INSIGHTS REVISION TEST for Preliminary Exam 2018: Test – 21 (Indian Polity)

Answer: A

Why? [Cabinet Committees are frequently in news + Improvisation from UPSC questions on Parliamentary Conventions and on Parliamentary Committees.]

Explanation:

As on 2016, the following 6 Cabinet Committees are functional:

1. Cabinet Committee on Political Affairs
2. Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs
3. Appointments Committee of the Cabinet
4. Cabinet Committee on Security
5. Cabinet Committee on Parliamentary Affairs
6. Cabinet Committee on Accommodation

The  Prime  Minister  Narendra  Modi  on  June  10,  2014,  announced discontinuation  of  four  Standing  Committees  of  the  Cabinet.  A  statement  by the  Prime  Minister’s  Office  (PMO)  said  the  functions  of  Cabinet  Committee on  Management  of  Natural  Calamities  which  stands  discontinued  will  be handled  by  the  Committee  under  the  Cabinet  Secretary  whenever  natural calamities  occur.  The  functions  of  Cabinet  Committee  on  Prices  will  be

handled  by  the  Cabinet  Committee  on  Economic  Affairs;  of  the  Cabinet Committee  on  World  Trade  Organisation  Matters  by  the  Cabinet  Committee on  Economic  Affairs  and,  whenever  necessary,  by  the  full  Cabinet.  On  the Cabinet Committee on Unique Identification Authority of India related issues it  said  that  major  decisions  in  this  area  have  already  been  taken  and  the remaining  issues  will  be  brought  to  the  Cabinet  Committee  on  Economic Affairs.

Hence the answer is A.

Source: INDIAN POLITY-5TH EDITION-M LAXMI KANTH-CHAPTER 21

Answer: C

Why? : [Cabinet Committees are frequently in news+”Parliamentary Secretaries” was in news in the Context of Office of Profit related to Delhi government.]

Explanation:

Statement 1: Cabinet Committees usually include only Cabinet Ministers. However, the non-cabinet Ministers are not debarred from their membership.

Hence Statement 1 is INCORRECT

Statement 2: Political Affairs, Economic Affairs, Appointments related Cabinet Committees are headed by the Prime Minister while the Cabinet Committee on Parliamentary Affairs is headed by the Home Minister.

Hence Statement 2 is CORRECT

Statement 3: Parliamentary Secretaries are the members of the last category of the  council  of  ministers  (which  is  also  known  as  the  ‘ministry’).  They have no department under their control.  They are attached to the senior ministers and assist them in the discharge of their parliamentary duties. However, since 1967, no parliamentary secretaries have been appointed except during the first phase of Rajiv Gandhi Government.

Hence Statement 3 is CORRECT.

Source: INDIAN POLITY-5TH EDITION-M LAXMI KANTH-CHAPTERS 20& 21

Answer: D

Why?:  [Previous UPSC questions on Speaker of Lok Sabha and Chairman of Rajya Sabha.]

Explanation: 

Assertion: The Speaker of Lok Sabha is the ex-officio President of all the Forums except

the  Parliamentary  Forum  on  Population  and  Public  Health  wherein  the Chairman  of  Rajya  Sabha  is  the  ex-officio  President  and  the  Speaker  is  the ex-officio  Co-President.  The  Deputy  Chairman  of  Rajya  Sabha,  the  Deputy Speaker  of  Lok  Sabha,  the  concerned  Ministers  and  the  Chairmen  of Departmentally-Related  Standing  Committees  are  the  ex-officio  Vice Presidents of the respective Forums.

Hence Assertion is False.

Reason: The Speaker is chosen among the directly elected members of the Loksabha while the Vice-President, who is ex-officio chairman of Rajya Sabha is not directly elected by the people. He is elected by the Members of Parliament.

Hence Reason is True.

Source: INDIAN POLITY-5TH EDITION-M LAXMI KANTH-CHAPTER 24

Answer: D

Why?:UPSC-1997 Prelims question on Match the following -Functionaries and Oaths /Affirmations + UPSC-1996/2002 mains – Why does  the Constitution of  India contain different  forms of Oath  for the  President,  the  Ministers,  the  Legislators  and  the  members  of  the Judiciary? Discuss their significance.

Explanation:

Oath by the President:

“I,  A.B., do  swear in the name of God/solemnly affirm    that  I  will  faithfully  execute  the  office  of President (or discharge  the  functions  of  the  President)  of  India  and  will  to  the

best  of  my  ability  preserve,  protect  and  defend  the  Constitution  and  the  law

and  that  I  will  devote  myself  to  the  service  and  well-being  of  the  people  of

India”.

