• Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is correct.
• Statement 1 is incorrect. (Article 35(a)(i))Parliament shall have and the legislature of a state shall not have power to make laws:
• Prescribing residence as a condition for certain employments or appointments in a state or union territory or local authority or other authority (Article 16).
• Empowering courts other than the Supreme Court and the high courts to issue directions, orders and writs of all kinds for the enforcement of fundamental rights (Article 32).
• Restricting or abrogating the application of Fundamental Rights to members of armed forces, police forces, etc. (Article 33).
• Indemnifying any government servant or any other person for any act done during the operation of martial law in any area (Article 34).
• Statement 2 is correct. Article 16 provides for equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters of employment or appointment to any office under the State. No citizen can be discriminated against or be ineligible for any employment or office under the State on grounds of only religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth or residence. There are three exceptions to this
General rule of equality of opportunity in public employment:
1. Parliament can prescribe residence as a condition for certain employment or appointment in a state or union territory or local authority or other authority. As the Public Employment (Requirement as to Residence) Act of 1957 expired in 1974, there is no such provision for any state except Andhra Pradesh and Telangana.
2. The State can provide for reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class that is not adequately represented in the state services.
3. A law can provide that the incumbent of an office related to religious or denominational institution or a member of its governing body should belong to a particular religion or denomination.

• Both the statements are correct.
• Statement 1 is correct. The distribution of legislative powers between the Centre and the states is rigid. Consequently, the Centre cannot delegate its legislative powers to the states and a single state cannot request the Parliament to make a law on a state subject. The distribution of executive power in general follows the distribution of legislative powers. But such a rigid division in the executive sphere may lead to occasional conflicts between the two. Hence, the Constitution provides for inter-government delegation of executive functions in order to mitigate rigidity and avoid a situation of deadlock.
• Statement 2 is correct. The Constitution (Article 258) also makes a provision for the entrustment of the executive functions of the Centre to a state without the consent of that state. But, in this case, the delegation is by the Parliament and not by the president. Thus, a law made by the Parliament on the subject of the Union List can confer powers and impose duties on a state, or authorise the conferring of powers and imposition of duties by the Centre upon a state (irrespective of the consent of the state concerned). Notably, the same thing cannot be done by the state legislature.

• Statements 1 and 3 are correct. Statement 2 is incorrect.
• Article 280 of the Constitution of India provides for a Finance Commission as a quasi-judicial body. It is constituted by the president of India every fifth year or at such earlier time as he considers necessary.
• Composition: The Finance Commission consists of a chairman and four other members to be appointed by the president. They hold office for such period as specified by the president in his order. They are eligible for reappointment. The Constitution authorises the Parliament to determine the qualifications of members of the commission and the manner in which they should be selected. Accordingly, the Parliament has specified the qualifications of the chairman and members of the commission in the Finance Commission Act 1951.
• The chairman should be a person having experience in public affairs and the four other members should be selected from amongst the following:
1. A judge of high court or one qualified to be appointed as one.
2. A person who has specialised knowledge of finance and accounts of the government.
3. A person who has wide experience in financial matters and in administration.
4. A person who has special knowledge of economics. Hence, statements 1 and 3 are correct.
• Statement 2 is incorrect. The recommendations made by the Finance Commission are only of advisory nature and hence, not binding on the government. It is up to the Union government to implement its recommendations on granting money to the states. To put it in other words, ‘It is nowhere laid down in the Constitution that the recommendations of the commission shall be binding upon the Government of India or that it would give rise to a legal right in favour of the beneficiary states to receive the money recommended to be offered to them by the Commission’.
• As rightly observed by Dr. P.V. Rajamannar, the Chairman of the Fourth Finance Commission, “Since the Finance Commission is a constitutional body expected to be quasi-judicial, its recommendations should not be turned down by the Government of India unless there are very compelling reasons”.

• Statements 1 and 3 are correct. Statement 2 is incorrect.
Adjournment:
1. It only terminates a sitting and not a session of the House.
2. It is done by presiding officer of the House.
3. It does not affect the bills or any other business pending before the House and the same can be resumed when the House meets again.
Prorogation:
1. It not only terminates a sitting but also a session of the House.
2. It is done by the President of India.
3. It also does not affect the bills or any other business pending before the House. However, all pending notices (other than those for introducing bills) lapse on prorogation and fresh notices have to be given for the next session. In Britain, prorogation brings to an end all bills or any other business pending before the House. Hence, statements 1 and 3 are correct but statement 2 is incorrect.

• Statements 1 and 3 are correct. Statement 2 is incorrect.
• Statement 1 is correct. Under the system of Proportional representation every party gets seats in the legislature in proportion to the percentage of votes that it gets in an election.
• Statement 2 is incorrect. Under the PR system, a candidate who wins the election gets majority votes.
• Statement 3 is correct. The Constitution prescribes the Proportional Representation system for the election of President, Vice President, and for the elections to the Rajya Sabha and Vidhan Parishads.

