UP SI Polity & Moolvidhi Revision Practice Set 7 for UP SI 2026 Exam

Preparing for the UP SI 2026 Exam requires a strong command over Indian Polity and Moolvidhi. This UP SI Polity & Moolvidhi Revision Practice Set 7 focuses on critical topics such as High Courts, the FRBM Act, the Swamitva Scheme, state legislative procedures, Fundamental Duties, Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP), and landmark Supreme Court cases. Understanding these concepts thoroughly will help aspirants answer both theoretical and scenario-based questions effectively.

The Indian Judiciary: High Courts

The Indian Constitution outlines provisions for the establishment and jurisdiction of High Courts.

Key points regarding High Courts:

• Common High Court: As per Article 231, Parliament can establish a single High Court for two or more states.

• Union Territories: Article 241 allows Parliament to constitute a High Court for a Union Territory. Therefore, the statement that Union Territories cannot have their own High Court is incorrect.

• Removal of Judges: The power to remove a High Court judge, including the Chief Justice, follows the same rigorous procedure as for a Supreme Court judge, as outlined in Article 124(4). This power is not vested in the Governor.

The Swamitva Scheme

The Swamitva Scheme is a collaborative effort aimed at providing an integrated property validation solution for rural India.

Departments involved:

• Panchayati Raj Department: This is the nodal ministry, overseeing the scheme's implementation.

• Survey of India: This department is responsible for conducting drone surveys and accurate mapping of properties across rural areas.

• State Revenue Departments: These departments contribute by providing existing land records and data, which are crucial for verifying property details and creating official property cards.

Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management (FRBM) Act

The Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management (FRBM) Act provides a legal framework for fiscal consolidation in India.

• Enactment: The Act was passed by Parliament and enacted in August 2003.

• Objective: Its primary goal is to improve government budget management and control the fiscal deficit. The Act sets a target to maintain the fiscal deficit at around 3% of the GDP.

• Historical Context: The Act was introduced during the tenure of Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, and President A. P. J. Abdul Kalam gave his assent to it.

Procedural Rules of a State Legislative Assembly

Regarding the procedures of a State Legislative Assembly:

• Governor's Special Address: Under Article 176, the Governor delivers a special address to the members of the house at the commencement of the first session of the year (typically the budget session) and after a new assembly is elected.

• Adoption of Lok Sabha Rules: Article 208 empowers each house of the legislature to create its own rules of procedure. If a specific rule is absent for a particular matter, the assembly can adopt and follow the corresponding rule of the Lok Sabha.

Ek Bharat Shreshtha Bharat Program

The 'Ek Bharat Shreshtha Bharat' program aims to promote national unity.

• Launch Date: The program was launched on October 31, 2015, coinciding with Ekta Divas (National Unity Day), the birth anniversary of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel. Therefore, the statement that it was announced in 2014 is incorrect.

• Objective: Its core aim is to foster engagement and mutual understanding among people from different states and Union Territories, encouraging them to learn from each other's best practices and experiences.

Fundamental Duties

Fundamental Duties are a crucial part of the Indian Constitution.

• Inspiration: The concept of Fundamental Duties was borrowed from the Constitution of the former USSR. They were added based on the recommendations of the Swaran Singh Committee.

• Constitutional Placement: These duties are enumerated in Article 51-A, located in Part IV-A of the Constitution.

• Nature: Fundamental Duties are non-justiciable, meaning they cannot be enforced by the courts. They serve as moral obligations for citizens.

Scholarly Views on Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP)

Different scholars have offered distinct perspectives on the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP):

• Dr. B.R. Ambedkar: Described the DPSPs as a 'novel feature' of the Constitution.

• K.C. Wheare: Termed them as a 'manifesto of aims and aspirations'.

• K.T. Shah: Compared them to 'a cheque on a bank, payable only when the resources of the bank permit', emphasizing their non-justiciable nature.

• Granville Austin: Believed they were aimed at furthering the goals of social revolution and establishing a welfare state, seeing them as the 'Conscience of the Constitution' alongside Fundamental Rights.

The Nature of DPSP vs. Fundamental Rights

The fundamental difference between Fundamental Rights (FRs) and Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs) lies in their nature of obligation:

• Fundamental Rights (FRs): These primarily impose negative obligations on the state. They act as restrictions, preventing the state from infringing upon citizens' liberties (e.g., the state cannot discriminate on grounds of religion, race, caste).

• Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs): These impose positive obligations on the state. They are directives, guiding the state to take action to promote social and economic welfare (e.g., the state shall strive to provide free legal aid, organize village panchayats).

Therefore, DPSPs do not restrict the state; instead, they guide its actions.

Eligibility for Free Legal Aid under Article 39A

Article 39A mandates the state to provide free legal aid to the poor and weaker sections. The National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) Act of 1987 specifies eligible categories, including:

• All women and children.

