 Welcome everyone. So welcome to Shankar Ge's Academy. In this session we are going to discuss the previous year question papers related to poverty. So in this session we have picked some 60 questions and we have discussed like what are the key answers. So what are the source of these questions and how you got to answer it. So if you don't have any such kind of factual information, knowledge, so how you can eliminate and what type of logic you can apply for, arriving and answer. We will go through the questions right now. So the first question, with reference to the Indian history, the members of Constituent Assembly from the provinces were. This is a little bit to the constitutional history. So the members of the Constituent Assembly from the provinces were. So they are not directly elected and they were not nominated also. They were not selected also. So it's about elected but how they were elected by the provincial legislative assemblies as such fine. So they were kind of indirectly elected by the members of the legislative assemblies. Now this is a very simple straightforward taken from NCRT also. So how it has a combination of elected and denominated members like not representing all sections of society. Second is considered the following statements about the charter act. So here it is also a question is about the constitutional history. It ended the trade monopoly of the East India Company except for its trade with tea trade and trade with China. Yes, this is a correct statement. And second statement, it asserted the sovereignty of British crown over the Indian territories held by the company. Yes, still like now even though the powers are there but it still give that thing. And the revenues of British, the revenues of British India were now controlled by the British parliament. Actually the revenues were controlled later on only. All right, it was not given exactly. So the revenues were given to the parliament as such like now controlled in 1850s as such fine. So this statement is wrong whereas this statement is correct. So the answer is one and two. So all these things are factual questions whether you can kind of remember from NCRT or from Lakshmikant. The third is an analytical question. Consider the following statements. So this question is related to constitutional government. UPC has asked questions related to constitutional government on more than two occasions. In fact like three times they've asked it. So what is it? It places effective restrictions on the individual liberty in the interest of state authority or it places effective restrictions on the authority of the state in the interest of individual liberty. See both the statements like now on its own it's correct but with respect to constitutional government. Now what is the meaning of constitutional government means? A government which is limited by the constitution. Why does the government is limited? Or why does the constitution wants the powers of the government to be limited means like now in order to ensure that certain rights are guaranteed to the citizens. So by the word itself so constitutional government means a government which is limited. So limited government means you are restricting the powers of the state. So in this statements so what is correct means? So it places effective restrictions on individual liberty in the interest of state authority is wrong. Even though the state can make certain reasonable restrictions that too for the purpose of the enjoyment of fundamental rights of others. Is it not? It's not for the state authority as such fine. So the answer correct statement should be second one. Alright for the interest of individual liberty the powers of the state is limited as such fine. So it is the second statement which is correct. Here it is where most people will get it wrong. They think first statement is also kind of limiting. First statement is limiting the powers of the people. It's not limiting the powers of the government as such. So the next question is about like no Indian federalism. They are asking which is not a feature of Indian federalism. So first statement independent judiciary should be a part of it. So hence this cannot be an answer because it is a feature of it. Powers are being clearly divided. Yes it is divided. So right from article 246 as well as like no scheduled seven. So this also cannot be an answer. They are asking not a feature. The federating units have been given unequal representation in the Rajisabha. This is one distinguishing factor. Indian federalism differs from the US. US they have equal representation. All the 50 states have two members each in the senate. Alright so this is also a unique feature of Indian federalism. So now it is a result of an agreement among the federating state units. No this is not because this is correct only with the case of USA. So India like no so there are two concepts with respect to federalism. Now one is called as the type of federalism you have. Like one is called as like no coming together and another one is holding together. So India is an example of a holding together type of federalism. Whereas USA is a coming together. Where the states came together and formed a federalism. In India it is not like that. So this union is sharing the powers among the states. So we wanted a strong center because like no we had so many kind of problems right. The religious problems, linguistic problems. There is so much of a cultural divide, ethnic divide and all. So we wanted a strong center as is fine that is what. So the answer is D for Delhi. Fifth a constitutional government is definition a limited government. As I said like no this question was frequently asked. Alright it is a straight forward question like no the questions can be sourced from NAOS, Czech books National Institute of Open School. In India separation of judiciary from the executive is enjoined by it is a very straight forward question taken from the paract or you can say the NCRT. So direct principles of state policy article 50 separation of judiciary from executive. Very straight forward easy question. Again another easy