will have to be adopted and notified by the State governments before they are implemented.

2)Earlier, only the family’s religion was recorded in birth registers. The proposed “Form No.1-Birth Report” will expand the column requiring a tick mark selection “for religion” of the child to now also state the “religion of father” and “religion of mother”.

3)Under the Registration of Births and Deaths (Amendment) Act, 2023, the birth and death database may be used to update the National Population Register, electoral rolls, Aadhaar number, ration card, passport, driving licence, property registration, and such other databases as may be notified.

4)According to the law, which became effective October 1 last year(i.e.,2023), all reported births and deaths in the country are to be digitally registered through the Centre’s portal for the Civil Registration System (crsorgi.gov.in).

5)The digital birth certificates issued under this system will become a single document to prove the date of birth for various services, including admission to educational institutions. The office of the Registrar General of India (RGI) under the Union Home Ministry has proposed substituting the existing forms related to the registration of births, deaths, still births, adoptions, and the Medical Certificate of Cause of Death as per the draft rules. The certificate will also include the “history of illness, if any” from now on, apart from the actual cause of death.

6)Any birth register includes two parts: legal information and statistical information. The information on the parents’ religion is to be maintained for statistical information.

7)The birth register form pertaining to legal information has been expanded to record the Aadhaar number, and the mobile and e-mail IDs of both the parents, “if available”. The address box has been made more descriptive to contain the name of the State, district, sub-district, town or village, ward number (in case of town and if available), locality, house number, and PIN code.

8)The “informant” providing the information will also have to provide their Aadhaar and mobile numbers, and email address, along with the name and address details which were earlier required.

9)According to the 2023 amendment, the RGI shall maintain the database of registered births and deaths at the national level and it is obligatory upon the Chief Registrars and the Registrars to share the data of registered births and deaths to such a database.

10)According to the parent Act — the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 — the RGI has been empowered to take steps to coordinate and unify the activities of Chief Registrars, who are appointed by State governments.

11)Civil Registration System (CRS) functionaries are appointed up to panchayat level. The CRS data is also used to compile the annual ‘Vital Statistics of India Based On The Civil Registration System’ report, which makes public data regarding sex-ratio at birth, infant mortality, stillbirths and deaths, at national level. Such data is used by the government for socio-economic planning and to evaluate the effectiveness of various social sector programmes.

Which of the following is correct?

(a)1 and 2 only

(b)2 and 3 only

( c ) 3 only

(d) 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11

Ans : d

 

 

=============================================================================== 

 

Question: Parliament terms

16)Consider the following :

1)Over 15 years, the Rajya Sabha has witnessed a remarkable 62% in this, while the Lok Sabha has seen a significant rise of 34%. This surge reflects a positive signal, indicating heightened focus in addressing pressing issues and grievances, and also seeking clarifications from the government.

 2)This coincides with a dwindling usage of interventions such as

i)‘Half-an-Hour Discussions’,

ii)‘Short Notice Questions’,

iii)‘Calling Attention’,

iv)‘Short Duration Discussions’, and

v) ‘Special Mentions’.

3)Despite its popularity and usage in addressing key issues, Zero Hour has its inherent limitations. To strike a balance, it is imperative to leverage other interventions such as the ‘Calling Attention’, ‘Short Duration’ and ‘Half and Hour’ discussions which provide a platform for other members to participate in, enhancing the quality of debate and reaching amicable solutions.

Which of the following is correct?

(a)1 and 2 only

(b)2 and 3 only

( c ) 3 only

(d) 1,2,3

Ans : d

 

 

=================================================================================

 

Question: Right against climate change a fundamental right , says Supreme Court of India

Dt: 9.4.2024

17)Consider the following :

1)The Supreme Court has recognised a much-felt, but less-articulated right against the adverse effects of climate change as a distinct fundamental right in the Constitution.

2)“It is yet to be articulated that the people have a right against the adverse effects of climate change. This is perhaps because this right and the right to a clean environment are two sides of the same coin. As the havoc caused by climate change increases year-by-year, it becomes necessary to articulate this as a distinct right. It is recognised by Articles 14 (right to equality) and 21 (right to life),” the Supreme Court observed in a judgment released on April 6.

3)The judgment came in a case connected with the survival of the endangered Great Indian Bustard species.

4)An order was pronounced in open court on March 21,2024 constituting an expert committee to examine the problem faced by the bird species whose natural habitat and flight routes collide with power transmission lines in Gujarat and Rajasthan.