Oath by the Vice-President:

“ I, A.B., do swear in the name of God/Solemnly affirm  that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of  India  as  by  law  established  and  that  I will  faithfully  discharge

the duty upon which I am about to enter”.

Oath by the Governor:

“I,  A.B., do  swear in the name of God/solemnly affirm that  I  will  faithfully  execute  the  office  of Governor  (or  discharge  the  functions  of  the  Governor)  of  …  (name  of  the

State)  and  will  to  the  best  of  my  ability  preserve,  protect  and  defend  the

Constitution and the law and that I will devote myself to the service and wellbeing of the people of … (name of the State).”

Source: INDIAN POLITY-5TH EDITION-M LAXMI KANTH-APPENDIX IV

Answer: C

Why?: [“Removal of Judges” is very frequently in news- Justice C S Karnan episode, Alleged Corruption charges against CJI  + UPSC-2007 question  on removal of High Court+ Lapse of bills on dissolution-Important topic + UPSC-2016 lapse of bills on Prorogation ]

Please go through the link for clarification

http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/bringing-judges-to-justice/

Explanation:

Statement 1: Factual. It is CORRECT

Statement 2: A  judge  of  the  Supreme  Court  can  be  removed  from his  Office  by  an  order  of  the  president.  The  President  can  issue  the  removal order  only  after  an  address  by  Parliament  has  been  presented  to  him  in  the same  session  for  such  removal. The  address  must  be  supported  by  a  special majority  of  each  House  of  Parliament  (ie,  a  majority  of  the  total  membership of  that  House  and  a  majority  of  not  less  than  two-thirds  of  the  members  of that  House  present  and  voting).  The  grounds  of  removal  are  two—proved misbehaviour or incapacity.

Hence Statement 2 is CORRECT

Source: INDIAN POLITY-5TH EDITION-M LAXMI KANTH-CHAPTER-26

Answer: C

Why?: [Improvisation from UPSC 2014 question- The  power  to  increase  the  number  of  judges  in  the  Supreme  Court  of India is vested in+ UPSC 2010-Advisory Jurisdiction of Supreme Court]

Explanation:

Statement 1: Even if we don’t know the details, we’ve studied that increasing the number of Judges in the Supreme Court is outside the scope of Article 368 in the Chapter related to Constitution Amendment.

Hence it is INCORRECT

Additional information:

At  present,  the  Supreme  Court  consists  of  thirty-one  judges  (one  chief  justice and  thirty  other  judges).  In  February  2009,  the  centre  notified  an  increase  in the number of Supreme Court  judges  from  twenty-six  to  thirty-one,  including the Chief  Justice  of  India.  This  followed  the  enactment  of  the  Supreme  Court (Number  of  Judges)  Amendment  Act,  2008.  Originally,  the  strength  of  the Supreme  Court  was  fixed  at  eight  (one  chief  justice  and  seven  other  judges). The Parliament has increased this number of other judges progressively to ten in 1956, to thirteen in 1960, to seventeen in 1977 and to twenty-five in 1986. 

Statement 2: Appointment  of  Judges  The  judges  of  the  Supreme  Court  are  appointed

by the president. The  chief  justice  is  appointed  by  the  president  after consultation  with  such  judges  of  the  Supreme  Court  and  high  courts  as  he deems  necessary.  The  other  judges  are  appointed  by  president  after consultation  with  the  chief  justice  and  such  other  judges  of  the  Supreme Court  and  the  high  courts  as  he  deems  necessary.  The  consultation  with  the chief  justice  is  obligatory  in  the  case  of  appointment  of  a  judge  other  than Chief justice.

Hence Statement 2 is CORRECT

Statement 3:

In the Second  Judges case  (1993),  the  Court  reversed  its  earlier  ruling  and  changed  the  meaning  of the word consultation to concurrence. Hence, it ruled that the advice tendered

by  the  Chief  Justice  of  India  is  binding  on  the  President  in  the  matters  of

appointment of the judges of the Supreme Court. [Not with respect to Article 143]

Hence Statement 3 is INCORRECT

Additional relevant information: The  Constitution  (Article  143)  authorises  the  president  to  seek  the  opinion  of the Supreme Court in the two categories of matters. In both the cases, the opinion expressed by the Supreme Court is only advisory and not a judicial pronouncement. Hence, it  is  not  binding  on  the  president.