• Statements 1 and 2 are incorrect. Statement 3 is correct.
• Statement 1 is incorrect. The Constitution of India (Article 214) provides for a high court for each state, but the Seventh Amendment Act of 1956 authorised the Parliament to establish a common high court for two or more states or for two or more states and a union territory. At present, there are 24 high courts in the country. Out of them, four are common high courts. Delhi is the only union territory that has a high court of its own (since 1966). The other union territories fall under the jurisdiction of different state high courts. The Parliament can extend the jurisdiction of the high court to any union territory or exclude the jurisdiction of the high court from any union territory.
• Statement 2 is incorrect. Every high court (whether exclusive or common) consists of a chief justice and such other judges as the president may from time to time deem necessary to appoint. Thus, the Constitution does not specify the strength of a high court and leaves it to the discretion of the president. Accordingly, the President determines the strength of a high court from time to time depending upon its workload.
• Statement 3 is correct. Under Article 124 of the Constitution- A person to be appointed as a judge of the Supreme Court should have the following qualifications:
1. He should be a citizen of India.
2. (a) He should have been a judge of a High Court (or high courts in succession) for five years; or (b) He should have been an advocate of a High Court (or High Courts in succession) for ten years; or (c) He should be a distinguished jurist in the opinion of the president.
1. Under Article 217 of the Constitution-A person to be appointed as a judge of a high court, should have the following qualifications:
2. He should be a citizen of India.
(a) He should have held a judicial office in the territory of India for ten years; or
(b) He should have been an advocate of a high court (or high courts in succession) for ten years.
• From the above, it is clear that the Constitution has not prescribed a minimum age for appointment as a judge of a high court. Moreover, unlike in the case of the Supreme Court, the Constitution makes no provision for appointment of a distinguished jurist as a judge of a high court.

• All the statements are incorrect.
• Features of the Charter Act of 1853:
1. It separated, for the first time, the legislative and executive functions of the Governor-General’s council. It provided for the addition of six new members called legislative councilors to the council. In other words, it established a separate Governor- General’s legislative council which came to be known as the Indian (Central) Legislative Council. This legislative wing of the council functioned as a mini-Parliament, adopting the same procedures as the British Parliament. Thus, legislation, for the first time, was treated as a special function of the government, requiring special machinery and special process. Hence statement 2 is incorrect.
2. It introduced an open competition system of selection and recruitment of civil servants.
3. The covenanted civil service was thus thrown open to the Indians also. Accordingly, the Macaulay Committee (the Committee on the Indian Civil Service) was appointed in 1854.
4. It extended the Company’s rule and allowed it to retain the possession of Indian territories on trust for the British Crown. But it did not specify any particular period, unlike the previous Charters. This was a clear indication that the Company’s rule could be terminated at any time the Parliament liked. Hence statement 1 is incorrect.
5. It introduced, for the first time, local representation in the Indian (Central) Legislative Council. Of the six new legislative members of the governor- general’s council, four members were appointed by the local (provincial) governments of Madras, Bombay, Bengal and Agra. Hence statement 3 is incorrect.

• Statements 1 and 3 are correct. Statement 2 is incorrect.
• Composition of the Constituent Assembly:
• The Constituent Assembly was constituted in November 1946 under the scheme formulated by the Cabinet Mission Plan. The features of the scheme were:
• The total strength of the Constituent Assembly was to be 389. Of these, 296 seats were to be allotted to British India and 93 seats to the Princely States. Out of 296 seats allotted to the British India, 292 members were to be drawn from the eleven governors’ provinces and four from the four chief commissioners’ provinces, one from each.
• Each province and princely state (or group of states in case of small states) were to be allotted seats in proportion to their respective population. Roughly, one seat was to be allotted for every million population.
• Seats allocated to each British province were to be divided among the three principal communities—Muslims, Sikhs and general (all except Muslims and Sikhs), in proportion to their population. Hence, statement 1 is correct.
• The representatives of each community were to be elected by the members of that community in the provincial legislative assembly and voting was to be by the method of proportional representation by means of single transferable vote. Hence, statement 2 is incorrect.
• The representatives of princely states were to be nominated by the heads of the princely states. Hence, statement 3 is correct.
• It is thus clear that the Constituent Assembly was to be a partly elected and partly nominated body.

• Option D is correct.
• Though the President of India is not a member of either House of Parliament and does not sit in the Parliament to attend its meetings, he is an integral part of the Parliament (Article 79). This is because a bill passed by both the Houses of Parliament cannot become law without the President’s assent. He also performs certain functions relating to the proceedings of the Parliament, for example, he summons and prorogues both the Houses, dissolves the Lok Sabha, addresses both the Houses, issues ordinances when they are not in session, and so on.
• India follows a Parliamentary form of government whereas the USA follows a Presidential form of government.
• The parliamentary form of government emphasises on the interdependence between the legislative and executive organs. Hence, we have the ‘President-in-Parliament’ like the ‘Crown-in-Parliament’ in Britain. The presidential form of government, on the other hand, lays stress on the separation of legislative and executive organs. Hence, the American president is not regarded as a constituent part of the Congress. Hence, option d is correct.

• Option C is the correct answer.
• Option (A) is incorrect. The Supreme Court held that the right to conserve the language (Article 29(1)) includes the right to agitate for the protection of the language. Hence, the political speeches or promises made for the conservation of the language of a section of the citizens does not amount to corrupt practice under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
• Option (B) is incorrect. Article 21 A declares that the State shall provide free and compulsory education to all children of the age of six to fourteen years in such a manner as the State may determine. Thus, this provision makes only elementary education a Fundamental Right and not higher or professional education.
• Option (C) is correct. Article 43 A of Constitution talks of Participation of workers in the management of Industries which is a directive principle, hence no constitutional remedy.
• Option (D) is incorrect. Right against custodial harassment is fundamental right enumerated under Article 21.