question. Economic justice the objectives of constitution has been one of the as one of the Indian constitution where it is provided as such means the word economic justice. It is mentioned in say preamble also and it is mentioned in say direct principles also. Okay so if you look into preamble as is like no they would have mentioned about justice of social economic political whereas in direct principles you see in article 38 they would have mentioned about justice as such. Alright again the social economic political justice. So which of the following objectives is not embodied in the preamble. Okay so with respect to the liberty so liberty of thought expression belief faith and worship is there. So thought is there expression belief is there but economic liberty is not mentioned so this is the answer. So all these things are mentioned but this is not mentioned so the answer is economic liberty it's a very easy question again. The mind of the makers of the constitution is reflected in the preamble. Now why this answer so where exactly it is mentioned in the berubari union case. Berubari union case it is a statement made while they concluded that preamble is not part of constitution but they mentioned it is a key to open the mind of the makers of the constitution. The same berubari union second I mean the other judgment was taken as a question. So this is question number 10 the preamble to the constitution. So is it part or is it not a part as such. Alright even though it was mentioned in the berubari not a part later on the case in the bar the case it was mentioned as a in berubari it was mentioned not a part but whereas in case in the bar it was mentioned as a part. So right now since case in the bar the judgment came in 1973 which overruled the judgment in berubari that stands valid today. So preamble is a part as it's fine preamble is a part so you can admit it. Now whether it has the same legal effect means so the answer is why because both in berubari and in case in the bar the they said preamble is not a source of any substantive power. So it does not kind of give any power to any authority or any organ on its own. What it does is that already the powers given in the other provisions the other enactment part. So that has been kind of repeated here. So it does not on its own give any such kind of source or it is not a source of any such powers also limitations also. So that is the reason why so preamble on its own independently does not give any part. So that is what like the again it was mentioned like this is mentioned in berubari also case in the bar the also but only differences in berubari they said it is not a part. Alright fine this is about 10th question. Consider the following statements U.T.s are not represented in rajasabha. At present like no so U.T.s like so N.C.T.D. national capital territory of Delhi as well as the Puducherry as well as Jammu and Kashmir all these three they are represented in rajasabha. So one seat for Puducherry three for Delhi and four for Jammu and Kashmir. Alright so that is first statement is not represented that is wrong. So first eliminated and so you have to find it out like no with the second statement. It is within the purview of chief election commissioner to adjudicate election disputes. Now here it is a logic here. Election disputes means even it can be an MP election Himalaya election or it can be election of president vice president. The constitution has given different different bodies is it not. So for the president and vice president like no there is a supreme court for the MPs and MLAs or respect to state high courts where the constituency respect to state or the high courts as such fine. For the local self-government like no it will be desired by the state legislature what level of court. So it is very kind of common right this question like no chief election commissioner with adjudicate election disputes it is very wrong logically speaking fine. Now second is also wrong means automatically the answer is D that is none. So why the third statement is wrong according to the constitution. The parliament consists of Lok Sabha and there is Raj Sabha only no in addition to that it has president also. So that is what the constitution of parliament as such alright. So even though president is not a member he is still an integral part of parliament. You know that because of the reasons only after his ascent a bill becomes an ad. Question number 12 consider the following statements this is about other based on current affairs also governance also other card can be used as a proof of citizenship. No other is just a residence proof other numbers are residence thing. So even if you are not a citizen of India you can apply and get an other as long as you are a resident alright fine. It has nothing to do with citizenship in fact there is no such kind of specific card for citizenship. Of course like you can use the voter ID to show that like you are a citizen and all. So you have certain other documents other is not one such. Once issued like other number cannot be deactivated or limited no. So this also can be alright if at all like they have obtained by fraud or any other mechanisms or if they moved of the country as such like no. So in that case also it can be done as such fine. So there are so many such conditions given under the other act. So the answer is D. One of the implications of equality in society is so equality results in absence of what? Once everyone is equal so that means what? There is no such kind of privilege given to anyone because if you give privilege that is not equality. You are given a special privilege to kind of like know bypass the queue alright. You are kind of given privilege for let to say arrest or something that that is not that is not kind of equality. Equality means everyone should be treated equally. So in this case equality is the absence of a privilege as such. Which one of the following statement is correct? Rights are claims of the state against citizens rights are privileges rights are claims rights are privileges. Now first thing you have to eliminate the word privileges. No