5)The case had been posted for further hearing in August. However, the court, unannounced, uploaded a judgment during the weekend. The text of the judgment has several paragraphs on climate change and its adversities.

6)Linking the right against climate change to Articles 21 and 14, Chief Justice Chandrachud said the rights to life and equality could not be fully realised without a clean, stable environment.

7)“The right to health (which is a part of the right to life under Article 21) is impacted due to factors such as air pollution, shifts in vector-borne diseases, rising temperatures, droughts, shortages in food supplies due to crop failure, storms, and flooding. The inability of underserved communities to adapt to climate change or cope with its effects violates the right to life as well as the right to equality… If climate change and environmental degradation lead to acute food and water shortages in a particular area, poorer communities will suffer more than richer ones,” the judgment said.

8)The court also highlighted the interconnection between climate change and various human rights, including the right to health, indigenous rights, gender equality, and the right to development.

9)The judgment noted that the right to a healthy environment, safe from the ill-effects of climate change, was a “fundamental human right”.

10)The court underscored the important role solar power would play in arresting the ills of climate change.

11)India needed to shift to solar power due to three issues — One, the country is likely to account for 25% of global energy demand growth over the next two decades; Two, rampant air pollution emphasises the need for cleaner energy sources; Three declining groundwater levels and decreasing annual rainfall.

12)By shifting towards renewable energy sources, India enhances its energy security, reducing reliance on volatile fossil fuel markets and mitigating the risks associated with energy scarcity.

13)Additionally, the adoption of renewable energy technologies helps in curbing air pollution, thereby improving public health and reducing healthcare costs

Which of the following is correct?

(a)1 and 2 only

(b)2 and 3 only

( c ) 3 only

(d) 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12

Ans : d

 

 

========================================================================

 

Question: Madrasas in UP

Dt: 8.4.2024

 

Topic: Infringement of fundamental rights under the Constitution of India

18)Consider the following :

1)Recently, the Supreme Court stayed a ruling of the Allahabad High Court on the U.P. Board of Madrasa Education Act 2004 calling it an infringement of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution. The top court also found the High Court’s ruling to be against the principles of secularism. The decision gave massive relief to around 17 lakh students of the State’s 16,000 recognised madrasas.

2)Earlier, the High Court had dubbed the U.P. Board of Madrasa Education Act “unconstitutional” and asked for immediate closure of the madrasas. It called for the relocation and integration of the madrasa students with regular schools. The Supreme Court called the High Court’s ruling “not warranted” and imposed a stay on the relocation.

3)The three-judge Supreme Court Bench, headed by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, scrutinised the provisions of the Act and made it clear that “the object and purpose of the statutory board which is constituted under the Act is regulatory in nature.” The apex court did not agree with the High Court’s ruling on educational institutions funded by the State being prohibited from imparting religious instruction. The Bench cited a 2002 judgment clarifying the term “religious instruction.” The judges felt that striking down the 2004 Act was not the solution towards making a provision for secular education alongside religious instruction.

4)Uttar Pradesh has around 25,000 madrasas of which 16,500 are recognised by the U.P. Madrasa Education Board. Only 560 madrasas receive grants from the government though there have been complaints in recent years of delayed payment and arrears in salaries. The irregular madrasas are usually strapped for resources and manage to provide only elementary learning.

5)The latest case in the Supreme Court is in continuation of a long trail of madrasas being the focus of attention. In 2022, the U.P. Government ordered a survey of the State’s madrasas to find out the number of unrecognised or illegal madrasas. Though the findings of the complete survey were not made public, the State government caused a ripple in Muslim education circles when in October 2023, irregular madrasas operating in the western U.P. township of Muzaffarnagar were ordered to be closed within 24 hours. The Basic Education Department issued a notice to these educational institutions stating that unregistered madrasas operating in Muzaffarnagar would be subject to a daily penalty of ₹10,000 if they were not able to submit relevant documents within three days of the notice.

6)The move upset minority organisations, with the Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind calling the move discriminatory. “These madrasas provide free education to around 10,000 students. They will not have the resources to pay the fine. The order seems targeted at a particular community,” a Jamiat official had then said. Around the same time, a Special Investigation Team (SIT) was formed to investigate the sources of the madrasas’ alleged foreign funding. The SIT claimed that the madrasas had received over ₹100 crore from abroad over the past three years though evidence was not shared with the public.