Source: INDIAN POLITY-5TH EDITION-M LAXMI KANTH-CHAPTER-26

Answer: C

Why?: Constitution Bench related debates are in news.[As many Constitutionally important cases were dealt by normal benches instead of Constitution Benches ex: Naz Foundation case]

Explanation:

Article 145(3) says that “any case involving a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution” must be decided by a Bench of at least five judges.

Hence C is CORRECT.

Option A -Article 141-Law declared by Supreme Court to be binding on all courts

Option B -Article 142- The Supreme Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it

Source: INDIAN POLITY-5TH EDITION-M LAXMI KANTH-CHAPTER-26

Reference: http://indianexpress.com/article/explained/key-questions-in-disagreement-between-sc-3-judge-benches-5087291/

Answer: B

Why? [In news-SC verdict on a petition challenging the appointment of 2 judges as additional judges of Rajasthan HC  + Consitution Amendment related questions are abundant in UPSC]

Explanation:

7th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1956 -Provided for the appointment of additional and acting judges of the high court.  Hence the right answer is B.

This amendment is also important in the context of Judiciary as

– It has provided for the establishment of a common high court for two or more states.

– Extended the jurisdiction of high courts to union territories.

15^th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1963 is relevant to Judiciary in the following aspects:

-Enabled the high courts to issue writs to any person or authority even outside its territorial jurisdiction if the cause of action arise within its territorial limits.

-Increased the retirement age of high court judges from 60 to 62 years.

– Provided for appointment of retired judges of the high courts as acting judges of the same court.

–Enabled the retired judge of a high court to act as adhoc judge of the Supreme Court.

-Provided for the procedure for determining the age of the Supreme Court and high court judges

Source: INDIAN POLITY-5TH EDITION-M LAXMI KANTH-APPENDIX-VI

Answer: D

Why? [UPSC 2008 question-  related to PIL & Justice VR Krishna Iyer]

Explanation:

The social justice bench was set up by former CJI H.L. Dattu during his tenure in December 2014 and it was functioning for almost a year and it disposed of several important social justice matters. This was however discontinued by former CJI T.S. Thakur soon after he took over. Currently, such cases are heard by different benches. Later Justice Khehar has restored the bench with same composition of judges to sit every Friday.

Reference: http://www.asianage.com/india/all-india/150117/cji-restores-social-justice-bench-at-supreme-court.html

Answer: C

Why?: [Improvisation from UPSC 2008 question-  related to PIL & Justice VR Krishna Iyer]

Explanation:

Statement 1: PIL  is  brought  before  the  Court  not  for  the  purpose  of  enforcing  the  right

of  one  individual  against  another  as  happens  in  the  case  of  ordinary litigation, but it is intended to promote and vindicate public interest. In  a  PIL,  unlike  traditional  dispute  resolution  mechanism,  there  is  no determination on adjudication of individual rights. PIL  is  essentially  a  co-operative  effort  on  the  part  of  the  petitioner,  the State  or  Public  Authority,  and  the  Court  to  secure  observance  of  the constitutional  or  legal  rights,  benefits  and  privileges  conferred  upon  the vulnerable sections of the community and to reach social justice to them.

Hence Statement 1 is CORRECT

Statement 2: In  1998,  the  Supreme  Court  formulated  a  set  of  guidelines  to  be  followed  for entertaining  letters  or  petitions  received  by  it  as  PIL.  These  guidelines  were modified  in  1993  and  2003. According  to  them, The  cases  falling  under  the  following  categories  will  not  be  entertained  as PIL:

1. 1. Landlord–tenant matters
2. Service matter and those pertaining to pension and gratuity
3. Complaints against  Central/  State  Government  departments  and  Local Bodies except those relating to item numbers. (1)–(10) above
4. Admission to medical and other educational institution
5. Petitions for  early  hearing  of  cases  pending  in  High  Courts  and Subordinate Courts

Hence Statement 2 is CORRECT

Source: INDIAN POLITY-5TH EDITION-M LAXMI KANTH-CHAPTER-29

Answer: C

Why?: [Previous UPSC questions on Judicial review + Comparison between the Constitutions of India, USA and UK-ex: UPSC 1998 –India vs UK  Parliamentary system]

Explanation: The  scope  of  judicial  review  in  India  is narrower  than  what  exists  in  the  USA,  though  the  American  Constitution does  not  explicitly  mention  the  concept  of  judicial  review  in  any  of  its provisions.  This  is  because,  the  American  Constitution  provides  for  ‘due process  of  law’  against  that  of  ‘procedure  established  by  law’  which  is contained in the Indian Constitution.[So, the reason is false]

Hence the answer is C.