rights are not privileges privileges is something you are given because of your post or position. Alright so rights cannot be privileges. In fact like this is an NCRT question wherein it is given rights are a claim of citizens against the state. It is mostly against the state as such. Sometimes you can claim it against a individual's also alright. So the answer is C. An NCRT question definition is given in 9th standard also. The right to vote and be elected in India is okay. It is not a fundamental right. Alright it is not a natural right. So this question was one of the most debated question of that time. Whether it is a constitution right or whether it is a legal right. You see what is the link between constitution and law. So all constitution or its constitution is a law. The link is that constitution is a supreme law. Alright but all laws are not constitution. That is a link you have to know that. Now first of all if it is mentioned in the constitution then you have to give the answer to be a constitutional right. Now as per the right to vote and to be elected as such like you see it is given in article 326. Article 326 speaks about who has the right to vote in the elections. In the MLA elections as well as the Lok Sabha MP election. So anyone who is above 18 years of age that is any citizen who is above 18 years of age. And who is not disqualified under the constitution provisions as well as any other provisions he shall have the right to vote. Alright now additional qualifications are given in RPA. Now the thing is that if you want to kind of make any changes it has to be in line with constitution. That means if you want to say increase the age or decrease the age from 18 to 16 years it cannot be done without amending the constitution right. So constitution provides you the right. So the rules or the procedures with respect to the right to vote under RPA is subject to the constitution. So that means so it becomes a constitutional right. Of course all constitutional rights are legal right but here it is given which is more important means it is a constitutional right. And this is again an NCRT question taken from 9th standard democratic rights chapter. It's a straightforward NCRT question. It's a constitutional right. Which of the following are envisaged by the right against exploitation? So right against exploitation as a chapter it is given in part 3. Alright it starts from article 23 and ends in 24. So which article? So here it is this is 23. This is 17. And this is protection of interests of minorities is 29. And this is 24. So the answer right against exploitation is 1 and 4. Now people might think is sir even abolition of untouchability is against exploitation right? No. It may be impliedly but explicitly it is mentioned right against exploitation as these two. Because untouchability is specific to certain group of people the schedule cast and schedule types. Whereas that prohibition of traffic in human beings as well as like prohibition of child labor it is common to everyone. So that is the reason why it is fall under like no right against exploitation. Whereas abolition of untouchability falls under right to equality 14 to 18. And this comes under cultural and educational rights 29 and 30. Each one of the following reflects the nicest and the most appropriate relationship between law and liberty. So here it is when they ask what the nicest appropriate most appropriate like you have to focus on like no. There can be more than one statement to be correct as such but they are asking the best answer. Not the correct answer the best answer as such fine. Now in this case like no the relationship passes like no again if you study the political theory textbooks and all so you will get some more idea. So this means if there are no laws there is no liberty. Now why this one is correct I will tell you. If there are more laws there is less liberty means it doesn't mean that like no so India have more than thousands of laws. It doesn't mean that like no India doesn't have a liberty. So now the same way like if there is liberty laws have to be made by the people. The thing is that if you leave to the people to it depends on the which section of people assume that if you leave the law making power in India to the people as is completely not through parliament or such. Now what will be the people the people will do people what will be the thought of the majority so majority can sometime make a law in their favor right. It can lead to the tyranny of the majority also so it can take away the liberty of minorities is it not. So even in those cases so even if you give to the people people will kind of look into their aspect. See if at all say I am from a specific language I would kind of make a law such to protect my language alone to the cost of other language. Similarly that is for the same religion also region also so that is the reason why if there is liberty laws have to be made by the people is also wrong. It can go otherwise also and if laws are changed too often liberty is in danger it's not like that even our constitution has been changed so many times. That is in order to meet the expectations of the people in accordance with the change in the society change in time. So this is also wrong so if there are no laws there is no liberty means yes of course like no see best example is article 19. If you want to enjoy if you want to enjoy the right to freedom of speech and expression of course your right is restricted right. How it is restricted you should not defame others what assume that if there is no second of defamation so you speak bad about others. Others will speak bad about you so there will be absurd cures and then like no it won't kind of like no benefit anyone is it not. So that is the reason why like no it's liberty first of all it has to be kind of like no enjoyed only if there is no sound either side. So the answer is B again it is also an NCRT question political theory. Okay 19 in the context of quality which one of the following would you accept as the most appropriate definition of liberty again. So here there are two options