7)Madrasas have been under the spotlight since the Yogi Adityanath government was first sworn in 2017. At the time, the government had instructed madrasas to hoist the national flag and sing the national anthem on Independence Day. The circular issued by the U.P. Madrasa Shiksha Parishad also asked these schools to videograph and photograph the Independence Day function as evidence. The order upset many madrasas who claimed it called into question their patriotism.

8)Meanwhile, the Supreme Court Bench on the U.P. Board Madrasa Education Act case has asked the State to file its counter affidavit before May 31. It has also given the appellants time till June 30,2024 to respond to the State’s views. It will hear the arguments in the second week of July.

Which of the following is correct?

(a)1 and 2 only

(b)2 and 3 only

( c ) 3 only

(d) 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8

Ans : d

 

=================================================================================

 

Question: Election candidate has a right to  Privacy from Voters

Dt: 10.4.2024

19)Consider the following :

1)The Supreme Court on 9.4.2024 held that an election candidate has a right to privacy from voters and need not lay out every scrap of his or her personal life and possessions, past and present, for the electorate to examine with a magnifying glass.

2)A Bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay Kumar said a candidate’s choice to retain his privacy on matters which were of no concern to the voters or were irrelevant to his candidature for public office did not amount to a ‘corrupt practice’ under Section 123 of the Representation of People Act, 1951. Such non-disclosure would not amount to a “defect of a substantial nature” under Section 36(4) of the 1951 Act.

3)Justice Kumar, who wrote the judgment, observed there was no compulsion on a candidate to lay his life threadbare for the electorate to prod and scrutinise.

4)“It is not necessary that a candidate declare every item of movable property that he or his dependent family members own, unless these items are of such value as to constitute a sizeable asset in itself or reflect upon his candidature, in terms of his lifestyle, and require to be disclosed,” Justice Kumar distinguished.

5)But the Court said every case would turn on its own peculiarities on what would amount to a non-disclosure of assets of a substantial nature. Suppressing information about a collection of expensive watches from voters would be a substantial defect.

6)The judgment came in a petition filed by Arunachal Pradesh MLA Karikho Kri challenging a Gauhati High Court decision in July last year declaring his election to the 44-Tezu Assembly Constituency of Arunachal Pradesh void for not declaring three vehicles as his assets in his affidavit filed in Form No 26 appended to the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961.

7)Mr. Kri had won the elections on May 23, 2019 as an Independent candidate. The vehicles in question were a Kinetic Zing Scooty, a Maruti Omni van used as an ambulance and a TVS Star City motorcycle. The scooter was sold as scrap in 2009. The other two vehicles were also sold.

8)Ruling in favour of Mr. Kri, the Supreme Court agreed with Mr. Kri’s lawyers that vehicles, once sold, could hardly be considered as “assets” of the candidate.

9)The court said voters have a right to the disclosure of information which was essential for choosing the candidate for whom a vote should be cast.

Which of the following is correct?

(a)1 and 2 only

(b)2 and 3 only

( c ) 3 only

(d) 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9

Ans : d

 

 

=================================================================================

 

Question : Discrimination  in case of disability under article 15 or 14

Dt: 23.4.2024

20)Consider the following :

1)The release of manifestos during election season rarely occasions a discussion on the rights of persons with disabilities. However, the promise of the Congress and CPI(M) to include disability as a specific ground for discrimination under Article 15 (and Article 16) of the Constitution has sparked optimism within the disability rights movement. Currently, the provision prohibits discrimination on grounds of “religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth, or any of them” and does not expressly include disability.

2)A constitutional amendment of Article 15 to address this glaring omission has been a long-standing demand of the disability rights movement. In 2019, this demand was reaffirmed by the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in its concluding observations while reviewing India’s compliance with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD). To this date, no steps have been taken in this direction.

3)Ever since the Constituent Assembly debates, the discourse on disability rights within the constitutional scheme has continued to overlook the concerns of the disability rights movement. However, the disability rights movement in India and across the globe has made significant strides since then. The adoption of the UNCRPD in 2006 marked a significant step, recognising that persons with disabilities are entitled to enjoy their rights “on an equal basis with others”. India ratified the Convention in 2007 and enacted the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act in 2016. While no amendment was made to Article 15 in response to the ratification, Section 3 of the Act provided that no person with disabilities shall be discriminated against on grounds of disability. However, the law only extends a restricted notion of equality to persons with disabilities. This provision also says that if the act or omission is a proportionate way of achieving a ‘legitimate aim’, the same shall not violate the provisions of this law. As the phrase ‘legitimate aim’ is not defined, it leaves wide scope for legislative, administrative, and private action to be classified as a “legitimate aim”.

