This page lists 352 previous year UPSC Civil Services Preliminary Examination (General Studies Paper-I) questions on Polity, asked between 1996 to 2024. Choose an option to see the correct answer and the full explanation on the same page.
Showing 1–10 of 352 questions
The Constituent Assembly convened its inaugural meeting on December 9, 1946. In accordance with French tradition, Dr. Sachchidananda Sinha, the eldest member, was chosen as the interim President of the Assembly. Subsequently, Dr Rajendra Prasad was elected as the Assembly’s President.
A Writ of Prohibition is a judicial order issued by the Supreme Court or High Courts to a lower court or tribunal, directing it to stop continuing proceedings in a case that exceeds its jurisdiction or is legally improper. It is issued before a lower court delivers its judgment. It is a preventive writ, stopping a court from acting beyond its powers. The Supreme Court can issue it under Article 32, and the High Courts can issue it under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Habeas Corpus, a Latin term meaning "to produce the body," is a court order requiring that a detained individual be brought before the court within 24 hours to assess the legality of their detention. If detention is found illegal, the person is released; otherwise, they remain in custody. Mandamus, a Latin term meaning "command," is a writ issued by higher courts to ensure public officials fulfil their duties. It cannot be granted against private individuals or companies but is directed at public authorities, companies, tribunals, or lower courts, compelling them to perform their obligations or refrain from specific actions. Quo Warranto means "by what authority." This writ allows anyone, not just the aggrieved party, to challenge a person’s legal right to hold a public office. It cannot be issued against ministerial offices. Certiorari, meaning "certified," is a writ issued by the High Court or Supreme Court to a lower court or tribunal to transfer a case for review or appeal.
The Constitution of India does not specifically guarantee a right to privacy. However, through various judgments over the years, the Courts of the country have interpreted the other rights in the Constitution to give rise to a (limited) right to privacy--primarily through Article 21--the right to life and liberty. In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India (2017), the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that privacy is a fundamental right protected under Article 21 and Part III of the Constitution, affirming its intrinsic link to life, personal liberty, and fundamental freedoms. The Bench also ruled that the right to privacy is not absolute but is subject to reasonable restrictions (as is every other fundamental right).
Part XX of the Indian Constitution outlines the procedure for amending the Constitution. Article 368, which falls under this part, states that Parliament, in the exercise of its constituent power, may amend any provision of the Constitution through addition, variation, or repeal, following the prescribed procedure. Addition: Introducing new provisions into the Constitution (e.g., Fundamental Duties were incorporated through the 42nd Amendment). Variation: Modifying existing provisions (e.g., the voting age was lowered from 21 to 18 by the 61st Amendment). Repeal: Removing provisions from the Constitution (e.g., Right to Property ceased to be a Fundamental Right after the 44th Amendment).
You can try, The "NOT" approach for all statements, this tests the improbability of negating a statement--if denying its impact seems highly unlikely, the statement is plausibly true.
Statement 1 is incorrect: The President shall in respect of every financial year cause to be laid before both the Houses of Parliament a statement of estimated receipts and expenditure of the Government of India for that year. The Union Finance Minister on behalf of the President, lays the annual Financial Statement before both the houses of Parliament.
Statement 2 is correct: As per Article 113(3) of the Constitution, no demand for a grant can be made except on the recommendation of the President. Note: UPSC has given option (c) as the official answer.
The term ‘budget’ has nowhere been used in the Constitution. It is the popular name for the ‘annual financial statement’ that has been dealt with in Article 112 of the Constitution. The budget is a statement of the estimated receipts and expenditure of the Government of India in a financial year, which begins on 1 April and ends on 31 March of the following year.
Statement 1 is correct: As per Article 96 of the Constitution, the Speaker shall not preside while a resolution for their removal is under consideration.
Statement 2 is incorrect: The Speaker has the right to speak and participate in the proceedings related to the resolution for their removal.
Statement 3 is incorrect: At such a time he can vote in the first instance, though not in the case of an equality of votes.
For S1, Common sense test: Can someone under re-moval scrutiny act as referee in their own trial? Clearly no. Hence likely true. For S2, Now this sounds too ex-treme. Even an accused in a trial has the right to speak in self-defense. Logically, the Speaker must be allowed to present their case. Hence S2 likely false. Giving option A as correct.
