ASKiIMAN™
NEXUS / 2022 / GS1
00:00:00 · 00 XXX 0000

UPSC 2022: Nexus 11—20

Unearthing the structural logic of the paper. [Set A]

Question 11

Judicial Powers

Consider the following statements:

  1. Pursuant to the report of H.N. Sanyal Committee, the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was passed.
  2. The Constitution of India empowers the Supreme Court and the High Courts to punish for contempt of themselves.
  3. The Constitution of India defines Civil Contempt and Criminal Contempt.
  4. In India, the Parliament is vested with the powers to make laws on Contempt of Court.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Official Verdict: (b) 1, 2 and 4

The Core Concept: The power to punish for contempt is an inherent constitutional power of the Supreme Court (Art 129) and High Courts (Art 215) as courts of record (2 is true). Parliament indeed has the power to legislate on it, enacting the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 based on the H.N. Sanyal committee's recommendations (1 and 4 are true). The trap is Statement 3: The Constitution of India does NOT define Civil or Criminal Contempt; those specific definitions are laid out exclusively in the statutory Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Tethered to: REALM 24: Contempt of Court

CONSTITUTION No Def. of Contempt PARLIAMENT (1971 ACT) Defines Civil/Criminal
BAR COUNCIL Legal Education Rules (2) ✅ Corp Lawyers = Excluded

Question 12

Legal Profession

With reference to India, consider the following statements:

  1. Government law officers and legal firms are recognised as advocates, but corporate lawyers and patent attorneys are excluded from recognition as advocates.
  2. Bar Councils have the power to lay down the rules relating to legal education and recognition of law colleges.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Official Verdict: (b) 2 only

The Core Concept: The Advocates Act, 1961 created a single class of legal practitioners known as "Advocates." There is absolutely no provision in the Act that excludes corporate lawyers or patent attorneys from being recognized as advocates, provided they are enrolled on a State roll (Statement 1 is false). Statement 2 is true: The Bar Council of India (BCI) is explicitly vested with statutory powers to promote legal education and to lay down stringent standards for such education in consultation with Universities.

Tethered to: REALM 160: Tribunals & Adjudicatory Bodies

Question 13

Legislative Procedure

Consider the following statements:

  1. A bill amending the Constitution requires a prior recommendation of the President of India.
  2. When a Constitution Amendment Bill is presented to the President of India, it is obligatory for the President of India to give his/her assent.
  3. A Constitution Amendment Bill must be passed by both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha by a special majority and there is no provision for joint sitting.

Which of the statements given above are correct?

Official Verdict: (b) 2 and 3 only

The Core Concept: Under Article 368, a Constitutional Amendment Bill can be introduced in either House by a minister or private member and does not require the prior permission of the President (Statement 1 is false). However, once it passes both Houses with a special majority (and there is absolutely no provision for a joint sitting in case of deadlock, making 3 true), the President must give their assent (made obligatory by the 24th Amendment Act, 1971), making Statement 2 true.

Tethered to: REALM 60: Constitutional Amendment

Art 368 Prior Rec ❌ LS/RS (No Joint) PRES MUST SIGN
15% Max Constitution DOES NOT classify ministers into 4 ranks! (Convention only)

Question 14

Executive Structure

Consider the following statements:

  1. The Constitution of India classifies the ministers into four ranks viz. Cabinet Minister, Minister of State with Independent Charge, Minister of State and Deputy Minister.
  2. The total number of ministers in the Union Government, including the Prime Minister, shall not exceed 15 percent of the total number of members in the Lok Sabha.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Official Verdict: (b) 2 only

The Core Concept: Statement 1 is a classic trap: The Constitution of India simply mentions a "Council of Ministers" under Article 74. It never classifies them into four specific ranks—that classification is entirely a product of parliamentary convention and British Westminster traditions. Statement 2 is absolutely correct: The 91st Constitutional Amendment Act (2003) explicitly capped the total size of the Council of Ministers (including the PM) at 15% of the total strength of the Lok Sabha to prevent jumbo cabinets.

Tethered to: REALM 122: Council of Ministers

Question 15

Parliamentary Mechanics

Which of the following is/are the exclusive power(s) of Lok Sabha?

  1. To ratify the declaration of Emergency
  2. To pass a motion of no-confidence against the Council of Ministers
  3. To impeach the President of India

Select the correct answer using the code given below.

Official Verdict: (b) 2 only

The Core Concept: "Exclusive" means only the Lok Sabha can do it. A declaration of National Emergency must be ratified by both Houses (1 is false). The President can be impeached by a charge initiated by either House (3 is false). However, because the Council of Ministers is collectively responsible solely to the House of the People (Article 75), a Motion of No-Confidence can only be introduced and passed in the Lok Sabha (2 is true).