4)There can be an argument that the current gap can also be rectified by amending the above Act. However, even after such an amendment, the right against discrimination guaranteed to persons with disability would remain a statutory right as opposed to a constitutional right. Considering the higher normative value of a constitutional right, the amendment would not only signify a deeper commitment but would also provide a stronger remedy in the form of a fundamental right against discriminatory acts and omissions.

5)The Constitution of India holds deep philosophical importance in our country’s social, political, and legal structure, marking a departure from colonial rule to adopting a democratic order based on principles of liberty, equality, and fraternity. It restructured the relationship between individuals and the state by guaranteeing everyone fundamental rights against the state, and the relationship among individuals by guaranteeing equality and the right against non-discrimination. Article 15 prohibits discrimination based on certain grounds. Through these grounds, it identifies the social hierarchies amongst its citizens and how politics of exclusion can be remedied. The inclusion of disability under Article 15 will undo this historical injustice.

6)In 2018, the Supreme Court in Navtej Singh Johar vs Union of India extended the protection of Article 15 on grounds of ‘sexual orientation’ after recognising the same as ‘analogous’ to the other grounds mentioned under Article 15. This decision opened the possibility that the judiciary may extend the same protection on grounds of disability by treating it as analogous grounds. While treating disability as an analogous ground may extend the protection of Article 15 to persons with disabilities, it cannot be considered an alternative to a constitutional amendment that specifically includes disability as a ground under Article 15.

7)The analogous grounds approach poses a burden on the litigator to have the same recognised through the process of constitutional litigation and ignores the systemic marginalisation faced by persons with disabilities. It should be the responsibility of the government and not that of the judiciary to recognise this omission.

8)The promises made in manifestos of the Congress and the CPI(M) have signalled an era where there is a clear political will to act on the demands of the disability rights movement. Disability rights organisations in India deserve due credit for their consistent and aggressive advocacy behind this demand.

9)In February 2024, the National Centre for Promotion of Employment for Disabled People (NCPEDP) and the National Disability Network (NDN) launched a first-of-its-kind initiative by releasing a manifesto for and by persons with disabilities, which urged the political parties to prioritise and address the issues of the disabled community.

10)It is only hoped that other parties follow the example. Electoral promises are rarely followed in India’s electoral democracy. But despite that, these promises give hope that the movement will no longer face political apathy with regard to this demand and that India is ready to shift the Overton window on this topic.

Which of the following is correct?

(a)1 and 2 only

(b)2 and 3 only

( c ) 3 only

(d) 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10

Ans : d

 

 

====================================================================================

 

Question : Climate change , for good health a right

Dt: 23.4.2024

21)Consider the following :

1)In a landmark decision, the European Court of Human Rights found the Government of Switzerland guilty of violating the rights of a group of women senior citizens of a Swiss civil society group called KlimaSeniorinnen, noting that the government’s actions to curb emissions were inadequate and had failed to protect women against the impacts of climate change.

2)As a first of its kind decision anywhere in the world, it highlights how the climate crisis is increasingly becoming a human rights crisis.

3)A similar watershed moment happened in India a month ago, when the Supreme Court of India ruled that people have a right ‘to be free from the adverse impacts of climate change’, citing Articles 14 (equality before law and the equal protection of laws) and 21 (right to life and personal liberty) of the Indian Constitution as the sources.

4)The latest State of the Global Climate Report by the World Meteorological Organization reveals that most climate change indicators reached record levels in 2023. It confirmed 2023 to be the hottest year since we started recording global temperatures. Records were also broken for ocean heat, sea level rise, Antarctic Sea ice loss and glacier retreat.

5)The health of the planet is under extreme stress, impacting people’s right to live a healthy life. The UN Secretary General António Guterres’s message on International Mother Earth Day 2024 underscores the dire situation, ‘Humanity is acting like Mother Earth’s delinquent child. We depend on nature… Yet, we have brought chaos to the natural world… These actions harm nature, and they harm humanity… Together, we must restore harmony with nature...’.

6)As one of the world’s fastest growing economies, India has made rapid strides in decoupling emissions from economic growth. It has already achieved two of its Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) targets, viz. reducing the emissions intensity of its GDP by 33% to 35% from 2005 level, and achieving 40% cumulative electric power installed capacity from non-fossil fuel sources, well ahead of the target year of 2030.