When the Lok Sabha is dissolved, all business, including bills, motions, resolutions, notices, petitions and so on pending before it or its committees lapse. They (to be pursued further) must be reintroduced in the newly constituted Lok Sabha. However, some pending bills do not lapse on the dissolution of the Lok Sabha. The position with respect to the lapsing of bills is as follows:
Statement 1 is correct: As per Rule 206 of the Lok Sabha Rules and Article 107(5) of the Constitution, any bill (whether it originated in the Lok Sabha or was transmitted to it by the Rajya Sabha) pending in the Lok Sabha automatically lapses upon its dissolution
Statement 2 is correct: If the Lok Sabha passes a bill, but it is pending in the Rajya Sabha, the bill lapses on the dissolution of the Lok Sabha (Article 107(5)).
Statement 3 is incorrect: If the President has already notified their intention to convene a joint sitting, then the bill remains alive and does not lapse even if the Lok Sabha is dissolved. Example: In 1970, the Banking Service Commission (Repeal) Bill was scheduled for a joint sitting, but before the sitting could take place, the Lok Sabha was dissolved. Since the President had already issued the notification for a joint sitting, the bill did not lapse and was carried forward.
No. Position of the Bill Lapse of the Bill
1. A bill pending in the Lok Sabha Lapses
2. A bill passed by the Lok Sabha but pending in the Rajya Sabha Lapses
3. A bill not passed by both Houses due to disagreement, and the President has notified a joint sitting before the dissolution of the Lok Sabha Does not Lapse
4. A bill pending in the Rajya Sabha but not passed by the Lok Sabha Does not Lapse
5. A bill passed by both Houses but pending assent of the President Does not Lapse
Statement 1 is incorrect: Prorogation (ending a session of Parliament) is done by the President on the advice of the Council of Ministers, as per Article 85(2)(a). The President does not act independently in this matter.
Statement 2 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 prorogate the House while in session.
Statement 3 is correct: 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. Dissolution of the Lok Sabha is done by the President of India, who, save in exceptional circumstances, does so on the advice of the Council of Ministers.
Statement 1 is correct: Article 109 outlines the special procedure for the passage of Money Bills, that include the exclusive role of the Lok Sabha and limited powers of the Rajya Sabha.
Statement 2 is correct: As per Article 109, a Money Bill shall not be introduced in the Council of States.
Statement 3 is correct: Rajya Sabha can only suggest amendments; it can neither amend nor reject the bill. If Lok Sabha accepts Rajya Sabha’s recommendations, the Money Bill is deemed passed with the accepted amendments. If Lok Sabha rejects all Rajya Sabha recommendations, the Money Bill is deemed passed in its original form, without any amendments suggested by the Council of States. If Rajya Sabha fails to return a Money Bill within 14 days, it is deemed passed by both Houses in its original form as approved by Lok Sabha.
Statement 4 is incorrect: After a Money Bill has been passed by the House of the People, it shall be transmitted to the Council of States for its recommendations, and the Council of States shall, within a period of fourteen days from the date of receipt of the Bill, return the Bill to the House of the People with its recommendations and the House of the People may thereupon either accept or reject all or any of the recommendations of the Council of States.
Statement 1 is correct: The Lok Sabha Ethics Committee was first constituted as an ad hoc committee in 2000 by Speaker Late G.M.C. Balayogi, following a Committee of Privileges recommendation during the 13th Lok Sabha. It became a permanent committee in 2015.
Statement 2 is incorrect: Any person can complain against a Member through another Lok Sabha Member of Parliament, along with evidence of the alleged misconduct and an affidavit stating that the complaint is not "false, frivolous, or vexatious". If the Member himself complains, the affidavit is not needed.
Statement 3 is correct: The Committee does not entertain complaints based only on media reports or on matters that are sub-judice. The Committee makes a prima facie inquiry before deciding to examine a complaint. It makes its recommendations after evaluating the complaint. The Committee presents its report to the Speaker, who asks the House if it should be considered. A half-hour discussion is also provided.
| Q | UPSC year | Correct answer |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2024 | (d) Dr. Sachchidananda Sinha |
| 2 | 2024 | (c) the lower court prohibiting the continuation of proceedings in a case. |
| 3 | 2024 | (d) Article 21 |
| 4 | 2024 | (d) 1, 2 and 3 |
| 5 | 2024 | (b) 2 only |
| 6 | 2024 | (a) 1 only |
| 7 | 2024 | (b) 1 and 2 |
| 8 | 2024 | (c) 2 and 3 |
| 9 | 2024 | (c) 1, 2 and 3 |
| 10 | 2024 | (c) 1 and 3 only |
This page covers 352 previous year UPSC Prelims GS Paper-I questions on Polity, asked between 1996 to 2024. Each has the correct answer and an explanation.
Attempt each question first, then open the answer and read the explanation for every option. Repeat by chapter, and track which statements UPSC reuses across years. Previous year questions show the exam pattern and difficulty level.
Questions on Polity are available for 29 years, from 1996 to 2024. Use the Year filter to practise a single paper.