like no it could be this also absence of restraint also opportunity to develop oneself fully. Now both are correct but this is the you know you can say it's a kind of a negative dimension this is a kind of a positive dimension. So without this this is incomplete. Okay without this this is incomplete so the answer for the 19 one is D. Again this is an NCRT question political theory book. All right which of the following constitution of which article of the constitution of India safeguards wants right to marry the person of one's choice. So it is article 21 straightforward. So it is based on a case hardier and previous cases also the hardiest case. So it's called a scheme or Shokan's case also. So here they they decided that a person who is an adult has the right to marry a person of his choice as such as a part of a wider interpretation of article 21 straightforward based on the current affairs case. Which of the following categories of fundamental rights incorporates protection against untouchability. Again very straightforward question. So the answer this is article 17 article 17 is under right to equality right equality is like to 14 to 18. So right against exploitation already we have seen 23 24 this is right to freedom as 19 to 22. Okay so the answer is article 17 it's D. Again a very simple straightforward answer. Which of the following is not a fundamental duty. So it's again a very straightforward factual thing right to vote in public elections is not at a duty which has been recommended by so many committees to be included. With respect to DPSP consider the following and they're asking which of the above are Gandhian principles. Okay so out of this Gandhian principles definitely two should be there three should be there he spoke about cottage industries as well as village panchayats. And when you have two and four like no there is a possibility of like no one also a also and D also. But here you see that like no so he he doesn't speak anything about like no this and all and so by going by that the answer is B for Bombay. So he was silent on about like no uniform civil code and all like no so he was kind of focusing on these things only and that is the reason why the answer is two and three. If you study Lakshmi Kanath or if you study NIOS like it is very well you can manage to answer. Which of the following is or among the fundamental duties again this question is about duties. So here this is article 46 which comes under DPSP. This is states a duty so second only there if you eliminate two so naturally the answer will be one three and four. According to constitution which of the following are the fundamental for the governance of the country so again it is given in the director principles of article 37. So in article 37 they are given it is even though it is non enforceable it is still fundamental in the governance of the country. In the constitution the promotion of international peace and security is included in the director principles article 51 straight forward simple question. Regarding the director principles so what exactly the correct statements the principles spell out socio-economic democracy yes. It speaks about socio-economic democracy through articles 39 all it till like till 51 like no so many things. And the provisions contained in these principles are not enforceable again yes this is also kind of mentioned expressly in article 37. To uphold and protect sovereignty integrity unity so where it is mentioned. So even preamble mention about sovereignty but it is about like no the role of states so how the state should be sovereign socialist secular democratic republic. But this word is exactly mentioned in fundamental a duty all it to uphold and protect sovereignty it is a duty of every citizen. The idea of welfare state is mentioned again in director principles if you look into article 38. They mentioned it very straight forward question so this and all they are in 51 a provisions which principle among the following was added by 42nd. So you see the nature of questions they are asking it is about amendment also so among this question so this is 43 a this is 43 a. And all the other provisions are this is about 39 all it so this is about 41 this is 42. So you have all those provisions like no so they are asking about 42nd amendment and 43 a is a 1. So you have to know certain important amendments also like 43 a 39 a. With reference to the constitution of India the director principles constitute limitations upon. So in this question people might think that like no so they kind of have a limitation. So you always keep in mind when you compare with fundamental rights versus director principles the fundamental rights only limits the powers of the government. Whereas the director principles exerts means it encourages the state to do certain things for the purpose of social welfare for the purpose of economic equality and justice. They encourage they don't limit as such you see the wordings the state shall endeavor to the state shall strive to all it so in no way it limits as such. So the director principles doesn't limit the executive as well as legislative functions so the answer is neither 1 nor 2. Which of the following statement is are true of the fundamental duties so they are asking about fundamental duties. A legislative process having provided to enforce these duties no the constitution hasn't provided any such kind of things. So like DPSP they are also not enforceable if the parliament has made a law or state legislatures have made any law it can be enforceable. They are correlated to legal duties no legal duties are separated is given by a specific law based on a statute it has nothing to do with the fundamental duties. Fundamental duties are given in the constitution so those are given in the specific law so both have no connection as such both has no correlation. In the context of India which one of the following is the correct relationship between the rights and the duties. So rights are correlated with the duties now how we can say that so you have a duty the best example you can say with respect to education. So you