7)However, the country remains highly vulnerable to climate change. More than 80% of its population lives in districts that are at risk of climate-induced disasters. Rising temperatures and natural disasters are manifesting into major crises affecting livelihoods and food security, and exacerbating existing socio-economic inequalities.

8)It is here that the court’s observation sets an important precedent, looking at these impacts of climate change from a rights perspective, affecting humanity’s right to health, life, liberty and much more. By bringing the impacts of climate change within the purview of constitutional fundamental rights, it paves the way for legal accountability of climate action.

9)The observation provides several points of departure with the potential to accelerate climate action both on the demand and supply side — on the demand side, by invoking a more rights-based approach to climate action, and on the supply side, by encouraging integrated approaches and action between government, private sector and civil society.

10)The first such point of departure could be the adoption of an overarching regulation on climate change which takes forward the policy-driven approach of climate action in India couched in the National and State Action Plans on Climate Change. An overarching regulation has the intended benefits of enhancing state capacities by driving allocation of funds, functions and functionaries.

11)A report by the London School of Economics and Political Science analysed climate change framework laws across 60 countries, concluding that they have helped establish the strategic direction for national policies that go beyond meeting targets under global environmental conventions. This includes countries from both the Global North such as Germany, Ireland, New Zealand, Finland and South Korea, as well as the Global South such as South Africa and the Philippines.

12)These laws have resulted in increased public sector staffing and capacity to deliver climate action, including a significant expansion in public sector resourcing. While India has several laws and regulations related to tackling climate change, a framework law can help strengthen climate governance by building effective institutional frameworks and processes, enabling more ambitious climate action.

13)Further, it has the potential to provide for a more stringent and distributed accountability, and promoting the exchange of knowledge and ideas. Out of all the States and Union Territories in the country, 18 are classified as moderately to highly vulnerable to climate change. A forum that enables the sharing of best practices on implementation of policies can build coherence in policies and actions between States and Union Territories.

14)A case in point is India’s localisation model for the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which has successfully integrated the SDGs into local-level planning through multi-tiered and multi-stakeholder processes. States and territories take ownership by creating their own SDG road maps and monitoring systems, and friendly competition among them spurs innovation and faster progress. To ensure effective implementation, capacities of local governments are built. The model also encourages broader participation from businesses, non-governmental organisations, and citizens. This has resulted in a more efficient and collaborative approach to achieve the SDGs.

15)The second pathway can build inter-ministerial and inter-sectoral approaches. The One Health initiative is one such example which has brought together 13 Ministries and departments in the domains of health, environment, science and technology for disease control, research, and pandemic preparedness. We need to expand this approach to the private sector on integrating a rights-based approach to climate action in their core operations. For instance, the circular economy approaches need to engage with human rights compliant supply chains, including reverse logistics, to have a truly transformative impact.

16)The third pathway can leverage the court’s observation to empower citizen groups and civil society organisations in fostering a rights-based dialogue on environment, biodiversity and climate action. Within the ambit of environmental policy, it can build consensus on overcoming potential tensions between climate mitigation and action.

17)This is reflected in the Supreme Court’s observation, which came in the backdrop of balancing conservation of the habitat of the Great Indian Bustard, a critically endangered bird species, with developing solar energy parks to meet the country’s renewable energy targets. While noting that wildlife conservation cannot come at the cost of citizens’ right to be protected from climate change, for which expanding renewable energy capacity is indispensable, the Court insisted upon more dialogues to arrive at a holistic solution.

18)Every year since 2009, April 22 is commemorated as International Mother Earth Day. The idea of ‘Mother’ Earth has been embedded in India’s culture and traditions for centuries, regarding nature as a ‘living’ entity rather than just a resource.

19)In 2022, the Madras High Court in Tamil Nadu, while hearing a case on changing the classification of forest land, declared ‘Mother Nature’ a ‘living being’, granting it the status of a legal person with all corresponding rights, duties and liabilities, in order to preserve and conserve it.

20)We now need to use these judgments and observations to restore Mother Earth’s right to good health, and by doing so, protect the right of people to a future free from the impacts of climate change.

Which of the following is correct?