Additional relevant Info:

The difference between ‘due process  of  law’  and  ‘procedure  established  by  law’  is: “The due process of law gives wide scope to the Supreme Court to grant protection to  the  rights  of  its  citizens.  It  can  declare  laws  violative  of  these  rights  void not  only  on  substantive  grounds  of  being  unlawful,  but  also  on  procedural grounds  of  being  unreasonable.  Our  Supreme  Court,  while  determining  the constitutionality  of  a  law,  however  examines  only  the  substantive  question i.e., whether the law is within the powers of the authority concerned or not. It is  not  expected  to  go  into  the  question  of  its  reasonableness,  suitability  or policy implications”

Source: INDIAN POLITY-5TH EDITION-M LAXMI KANTH-CHAPTER-27

Answer: B

Why?: [ Judicial Review+ Clarity on Important Articles]

Explanation:

The  term  ‘law’  in  Article  13  has  been  given  a  wide  connotation  so  as  to include the following:

(a) Permanent laws enacted by the Parliament or the state legislatures;

(b)  Temporary  laws  like  ordinances  issued  by  the  president  or  the  state governors;

(c)  Statutory instruments in the nature of delegated legislation (executive legislation) like order, bye-law, rule, regulation or notification; and

(d)  Non-legislative  sources  of  law,  that  is,  custom  or  usage  having  the  force of law.

Further,  Article  13  declares  that  a  constitutional  amendment  is  not  a  law and  hence  cannot  be  challenged. [To be specific, after Kesavananda Bharati case Constitutional amendments which do not fall under the ‘Basic Structure’ cannot be Challenged.]

Source: INDIAN POLITY-5TH EDITION-M LAXMI KANTH-CHAPTER-7

Answer: A

Why? [“Removal of Judges” is very frequently in news- Justice C S Karnan episode, Alleged Corruption charges against CJI  + UPSC-2007 question  on removal of High Court]

Explanation:

Statement 1: A  judge  of  the  Supreme  Court  can  be  removed  from his  Office  by  an  order  of  the  president.  The  President  can  issue  the  removal order  only  after  an  address  by  Parliament  has  been  presented  to  him  in  the same  session  for  such  removal. The  address  must  be  supported  by  a  special majority  of  each  House  of  Parliament  (ie,  a  majority  of  the  total  membership of  that  House  and  a  majority  of  not  less  than  two-thirds  of  the  members  of that  House  present  and  voting).  The  grounds  of  removal  are  two—proved misbehaviour or incapacity.

 Hence Statement 1 is INCORRECT.

Statement 2:  REMOVAL OF a Supreme Court or High Court judge is governed by Articles 124 (4) and (5) and 217 (1) (b) and 218 of the Constitution on the ground of proven misbehaviour or incapacity. In these articles, Impeachment term has not been used.

Hence Statement 2 is CORRECT

Interested students can refer to these articles:

Article 124(4) and (5):

(4) A Judge of the Supreme Court shall not be removed from his office except by an order of the President passed after an address by each House of Parliament supported by a majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of not less than twothirds of the members of that House present and voting has been presented to the President in the same session for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity.

(5) Parliament may by law regulate the procedure for the presentation of an address and for the investigation and proof of the misbehaviour or incapacity of a Judge under clause (4).

Article 217(1) (b):

(b) a Judge may be removed from his office by the President in the manner provided in clause ( 4 ) of Article 124 for the removal of a Judge of the Supreme Court;

Article 218

Application of certain provisions relating to Supreme Court to High Courts The provisions of clauses ( 4 ) and ( 5 ) of Article 124 shall apply in relation to a High Court as they apply in relation to the Supreme Court with the substitution of references to the High Court for references to the Supreme Court

Answer:D

Explanation:

Statement 1: The Constitution has not fixed the tenure of Judge of a Supreme Court. However, Constitution stipulated that he  holds  office  until  he  attains  the  age  of  65  years and any  question regarding  his  age  is  to  be  determined  by  such  authority  and  in  such manner as provided by Parliament.