speak about article 51AK with respect to the parents have a duty to send the children to the schools. And 21A says that the state has a duty to provide free and compulsory education to all children from age 6 to 14 years. Now the state can fulfill that right only if the duty of the parents are properly enforced is it not only if the parents send the kids then the state can give a compulsory education right. So it's correlated like you can tell about lot many examples say if you speak about right to dignity you see in fundamental duty number 51AE. It speaks about like you should not derogate the dignity of women. So by not derogating the dignity of women you are kind of ensuring the dignity aspect in article 21 right the right to life includes right to dignity so that is what. So rights are correlated to duties so all other statements are kind of wrong. Which part of the constitution declares the idea of welfare state again a repeated question so answers DPSP as I said article 37. With reference to the provisions in part 4 which of the following statement is or are correct. So they are non enforceable part 4 is about DPSP so they are non enforceable alright and the principles laid down is to influence the making of laws. Yes they are nevertheless fundamental in the governance of the country so the answer is 2 and 3. Other than the fundamental rights which of the following parts of the constitution reflects the principles of provisions of UDHR. The provisions of free amble also DPSP also fundamental duties also there are so many such provisions which is in concerns with the UDHR. Like we have inspired from UDHR for the purpose of free amble also we speak about like no justice concept in that are the principles concept also a lot many things even when the fundamental duties also alright. An amendment to the constitution of India can be initiated by an introduction of a bill in the loks above only no. It can be introduced even in Rajisabals either house of parliament. If such amendment seeks to make changes in the federal character the amendment also requires the ratification of legislature of all the states. No only half the state legislature second is also wrong. The 44th amendment to the constitution introduced an article placing the election of prime minister beyond judicial review. Now the statement you need not know the exact amendment which kind of excluded but you see 44th so whatever the mistakes done in 42nd it was rectified in the 44th amendment. So this means it is not a kind of rectification it is a kind of mistake right now placing the election of prime minister beyond the judicial review is restricted in the powers of judiciary. And definitely it would have to be done in 44 probably 42nd or before that especially during the times of Indira Gandhi. So by going with that logic like no you can kind of eliminate this one and the 99th is recently in current affairs it was related to NJAC. NJAC was struck down based on the grounds of violation of independence of judiciary because it had members from the executive also with respect to appointment of supreme court and high court judges. So the statement is second alone is correct. So with reference to the history of ancient India this is more of a history questions all right. And so it was one of the difficult question also it is very difficult to kind of answer these sort of questions. So Mitakshara was a civil law for upper caste and Daibaga was for the lower caste. In fact like these two are related to what is known as that inheritance laws. Okay so this Daibaga was followed in Bengal and the nearby provinces as such like Mitakshara was in other provinces as such like no it was some 12 centuries before the Daibaga. So the first statement you can eliminate because it has nothing to do with the caste. It has nothing to do with the caste so you can eliminate these two options around two or three and the second one is correct. The second one is correct because like now this is the statement Mitakshara the sons can claim during the lifetime and they cannot. Okay so going by that you have to eliminate. So you should know only this one maybe this was based on the current affairs in the judgment like very frequently in the judgment. And the third one is also wrong. So right to privacy is protected under which article so you know that this was protected under article 21. So the case is Putasami's case so it was. Now a legislation which confers on the executive and administrative authority and unguided uncontrolled discretionary power violates which article. So of course this is not this is UCC this is about legion and this is answers article 14. Now why because you see equality and arbitrariness they are enemies. So whenever there is arbitrariness or Putasami of arbitrariness you are making a decision without a proper reasoning. So when you give uncontrolled discretionary power it can definitely lead to arbitrariness when there is arbitrariness it can kind of go against the principle of equality. So going by this one it is article 14 and of course no one can violate article 32. 32 is a kind of a remedy which is given. So being a remedy it cannot be violated. So the answer is state forward article 14 which of the following best defences state. So among these things like you can see now what are there are four essentials of a state. So population territory government sovereignty. If you go through the definitions in all the definitions you can find the sovereignty is missing. But here only you can find a community of persons permanently occupying. So you have a population you have a territory you have a government and this one independent of external control. This is what basically called a sovereignty. So this is the only one sovereignty is there. So the answer is A. So you have to apply the logic people. So when you ask the questions about the best or most appropriate as I said. So there is more than one answer being correct you have to choose the best answer not the correct answer. With reference to India there is only one citizenship one domicile. Yes. So what is the meaning of domicile? Domiciles