(a)1 and 2 only

(b)2 and 3 only

( c ) 3 only

(d) 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,1415,16,17,18,19,20

Ans : d

 

 

 

=======================================================================

 

 

Question: Electoral Bonds

22) Consider the following :

 

1)A five-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, which had on February 15,2024 struck down the electoral bonds scheme as unconstitutional, gave the bank 24 hours, that is, by the close of business hours on March 12,2024 to provide the details to the Election Commission (EC).

2)The Supreme Court’s refusal to grant any further time to the State Bank of India (SBI) to furnish details of those who purchased and parties that encashed electoral bonds since April 2019 has foiled an ill-advised attempt to seek postponement of the disclosure until after the general election. The SBI has now been asked to disclose to the Election Commission of India (ECI), by the end of March 12, the names of details of the purchasers of the bonds, the dates on which these were bought, and denominations. The bank should also disclose the names of parties that redeemed the bonds, along with dates and denominations. The ECI has to host the information on its website by March 15,2024 The upshot of the bank’s application for time until June 30 is that it is now quite clear that it must disclose the data available to it, and need not try and match the names of the donors with the parties. It appears that the initial directions of the Constitution Bench, as part of its February 15 judgment invalidating the electoral bonds scheme, had been construed to mean that the SBI was required to match with exactitude all the purchasers with the recipients. The bank deemed this a “time-consuming” exercise, as the details were in separate silos and not stored in digital format.

3)In rejecting the bank’s application for time and keeping the threat of contempt action alive, the Court has sent a message that it will not brook any further delay. The Bench has also rightly questioned the bank’s silence on what had been done to comply with the order until the filing of an application for extension of time, just two days before the March 6 deadline. It is now quite apparent that even manually matching the two datasets could not have taken as long as the four months the SBI wanted. A question may arise as to whether the voters’ right to information, the very basis for the Court finding the anonymous donation scheme unconstitutional, will be fulfilled by mere disclosure of the names of bond purchasers and the parties that received the funds, without authentic data on who donated what amount to which party. Given that the bonds have to be redeemed within a 15-day window, it may still be possible for a diligent civil society to use the disclosures to match donors and parties based on the proximity between dates of purchase and redemption. The data may also help unravel whether corporate houses or individuals benefited from their donations to ruling parties at the Centre and in the States, or if the contributions were made in response to any threat of investigation and prosecution.

 

 

4)A day after the Supreme Court directive, the State Bank of India (SBI) on Tuesday 12.3.2024 submitted to the Election Commission (EC) the details of electoral bonds purchased and encashed since April 12, 2019.

5)“In compliance of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s directions to the SBI, contained in its order dated Feb. 15 and March 11, 2024 (in the matter of WPC NO.880 of 2017), data on electoral bonds has been supplied by the State Bank of India to the Election Commission of India, today, March 12, 2024,” the poll body posted on X.

6)The Supreme Court, while striking down the electoral bonds scheme as unconstitutional in February, had directed the SBI to submit electoral bonds data to the EC.

7)On Monday 11.3.2024, the top court dismissed a plea filed by the SBI seeking time till June 30 to submit the data. The court asked that the data be submitted to the EC by Tuesday. The EC was in turn asked to publish the information on its website by 5 p.m. on March 15.

8)The SBI had sought an extension saying it needed time to match the buyers of the bonds with the political parties that encashed it. To this, the top court said the information on purchasers of bonds, the denomination of the bonds, and the bonds redeemed by the respective political parties were easily available and did not need matching.

9)The first sale of electoral bonds took place in March 2018. Bonds worth ₹16,518 crore had been issued by the SBI since the inception of the scheme in 2018.

10)The State Bank of India (SBI) on Wednesday informed the Supreme Court that details of electoral bonds anonymously purchased by contributors and encashed by political parties from April 2019 to February 15, 2024 were hand-delivered to the Election Commission of India (ECI). The SBI said a total of 22,217 electoral bonds were purchased and 22,030 were redeemed by political parties between April 1, 2019, and February 15, 2024.

11)From April 1, 2019, to April 11 the same month, 3,346 bonds were purchased and 1,609 were redeemed by parties. Between April 12, 2019, and February 15, 2024, donors bought 18,871 bonds and 20,421 were redeemed by parties, the SBI affidavit said. Though the Supreme Court had sought information only from April 12, 2019, the bank said the selling and redeeming of electoral bonds had started from April 1. The ECI has time till March 15 to publish the information from the bank on its official website.

12)The bank said it has shared information with the ECI about the dates of purchase of electoral bonds, the names of purchasers and the denomination of the bonds. Similarly, the dates of encashment of the bonds, names of political parties which received the contributions and denomination of the bonds encashed were also provided.