Hence Statement 1 is INCORRECT

Statement 2: Constitution stipulated that “He can resign his office by writing to the president.”[Not to the Chief Justice]

Hence Statement 2 is INCORRECT

Source: INDIAN POLITY-5TH EDITION-M LAXMI KANTH-CHAPTER-26

Answer: D

Why?-[UPSC-1997 Prelims question on Match the following -Functionaries and Oaths /Affirmations + UPSC-1996/2002 mains – Why does  the Constitution of  India contain different  forms of Oath  for the  President,  the  Ministers,  the  Legislators  and  the  members  of  the Judiciary? Discuss their significance+ Fundamental Duty related to “Uphold and protect sovereignty, unity and Integrity of India” in UPSC-2015]

Explanation:

In his oath, a judge of the Supreme Court swears:

1. to bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India;
2. to uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India;
3. to duly  and  faithfully  and  to  the  best  of  his  ability,  knowledge  and

judgement  perform  the  duties  of  the  Office  without  fear  or  favour,

affection or ill-will; and

4. to uphold the Constitution and the laws.

Hence Assertion is false and Reason is True.

Source: INDIAN POLITY-5TH EDITION-M LAXMI KANTH-CHAPTER-26

Answer: C

Why?-Important Articles

Explanation:

Article 129, of the Constitution of India, states that “The Supreme Court shall be a court or record and shall have all the powers of such a court including the power to punish for contempt of itself”.

The Corresponding Article for High Court is Article 215

Hence the answer is C.

Option D:

A217- Appointment and conditions of the office of a Judge of a High Court; It also deals with the removal

Source: INDIAN POLITY-5TH EDITION-M LAXMI KANTH-CHAPTER-26

Answer: B

Statement 1: Factual. It is CORRECT.

Statement 2: Constitution authorises  the  chief  justice  of  India  to  appoint  other  place  or  places  as  seat  of the Supreme Court. He can take decision in this regard only with the approval of  the  President.  This  provision  is  only  optional  and  not  compulsory.  This means  that  no  court  can  give  any  direction  either  to  the  President  or  to  the Chief Justice to appoint any other place as a seat of the Supreme Court. 

Hence Statement 2 is INCORRECT.

Statement 3:  The Constitutional  cases  or  references  made  by  the  President  under  Article  143 are  decided  by  a  Bench  consisting  of  at  least  five  judges.  All  other  cases  are usually  decided  by  a  bench  consisting  of  not  less  than  three  judges.

Hence Statement 3 is INCORRECT.

Source: INDIAN POLITY-5TH EDITION-M LAXMI KANTH-CHAPTER-26

Answer: B

Why? [UPSC 2012- What  is  the provision  to  safeguard  the autonomy of  the Supreme Court of India?]

Judicial review: The power of the SC to examine the Constitutionality of the laws,bye-laws, amendments etc. helped in retaining the Independence of Judiciary. The evolution of Basic Structure and The recent strike down of NJAC are the instances which stand as testimony to the relevance of Judicial review for upholding the independence of Judiciary.

Hence it is CORRECT

Mode  of  Appointment  The  judges  of  the  Supreme  Court  are  appointed  by the  President  (which  means  the  cabinet)  in  consultation  with  the  members  of the judiciary itself (ie, judges of the Supreme Court and the high courts). This provision  curtails  the  absolute  discretion  of  the  executive  as  well  as  ensures  that  the  judicial  appointments  are  not  based  on  any  political  or  practical considerations.

Hence it is CORRECT

Security  of  Tenure  The  judges  of  the  Supreme  Court  are  provided  with  the Security of Tenure. They can be removed from office by the President only in the  manner  and  on  the  grounds  mentioned  in  the  Constitution.  This  means that  they  do  not  hold  their  office  during  the  pleasure  of  the  President,  though they  are  appointed  by  him.  This  is  obvious  from  the  fact  that  no  judge  of  the Supreme Court has been removed (or impeached) so far.

Hence it is CORRECT

Power  to  Punish  for  its  Contempt  The  Supreme  Court  can  punish  any person  for  its  contempt.  Thus,  its  actions  and  decisions  cannot  be  criticized and  opposed  by  any  body.  This  power  is  vested  in  the  Supreme  Court  to maintain its authority, dignity and honour.

Hence it is CORRECT

Source: INDIAN POLITY-5TH EDITION-M LAXMI KANTH-CHAPTER-26

Answer: D

Why?- In news

Statement 1:   It is “one of the well-settled principles” and a convention that is important for an orderly transaction of business. Constitution has not declared CJI as ‘master of the roster’. Hence it is CORRECT.

Statement 2: It is apt Definition.

Hence it is CORRECT.