means where you have the intention to reside permanently. See you can reside in various places as such but to reside permanently there can be only one place. You can be non-resident but you are still considered to be Indian because you want to settle permanently in India. And the moment you want to settle in another country you will be getting the citizenship of that country right. That is what. So there is only one citizenship. A citizen by birth only can become the head of the state. Now who is the head of the state in India? The president. So the qualification is he should be a citizen of India. There is no such kind of mention as such in the other countries like no he should be a citizen by birth or anything like as in the USA. So this statement is wrong. Third one. A foreigner once granted citizenship cannot be deprived under any circumstances. This seems to be an extreme statement. So this is also wrong because there are so many ways in which you can be deprived of if you get citizenship by say a registration or by naturalization as such like now the foreigners. So if you obtain by fraud or if you are kind of convicted so there are so many conditions given in the citizenship act of 1955. So those conditions if it is applies it can be deprived of it. Which of the following factors constitutes the best safeguard of liberty in a liberal democracy? So in a democracy so which is the safeguard of liberty? So committed judiciary means a judiciary which kind of says S for the government actions. Whatever the government takes they say S. Whereas in the case of like no centralization of powers also it is more central means it is nothing it will kind of again like no might take away the liberty. An elected government does not ensure as such. There are so many situations whereas the elected government has becoming autocratic also. So going by that no separation of powers. Why separation of powers? Because the separation of powers means you are separating you have a sharing or a division among the organs of the government. So you have like no judiciary, legislation and executive. So if legislature makes a mistake or executive makes a mistake when there is separation of powers judiciary can keep a check on it. That is the reason why these sort of questions are asked. All right fine. So in a democracy if you want to keep a check like there has to be a proper separation of powers. Again this is also based on the Insati understanding. What is the position of right to property in India? So right to property in India so it is basically you see it is also an Insati question from Levin standard they have given in a box. So right to property you know that it was moved from a fundamental right to a constitutional right in the 1978. Okay from article 19 1 F to 300 A. So of course like it is not a fundamental right it is it is a legal right but when it was in 19 clause 1 F it was applicable only to citizens. When it was moved to 300 A it is applicable to any person. Okay any person shall not be deprived of right to property unless given a fair compensation according to the law. Fine. So answer is B. What was the exact constitution status of India as in 26 January 1915? So here it is one of the kind of a controversial question because so the constitution status is that even though it is not mentioned in preamble it was a secular but going by the key of UPSC. Okay see on the when you generally look into the question as it's like no people would definitely go for it. A sovereign democratic republic because the words sovereign and the socialist as such like no these words were added only by the 42nd amendment. But some of them had an argument that like okay even even it is not mentioned in the preamble. So it was still a secular country. India was a secular country right but UPSC no it went with option B as such fine. So it was sovereign and democratic republic. The parliament can make any law for whole or any part of India for implementing international treaties with the consent or without the consent. So this is actually 253 article 253 it says that to give effective international treaties the parliament can make a law in the stateless also of course without the consent of any state. In the context of India which of the following principles are implied institutionally in the parliamentary government. Alright so members of the cabinet or members of parliament yes of course and members hold office till they enjoy the conference in parliament. And cabinet is headed by the head of state now you can eliminate the third option because who is the head of the state it is president. And who is the head of the cabinet it is the prime minister. Alright so in that case so the third statement is wrong so when you make third statement wrong so the answer is naturally one and two. There is a parliamentary system of government in India because so parliamentary system means always keep in mind so they are exactly a relationship between legislature and executor. So in which case it is so Rajasabha cannot be dissolved is correct only parliament can amend the constitution is also correct only on its own. Lok Sabha is directly with people it is correct only but it has nothing to do with the parliamentary system as such like the feature of parliamentary system is council of ministers responsible to Lok Sabha as given in article 75 clause 3. Alright the main advantage of the parliamentary form of government is that what is the advantage. Again the same thing you can see the same question is asked instead of council of ministers the executive instead of Lok Sabha they are asked about legislature. So the same question related to that. Which of the following is not necessarily a consequence of president's rule article 356. So number one dissolution of state legislative assembly so what will happen if 356 is air as such first of all which is certain to happen is this one. But they are asking not necessarily which means which may or may not happen. So dissolution of local bodies will never like what is nowhere link with like no the failure of constitutionary of the state. So third one is yes not