Which of the following is correct?

(a)1 and 2 only

(b)2 and 3 only

( c ) 3 only

(d) 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12

Ans : d

 

====================================

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

============================================================= 

 

Question : When CM is jail

Dt: 29.3.2024

23)Consider the following:

 

1)The Delhi High Court on Thursday rejected a petition seeking the removal of Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal from the post, following his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate.

2)“This court is of the view that there is no scope for judicial interference. It is for the other wing of the government to examine the issue in accordance with the law,” a Bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet P.S. Arora said.

3)In his petition, Surjit Singh Yadav demanded that the Union, Delhi governments and the Principal Secretary to the Lieutenant Governor be asked to explain under what authority Mr. Kejriwal is still holding the post of Chief Minister.

4)He contended that the continuation of Mr. Kejriwal as the Chief Minister would not only lead to disruption of law and order but also lead to the breakdown of the constitutional machinery of the State.

5)The court, however, asked Mr. Yadav to show the “legal bar” which prohibits Mr. Kejriwal from acting as Chief Minister from behind bars. “If there is a constitutional failure, the President will act on it. Or the Governor will act on it. We will not act on it,” the court stressed.

6)“239AB (Provision in case of failure of constitutional machinery) is not to be exercised by the high court, it is to be exercised by the Governor. The Governor will exercise it, and it will go to the President, but the problem is, which we are asking you (petitioner) is, is there any scope for judicial interference on this issue,” the high court asked.

7)“We have read today’s newspaper, the Lieutenant Governor is examining this issue. It will go the President for examination, that is up to them. That (task) belongs to a different wing,” the Bench said.

8)“There may be practical difficulties. Even today we have matter where the Chief Secretary has been told to placed a file before the Chief Minister. We don’t know how it will operate, what will happen. But that is something else,” it added.

9)The plea argued that “sitting in jail the Chief Minister is incapable of transacting any business that the law enjoins upon him”.

Which of the following is correct?

(a)1 and 2 only

(b)2 and 3 only

( c ) 3 only

(d) 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9

Ans : d

 

 

===================================================================== 

 

Question: Article 22

24)Consider the following :

1)The Supreme Court has held that advisory boards under draconian preventive detention laws should not behave like mere “rubber-stamping authorities” for the government, but act as safety valves that stand between the capricious use of power by the state and the right to personal liberty.

2)“An advisory board must consider whether the detention is necessary not just in the eyes of the detaining authority but also in the eyes of law,” a three-judge Bench of Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, J.B. Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra observed in a recent judgment.

3)Article 22 of the Constitution makes it mandatory for preventive detention laws to form advisory boards consisting of persons qualified to be High Court judges.

4)Justice Pardiwala, who wrote the judgment, said the requirement to have people qualified to become High Court judges was not an empty formality, but a careful measure to ensure that a detention order of the government was put to robust scrutiny.

5)These boards, under the various laws, have to review detention orders every three months to see whether there was sufficient cause or not.

6)The boards should consider material placed before them; call for further information; hear the detenu; and submit a report explaining whether or not detention was justified.

7)The judgment from the top court came in an appeal filed by a man ordered by the Telangana police to be detained as a ‘goonda’ under the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1986.

8)The police claimed the man was a threat to “public order”. He was a cause of panic and fear among women. The appellant was accused of making a habit of snatching the mangalsutras of his victims in broad daylight.

9)Justice Pardiwala said it was unfair to deny someone his personal liberty on a mere hypothesis that he was likely to commit a crime, as in the past, which may adversely affect the maintenance of public order.

10)The top court said the State had not provided any material to show that the appellant was a threat to public order.

11)Justice Pardiwala distinguished between ‘public order’ and ‘law and order’. A problem of ‘law and order’ affected only a few individuals, but an issue of public order influenced the community or the public at large or even the country.

12)“Public order is the even tempo of life of the community taking the country as a whole or even a specified locality. The distinction between the areas of ‘law and order’ and ‘public order’ is one of degree and extent of the reach,” the court noted.

13)“Inability on the part of the State’s police machinery to tackle the law and order situation should not be an excuse to invoke the jurisdiction of preventive detention,” the court said. Quashing the detention order, Justice Pardiwala said none of the FIRs against the appellant named him.

Which of the following is correct?