• Individuals with an annual income below a specified limit (e.g., less than ₹1 lakh), covering those unable to afford a lawyer due to economic circumstances.

• Members of Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST).

• Victims of natural disasters, riots, or trafficking.

• Industrial workmen.

• Disabled persons (persons with disabilities).

• Persons in custody, including victims of bonded labor.

The Non-Justiciable Nature of DPSP

Article 37 of the Indian Constitution explicitly clarifies that the provisions contained in the Directive Principles of State Policy "shall not be enforceable by any court." This means citizens cannot approach courts to compel the government to implement a DPSP.

State Reorganization in India

Understanding historical state reorganizations is vital:

• Bombay Bifurcation: Bombay was divided into Gujarat and Maharashtra on May 1, 1960, based on linguistic lines. This statement is correct.

• Mysore Renaming: The state of Mysore was renamed Karnataka in 1973. It was the Madras State that was renamed Tamil Nadu in 1969. Thus, the statement that Mysore was renamed Tamil Nadu is incorrect.

• Himachal Pradesh: Himachal Pradesh was initially constituted as a Union Territory in 1956 and achieved full statehood in 1971. This statement is correct.

• Goa Separation: Goa, Daman, and Diu were administered as a single Union Territory. Goa attained full statehood in 1987, separating it from Daman and Diu, which continued as a UT. This statement is correct.

States and UTs with a Single Lok Sabha Seat

Certain states and Union Territories have only one Lok Sabha seat each.

The three states that have only one Lok Sabha seat each can be remembered with the mnemonic ("SiNaMi" - Sikkim, Nagaland, Mizoram). Other examples include Chandigarh.

Presidential Assent to Constitutional Amendment Bills

The President's power regarding Constitutional Amendment Bills was modified by the 24th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1971. This amendment made it obligatory for the President to give assent to such bills, changing the wording to "shall give his assent" and effectively removing any possibility of a veto.

DPSP vs. Fundamental Rights: The Minerva Mills Case

The relationship between Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) and Fundamental Rights (FRs) has been a subject of judicial interpretation:

• 42nd Amendment Attempt: The 42nd Amendment (not the 44th) had attempted to grant primacy to all DPSPs over Articles 14, 19, and 31. However, this broad provision was later struck down by the Supreme Court. Article 14 (Right to Equality) is considered part of the basic structure and cannot be universally overridden by all DPSPs.

• Minerva Mills Case (1980): In this landmark case, the Supreme Court affirmed the principle (initially established by the 25th Amendment) that only two specific DPSPs, Article 39(b) (equitable distribution of material resources) and Article 39(c) (prevention of concentration of wealth), could be given precedence over the Fundamental Rights in Articles 14 and 19. This was justified as these two principles serve a larger collective interest.

Matching Constitutional Amendments

Key constitutional amendments are associated with specific provisions:

• Formation of cooperative societies (Article 19(1)(c)): 97th Amendment, 2011.

• Protecting SC/ST reservation in backlog vacancies: 81st Amendment, 2000 (introduced Article 16(4)(B)).

• National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC): 99th Amendment, 2015 (later struck down by the Supreme Court).

• Limiting the size of the Council of Ministers: 91st Amendment, 2003.

Federalism and Diversity in India (Assertion-Reason)

• Assertion (A): The main objective of India's federal structure was to build one nation out of its multi-dimensional diversities and to preserve national unity.

• Reason (R): The reconciliation of these diversities has led to the creation of a strong, not a weak, Indian nationality.

Both Assertion (A) and Reason (R) are correct. India's federalism was a deliberate choice to accommodate its vast linguistic, cultural, and regional diversity, thus strengthening national unity. Embracing and managing this diversity through a federal framework has made the national identity more resilient and robust. Reason (R) is the correct explanation for Assertion (A).

Matching Landmark Supreme Court Cases

Landmark Supreme Court cases have shaped constitutional law:

• A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950): Related to the procedure of preventive detention.

• Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951): Related to the power of Parliament to amend Fundamental Rights.

• Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967): Held that Fundamental Rights are transcendental and cannot be amended by Parliament.

• State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951): Related to reservations in admissions to educational institutions.

Statehood for Mizoram

Mizoram achieved full statehood through a specific constitutional amendment.

Mizoram was granted the status of a state by the 53rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1986. It officially became the 23rd state of India in 1987.

Use and Misuse of Article 356 (Assertion-Reason)

• Assertion (A): The Sarkaria Commission recommended that Article 356 (President's Rule) should be used as sparingly as possible.

• Reason (R): Political parties that formed the government at the Centre have historically misused Article 356.

Both Assertion (A) and Reason (R) are correct. The Sarkaria Commission, after examining Centre-State relations, strongly recommended the rare use of Article 356 as a last resort. This recommendation was driven by the historical and frequent misuse of President's Rule for political reasons by central governments. Reason (R) is the correct explanation for Assertion (A).