Tethered to: REALM 129: Lok Sabha

LS ONLY NO-CONFIDENCE BOTH HOUSES Emergency Impeachment
Nominated Member Can join WITHIN 6 months Presiding Officer No explicit time-frame ✅

Question 16

10th Schedule

With reference to anti-defection law in India, consider the following statements:

  1. The law specifies that a nominated legislator cannot join any political party within six months of being appointed to the House.
  2. The law does not provide any time-frame within which the presiding officer has to decide a defection case.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Official Verdict: (b) 2 only

The Core Concept: The 10th Schedule explicitly states that a nominated member can join a political party within six months of taking their seat; they are only disqualified if they join a party after the expiry of those six months (Statement 1 is an inverted trap). A major, heavily criticized flaw of the 10th Schedule is that it dictates no specific time limit for the Speaker/Chairman to decide a defection petition, allowing them to sit on cases indefinitely (Statement 2 is true).

Tethered to: REALM 254: Defection & Party Discipline

Question 17

Executive Law Officers

Consider the following statements:

  1. Attorney General of India and Solicitor General of India are the only officers of the Government who are allowed to participate in the meetings of the Parliament of India.
  2. According to the Constitution of India, the Attorney General of India submits his resignation when the Government which appointed him resigns.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Official Verdict: (d) Neither 1 nor 2

The Core Concept: Both statements are false. Under Article 88, only the Attorney General (and Ministers) has the right to speak and take part in Parliamentary proceedings; the Solicitor General has no such constitutional privilege. Regarding resignation: while it is a strong convention for the AG to resign when the ruling government falls, the Constitution does not mandate this. The AG serves solely "during the pleasure of the President" (Article 76).

Tethered to: REALM 126: Attorney General of India

LOK SABHA AGI SG Resigns with Govt? Convention, NOT Constitution ❌
MANDAMUS Pvt Body No (Unless Pub Duty) ✅ Govt Company Can Issue! ❌ QUO WARRANTO Locus Standi relaxed. Any Public Minded Person ✅

Question 18

Constitutional Remedies

With reference to the writs issued by the Courts in India, consider the following statements:

  1. Mandamus will not lie against a private organisation unless it is entrusted with a public duty.
  2. Mandamus will not lie against a Company even though it may be a Government Company.
  3. Any public minded person can be a petitioner to move the Court to obtain the writ of Quo Warranto.

Which of the statements given above are correct?

Official Verdict: (c) 1 and 3 only

The Core Concept: Mandamus ("we command") is issued to compel a public authority to perform its legal duty. It generally cannot be issued against a private body, unless that body is performing a public duty (1 is true). It can absolutely be issued against a Government Company, as they are considered "State" under Article 12 (making 2 false). Quo Warranto ("by what authority") checks illegal usurpation of public office; unlike other writs requiring personal grievance (strict locus standi), it can be sought by any public-minded citizen (3 is true).

Tethered to: REALM 41: Writ Jurisdiction

Question 19

Digital Governance

With reference to Ayushman Bharat Digital Mission, consider the following statements:

  1. Private and public hospitals must adopt it.
  2. As it aims to achieve universal health coverage, every citizen of India should be part of it ultimately.
  3. It has seamless portability across the country.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Official Verdict: (b) 3 only

The Core Concept: Be extremely wary of absolute "must" / "should" verbs in UPSC governance questions. Participation in the Ayushman Bharat Digital Mission (ABDM) and the generation of an ABHA (Health ID) is entirely voluntary for both citizens and hospitals (private and public). Therefore, 1 and 2 are false. The core technological premise of the architecture, however, is to allow individuals to securely store and access their health records anywhere in India, offering seamless nationwide portability (3 is true).

Tethered to: REALM 186: ABDM

NATIONWIDE PORTABLE (3) Must Adopt (1) Mandatory for Citizens (2) It is Voluntary!
Rules of Proc. Speaker fixes date Speaker Deputy EQUAL PRESIDING POWER

Question 20

Parliamentary Mechanics

With reference to Deputy Speaker of Lok Sabha, consider the following statements:

  1. As per the Rules of Procedure... the election of Deputy Speaker shall be held on such date as the Speaker may fix.
  2. There is a mandatory provision that the election... shall be from either the principal opposition party or the ruling party.
  3. The Deputy Speaker has the same power as of the Speaker when presiding... and no appeal lies against his rulings.
  4. The well established parliamentary practice... is that the motion is moved by the Speaker and duly seconded by the Prime Minister.

Official Verdict: (a) 1 and 3 only

The Core Concept: Under the Rules of Procedure, the President sets the election date for the Speaker, while the Speaker sets the date for the Deputy Speaker (1 is true). It is a political convention (started in the 11th Lok Sabha) that the Deputy Speaker comes from the Opposition, but there is no mandatory legal provision for this (2 is false). When in the chair, the Deputy Speaker is entirely independent, wields the exact same powers as the Speaker, and rulings are final (3 is true). The motion for appointment is usually moved by the Minister of Parliamentary Affairs, not the Speaker (4 is false).

Tethered to: REALM 134: Officers of Parliament