(a)1 and 2 only

(b)2 and 3 only

( c ) 3 only

(d) 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13

Ans : d

 

===============================================================

Question: Living Will

25)Consider the following :

1)On March 12, a gathering of 30 people, mostly doctors, nurses, and volunteers of the Pain and Palliative Care Society, signed ‘living wills’ in Thrissur, Kerala. A ‘living will’ is a legal document prepared in advance, detailing your preferences for medical care or for the termination of medical support in circumstances in which you are no longer able to make those decisions for yourself.

2)“Everybody wants to die with dignity. No one wants to die in the freezing ICU alone, without loved ones. But people may not be in a condition to articulate their wishes in their last days. Patients, even in the eventuality of terminal illness with no hope of recovery or irreversible coma, are often kept on life support just to delay death — perhaps under social or family pressure. These expensive treatments push many families into a huge debt trap,” says Divakaran Edasseri, Director of the Institute of Palliative Care, Thrissur.

3)The Supreme Court ruled on March 9, 2018, that in specific conditions, a person has the right to decide against artificial life-support by writing a living will. It upheld the fundamental right to die peacefully and with dignity. The judgment was made on a PIL filed by a Delhi-based NGO. The court stipulated strict conditions. In January 2023, the court modified guidelines for its 2018 order and made it simpler. The objective of the ‘group signing’ was to create awareness and ease confusion about the living will. “We want to tell society that the procedure is simple and workable,” said N. N. Gokul Das, a retired zoology professor, Sreekrishna College, Guruvayur.

4) “I am a survivor of colorectal cancer. At 75, I can make a decision that I want only palliative care, not any curative treatment, in case of a relapse. I don’t want to suffer in the ICU. I don’t want a nasogastric tube to be inserted for feeding. I want to die a comfortable death, with dignity. Why should we add a financial burden to our family? Death is a big business now,” he said.

5)This does not mean the patient should not receive treatment after signing the living will. Palliative surgery or chemotherapy can be employed to reduce pain, Mr. Das, a founding member of the Pain and Palliative Care Society, Thrissur, said.

6)People are generally scared of discussing their “inevitable” death. However, unofficial gatherings like Death Café, where people meet and discuss death over a cup of tea and a piece of cake, have become common in cities in the country. “We conducted Death Café sessions in the Thrissur Pain and Palliative Care Society. It was an enriching experience,” said Dr. Divakaran.

7)And what was the age profile of those who signed the will? Though most participants were over 50, young people did also sign up.

8)A 38-year-old nurse at the Pain and Palliative Care Society, Sini. C.S. was among those who signed the will. “I have witnessed the final days of terminally ill patients for 10 years. I have seen how patients and families suffer. I feel it is meaningless to delay death if there is no hope of recovery,” she said.

9)According to the modified guidelines, to make a living will, one must be of legal age and sound mind. The person must be aware of the conditions in which curative treatments and life support systems will be halted. The decision to prepare a living will must be taken without any compulsion.

10)The signing of the will must be witnessed by two people and should be attested by a gazetted officer or a notary. A copy must be handed over to the doctor and an assigned person (a close relative or friend). Copies of the living will should also be sent to the secretary of the local self-government and the district magistrate.

11)P.V. Ajayan, ENT Professor, Government Medical College, Thrissur, who organised the living will event, hoped that the programme would be a positive message. “After we signed , at least 60 people contacted us . Those who want to sign the document think that dying with dignity is as important as living with dignity,” Mr. Das said.

Which of the following is correct?

(a)1 and 2 only

(b)2 and 3 only

( c ) 3 only

(d) 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11

Ans : d

 

================================================================= 

 

26)Consider the following ;

1)The three newly-enacted criminal laws, the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita (to replace the Indian Penal Code), the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (to replace the Code of Criminal Procedure) and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (to replace the Indian Evidence Act) are to come into force on July 1, 2024.

2)At the same time, Section 106(2) of the Bharatiya Nayay Sanhita (BNS), which prescribes 10 years imprisonment for fatal accidents if they are not immediately reported to the police, has been put on hold, as notified by the Central government.

3)The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and State governments are preparing for a smooth transition. While some changes have been made in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) in connection with investigation and police functioning, a few new offences and some changes introduced in the BNS, the contents of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 have changed little as far as the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) is concerned. The scope of secondary evidence has been slightly broadened and some changes have been made in the provisions relating to electronic evidence in the BSA.

Which of the following is correct?

(a)1 and 2 only

(b)2 and 3 only

( c ) 3 only

(d) 1,2,3

Ans : d