Statement 3: Currently, the mechanisms available to take disciplinary action against errant Judges are inadequate. Hence, a two level judicial discipline model is only a suggested measure to admonish, fine or suspend judges in case of unruly behaviour-as it is reported in the case of Justice C S Karnan.  Judges Protection Act, 1985 provides immunity for the Judges for their actions as part of their official duties. It does not contain two level discipline model.

Hence Statement 3 is INCORRECT.

Reference:http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/the-hindu-explains-master-of-the-roster/article22437561.ece

Answer: B

Why? [Modification of UPSC 2012 question- Which  of  the  following  are  included  in  the  original  jurisdiction  of  the Supreme Court]

Explanation:

Regarding 4^th and 2^nd :

The Supreme  Court  as part of Original Jurisdiction decides  the  disputes  between  different units of the Indian Federation. More elaborately, any dispute between:

(a) the Centre and one or more states; or (b)  the  Centre  and  any  state  or  states  on  one  side  and  one  or  more  states  on the other;  or (c) between two or more states.

If we observe keenly, there is no Union territory in the above mentioned cases.

Hence 4 is CORRECT and 2 is INCORRECT

[If anyone thinks this is too deep, UPSC in 2012 asked question specifically based on this]

Regarding 1^st and 3^rd  :

The Original  jurisdiction  of  the  Supreme  Court  does  not  extend  to  the following:

(a)  A  dispute  arising  out  of  any  pre-Constitution  treaty,  agreement,  covenant, engagement, sanad or other similar instrument.

(b)  A  dispute  arising  out  of  any  treaty,  agreement,  etc.,  which  specifically provides that the said jurisdiction does not extent to such a dispute.

(c) Inter-state water disputes.

(d) Matters referred to the Finance Commission.

(e)  Adjustment  of  certain  expenses  and  pensions  between  the  Centre  and  the states.

(f) Ordinary dispute of Commercial nature between the Centre and the states.

(g) Recovery of damages by a state against the Centre

Hence 1 and 3 are INCORRECT

Overall -1, 2 and 3 are INCORRECT ; Hence the Answer is B

Source: INDIAN POLITY-5TH EDITION-M LAXMI KANTH-CHAPTER-26

Solution: d)

This is relevant only because the Global Clubfoot Conference was recently held in India for the first time.

Clubfoot is one of the most common orthopaedic birth defects. It can cause permanent disability if not treated early. This affects the child’s mobility and confidence. Inevitably, education and schooling suffer – and the child cannot fulfil his or her potential. The irony is clubfoot is curable. Till recently most children who suffered from clubfoot needed to be treated surgically. A relatively recent method – the Ponseti method (developed in USA) – has been developed to treat and correct clubfoot without surgery.

Solution: c)

The Election Commission of India draws the attention of all Print Media to guidelines issued by the Press Council of India (in 2010) to be followed for observance during elections. Print Media is currently not included in Section 126 of the RPA, 1951.

From August, 2016 (http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/election-commission-to-govt-need-permanent-powers-to-curb-political-ads-2960601/): “The poll panel, under Article 324 of the Constitution, had imposed an unprecedented restriction on political advertisements in print, a day ahead of Bihar elections last year after it deemed BJP’s “cow ads” as communal and divisive. The ad, which appeared in four Hindi newspapers on November 4, 2015, had alleged that Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar’s allies had “repeatedly insulted every Indian’s venerable cow” and yet he had remained “silent”…”

“The ECI… requested that print media should also be included in Section 126 of the RP Act. The provision currently prohibits publication of ads by political parties in electronic media — TV, radio and, more recently, social media — 48 hours before voting ends. This proposal was first mooted by the EC on April 13, 2012, and it has been endorsed by the Law Commission, but the government hasn’t acted on it..”

Source/Improvisation: http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=173297

Solution: d)

It is a project on River Godavari.

It is an interstate project between Telangana and Maharashtra.

Solution: b)

The Balfour Declaration was a public statement issued by the British government during World War I announcing support for the establishment of a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine, then an Ottoman region with a minority Jewish population.

It greatly increased popular support for Zionism, the national movement of the Jewish people that supports the re-establishment of a Jewish homeland.

Solution: a)

An ICO, like an equity initial public offer (IPO), is an issuance of digital tokens that can be converted into crypto currencies and are mostly used to raise funds by start-up firms dealing in block chain technology and virtual currencies like bitcoins and ethereum.

Unlike an IPO, which is governed by SEBI regulations, there is no regulatory body for ICOs in India.