necessarily consequence alright and so if you go to the statement as such like no so statement wise if you see like no how you have to read it as such like no. So you have to read it and this is not necessarily a consequence alright and dissolution of state legislative assembly dissolution of state legislative assembly also it is not necessarily a consequence. This is also optional when it will be dissolved means when nobody is able to form the government okay when the government which kind of failed constitutionally it is not restored okay so when nobody is able to in that case only. So this is also not necessary only this is necessary so if you eliminate option two itself like no you can see the answer is one and three. So this will never happen all it this is independent of this one and this will happen only as the last resort and that is the reason why the answer is one and three. In these are questions be very careful it will be very confusing because they ask not necessarily consequence but be very careful. Which brings out out of the following statement choose the one which brings out the principle of underlying cabinet from a government. So in this case so people might have a confusion between say B and C alright so where it is like no so you have speeding up cabinet as the very creamy layer among the council of ministers to take the decisions fastly but but of course like no the underlying principle is that like no it's about collective responsibility cabinet as a collective responsibility so this is also one of the questions which had lot of you know people going for B also alright even the B is also to an extent right as such but this activity is not increasing now. Since the beginning itself like no there was a cabinet form is it not so it is not that like only in the later when the economic development happened when the when the responsibilities of government has expanded the cabinet form came. Now even before that like the cabinet form was there right so this is the correct answer C again it is an NCRD question. If the president of India exercises power under article 356 then the assembly of the state is dissolved no this is what like you can see so it is not automatically dissolved only if it is no one is able to form the government. The powers of the legislature of that state shall be accessible by under the authority of parliament yes legislature powers are taken to the parliament. Article 19 is not suspended because like no it will be suspended in the case of proclamation of emergency that is national emergency under article 352 this is about 356. And president can make laws no president will take away the executive power of the state not the legislative power. Which one of the following suggested that governor should be an imminent person from outside the state as it's like no so this is actually a straightforward question from Sarkaria commission. Parliamentary system of government is one in which all the political parties in the parliament are represented. The government is responsible to the parliament and can be removed by it the government is elected by the people and can be removed by them. The government is chosen by the parliament but cannot be removed before its completion so the answer is. The government is responsible to the parliament and can be removed by it all right that is what collective responsibility. So with respect to 57 so we adopted a parliamentary democracy based on British model but how it is different from our model. So with respect to legislation British there is parliamentary sovereignty yes it's correct India it is limited so this is correct. And in India matters related to constitutional amendment or constitutionality of the act are referred to constitution bench by supreme court. Whereas in the case of UK yes UK they don't have something called as a constitutional bench because the constitution itself is made by the parliament. So in this case this is also correct alright so both are correct as both are kind of differs. In India there is no law restricting the candidates from contesting from contesting only looks of election from three constituencies in fact there is a law. So RPA amendment act 1951 amendment since 1996 it says that maximum is 2 alright so it limits as such and the second is a pretty much factual question like not was contested. And third one as per the existing rules of a candidate contest from one looks of a constituency and so he should bear assume that like in the case of Prime Minister Narendra Modi he contest from Varanasi also. He won from both elections did BJP bear the expenses no actually it is one of the proposal made by the election commission which is not implemented so this is also wrong. Okay so the parties need not bear it alright so going by options one and third to be wrong as such like now the answer is two only but this question was omitted as such. Because the second statement is also not exactly he contested in more than that more than three seats so this question was omitted by the UPSC as such fine. A constitutional government means again a government which is limited by the terms of constitution you see the questions are being repeated as such okay. Now what are the key takeovers from this paper as such you see that like to most of the questions are taken from NCRT where you have application of mind in the last few years like no so the questions of the nature either from NCRT. From 9th standard 10th standard 11th standard or sometimes the questions can source it from Lakshmikant or NAO as such fine or from the current affairs as in the case of right to privacy. So mostly you try to apply logics here and based on the logic you can kind of answer these questions but don't go for unfamiliar questions don't kind of make guesses in those questions okay. If you are not able to solve by elimination and if you are not sure about like no 50 chance don't take much chances so that is one advice like no we will see in other sessions about the remaining questions also will give you more inputs also. So please do follow our channel for more such discussions thank you people.