• Options 1 and 2 are correct. Options 3 and 4 are incorrect.
• The Consolidated Fund of India is the most important of all government accounts. Revenues received by the government and expenses made by it, excluding the exceptional items, are part of the Consolidated Fund.
• Statement 1 is correct. All revenues received by the Government of India are credited into the Consolidated Fund of India.
• Statement 2 is correct. All loans raised by the Central Government by issue of public notifications, treasury bills (internal debt) and loans obtained from foreign governments and international institutions (external debt) are credited into the Consolidated Fund of India.
• Statements 3 and 4 are incorrect. All other public money (other than those which are credited to the Consolidated Fund of India) received by or on behalf of the Government of India shall be credited to the Public Account of India. This includes provident fund deposits, judicial deposits, savings bank deposits, departmental deposits, remittances and so on. This account is operated by executive action, that is, the payments from this account can be made without parliamentary appropriation. Such payments are mostly in the nature of banking transactions.

• Option A is correct.
• Article 20 of Indian Constitution provides for protection in respect of conviction of offences. It lays down certain safeguards to the person accused of crimes as stated below:
1. Ex post facto law (Art. 20(1))
2. Double Jeopardy (Art. 20(2))
3. Self-incrimination (Art. 20(3)).
• Option A is correct. Article 20(3) provides for no self-incrimination that means no person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. The protection against self-incrimination extends to both oral evidence and documentary evidence. However, it does not extend to
1. compulsory production of material objects,
2. compulsion to give thumb impression, specimen signature, blood specimens, and
3. compulsory exhibition of the body.
• Further, it extends only to criminal proceedings and not to civil proceedings or proceedings which are not of criminal nature.
• Option B is incorrect. Article 359 authorizes the president to suspend the right to move any court for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights during a National Emergency. The 44th Amendment Act of 1978 restricted the scope of Article 359. The President cannot suspend the right to move the Court for the enforcement of fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 20 to 21. The Supreme Court held that in any case no person can be stripped of his right to life and personal liberty. Therefore. Articles 20 and 21 cannot be suspended even in case of a national emergency
• Option C is incorrect. Article 20 grants protection against arbitrary and excessive punishment to an accused person whether citizen or foreigner or legal person like a company or a corporation.
• Option D is incorrect. The protection against double jeopardy is available only in proceedings before a court of law or a judicial tribunal. In other words, it is not available in proceedings before departmental or administrative authorities as they are not of judicial nature.
• The principle of no double jeopardy means no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once.

• All the statements are correct.
• Article 30 grants right to minorities to establish and administer educational institutions.
• Statement 1 is correct. Article 30 grants the minorities, whether religious or linguistic, the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. Minority educational institutions are of three types:
1. institutions that seek recognition as well as aid from the State;institutions that seek only recognition from the State and not aid; and
2. institutions that neither seek recognition nor aid from the State.
3. The institutions of first and second type are subject to the regulatory power of the state with regard to syllabus prescription, academic standards, discipline, sanitation, employment of teaching staff and so on.
4. The institutions of third type are free to administer their affairs but subject to operation of general laws like contract law, labour law, industrial law, tax law, economic regulations, and so on.
• Statement 2 is correct. In Secretary of Malankara Syrian Catholic College case (2007), the Supreme Court held that the right conferred on minorities under Article 30 is only to ensure equality with the majority and not intended to place the minorities in a more advantageous position vis-a-vis the majority. There is no reverse discrimination in favour of minorities. The general laws of the land relating to national interest, national security, social welfare, public order, morality, health, sanitation, taxation etc., applicable to all, will equally apply to minority institutions also.
• Statement 3 is correct. In the Secretary of Malankara Syrian Catholic College case (2007), the Supreme Court held that the right to establish and administer educational institutions is not absolute. There can be regulatory measures for ensuring educational character and standards and maintaining academic excellence. Regulations made by the State concerning generally the welfare of students and teachers, regulations laying down eligibility criteria and qualifications for appointment, as also conditions of service of employees (both teaching and non-teaching), regulations to prevent exploitation or oppression of employees, and regulations prescribing syllabus and curriculum of study fall under this category. Such regulations do not in any manner interfere with the right under Article 30(1).

• Option C is correct.
• Statement A is correct. A session of Parliament consists of many meetings. Each meeting of a day consists of two sittings, that is, a morning sitting from 11 am to 1 pm and post-lunch sitting from 2 pm to 6pm. A sitting of Parliament can be terminated by adjournment or adjournment sine die or prorogation or dissolution (in the case of the Lok Sabha). An adjournment suspends the work in a sitting for a specified time, which may be hours, days or weeks.
• Statement B is correct. The presiding officer (Speaker or Chairman) declares the House adjourned sine die, when the business of a session is completed. Within the next few days, the President issues a notification for prorogation of the session. However, the President can also prorogue the House while in session.
• Option C is incorrect. Adjournment sine die means terminating a sitting of Parliament for an indefinite period. In other words, when the House is adjourned without naming a day for reassembly, it is called adjournment sine die. The power of adjournment as well as adjournment sine die lies with the presiding officer of the House. S/He can also call a sitting of the House before the date or time to which it has been adjourned or at any time after the House has been adjourned sine die.
• Option D is correct. The power to summon and prorogue either House of Parliament or to dissolve the Lok Sabha vests with the President (Article 85(2)(b)). Rajya Sabha, being a permanent House, is not subject to dissolution. Only the Lok Sabha is subject to dissolution, Unlike a prorogation, a dissolution ends the very life of the existing House, and a new House is constituted after general elections are held.

• Statements 1 and 3 are correct. Statement 2 is incorrect.
• Statement 1 is correct. In England, the business interests were pressing for an end to the Company’s monopoly over trade in India because of a spirit of laissez-faire and the continental system by Napoleon through which the European ports were closed for Britain. The 1813 Act sought to redress these grievances- The Company’s monopoly over trade in India ended, but the Company retained the trade with China and the trade-in tea. The Company’s shareholders were given a 10.5 per cent dividend on the revenue of India. The Company was to retain the possession of territories and the revenue for 20 years more, without prejudice to the sovereignty of the Crown. Thus, the constitutional position of the British territories in India was defined explicitly for the first time.
• Statement 2 is incorrect. The Charter Act of 1833 strengthened the centralisation in British India. In India, a financial, legislative and administrative centralisation of the government was envisaged:
1. The governor-general was given the power to superintend, control and direct all civil and military affairs of the Company. — Bengal, Madras, Bombay and all other territories were placed under complete control of the governor-general.
2. All revenues were to be raised under the authority of the governor-general who would have complete control over the expenditure too,
3. The Governments of Madras and Bombay were drastically deprived of their legislative powers and left with a right of proposing to the governor-general the projects of law which they thought to be expedient.
• Statement 3 is correct. The Charter Act of 1853 was the last of the series of Charter Acts passed by the British Parliament between 1793 and 1853. It was a significant constitutional landmark. It separated, for the first time, the legislative and executive functions of the Governor-General’s council. It provided for addition of six new members called legislative councillors to the legislative 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.

• Statements 1 and 2 are correct. Statement 3 is incorrect.
• Statement 1 is correct. A Governor is a constitutional functionary whose office generally has a term of 5 years. However, his/her term is subject to the ‘pleasure of the President’. This means that he can be removed at any time by the President if he so wishes.
• The Supreme Court also clarified regarding this matter, that the ‘pleasure of the President’ is not justifiable, i.e. the President needn’t specify his reason for removing a governor. So, a Governor has no fixed term of office and no security of tenure.
• Statement 2 is correct. Article 356 empowers the President to declare emergency in a state known as President’s Rule if he’s convinced that there has been a breakdown of constitutional machinery in a state, and its government can no longer be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the constitution.
• The President may determine that such a situation has arrived
1. Either on the basis of a report by the Governor of that state
2. Suo motu
• Thus a report by the governor saying that there has been a breakdown of constitutional machinery in a state is not a necessary precondition for declaration of President’s Rule in that state.
• Statement 3 is incorrect. Unlike the President, the Governor of a state cannot Pardon (meaning that a person has been absolved of his crime) a death sentence. Under Article 161 of the Indian constitution, the Governor can however commute, remit, suspend or provide reprieve from a death sentence awarded under a law of the state.

• Both the statements are incorrect.
• “Right to recall” was suggested by leaders such as Lok Nayak Shri Jayaprakash Narayan to make the leaders accountable for their promises.
• Recall is a method by means of which the voters can remove a representative or an officer before the expiry of his term, when he fails to discharge his duties properly. If a leader proves to be incapable of fulfilling the promises made during his political campaign, then the public gets the right to remove that leader.
• Statement 1 is incorrect. The Representation of the People Act, 1951, only provides for “vacation of office upon the commission of certain offence.” It does not provide for general incompetence of the representatives or dissatisfaction of the electorate as a ground for disqualification.
• Statement 2 is incorrect. There is some right to recall exercised at Panchayati and municipality elections.
• In 2001, Madhya Pradesh amended its Panchayati Raj Act which allowed voters to recall non-performing elected representatives after two and a half years in office. This right has already been exercised thrice.
• In Maharashtra, a similar initiative is yet to get legislative consent.

• All of the above are correct.
• Option 1 is correct. Under Section 14, of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 a complaint can be filed against any person who is or has been a Prime Minister (with some exclusion which relates to international relations, external and internal security, public order, atomic energy, and space).
• Option 2 is correct. In terms of provisions under Section 14, of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 a complaint can be filed against any person who is or has been a Group ‘C’ or Group ‘D’ official or equivalent serving in connection with the affairs of the Government of India.
• Option 3 is correct. IAS officers are public servants within the meaning of section 2 of the Act. However, consent of the State Government would be necessary before Lokpal orders an Inquiry in respect of such an officer if he is employed in connection with the affairs of a State Government.
• Option 4 is correct. Under Section 14, of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 a complaint can be filed against an any person who is or has been a Member of either House of Parliament.
• Option 5 is incorrect. In terms of provisions under Section 14, of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 a complaint cannot be filed against President of India.
• Option 6 is correct. Under Section 14, of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 a complaint can be filed against any person who is or has been a Minister of Union.

• Option C is correct.
• Article 1 describes India, that is, Bharat as a ‘Union of States’ rather than a ‘Federation of States’. This provision deals with two things: one, name of the country, and two, type of polity.
• Option C is correct and B is incorrect. According to Dr B R Ambedkar, the phrase ‘Union of States’ has been preferred to ‘Federation of States’ for two reasons: one, the Indian Federation is not the result of an agreement among the states like the American Federation; and two, the states have no right to secede from the federation. The federation is a Union because it is indestructible. The country is an integral whole and divided into different states only for the convenience of administration.
• Statement A is incorrect. In India, the states are given representation in the Rajya Sabha on the basis on population where the membership varies from 1 to 31. While, In US the principle of equality of representation of states in the Upper House is fully recognised.
• Statement D is incorrect. There is no such provision in the constitution which allows two or more states to override the union government in law making.

• Option b is the correct answer.
• Article 368 in Part XX of the Constitution deals with the powers of Parliament to amend the Constitution and its procedure.
• Statement 1 is correct. The bill regarding the amendments to the Constitution can be introduced either by a minister or by a private member (any Member of Parliament who is not a minister). It also does not require prior permission of the President.
• Statement 2 is incorrect. The bill concerning constitutional amendment must be passed in each House by a special majority, that is, a majority of the total membership of the House and a majority of two-thirds of the members of the House present and voting.
• But in case of amending the federal provisions of the Constitution then it must be ratified by the legislature of half the states by a simple majority. Thus, not in all the cases, consent of half the states is needed.
• Statement 3 is incorrect. After duly passed by both the Houses of Parliament and ratified by the state legislatures, where necessary, the bill is presented to the President for assent. The President must give his assent to the bill. He can neither withhold his assent to the bill nor return the bill for reconsideration of the Parliament. After the president’s assent, the bill becomes an Act (i.e., a constitutional amendment act) and the Constitution stands amended in accordance with the terms of the Act.