 Hi, hall. This is Satya Paul Deepak. I'm going to discuss and analyze UPSC preliminary examination quality questions for the year 2021. So as usual, in quality questions, the questions are not difficult, but they are tricky. If you miss one word, you will end up giving a wrong answer. So in quality, always it is necessary to read the question completely, optional completely and to think in all possible dimensions and then give the answer. And moreover, some of you may study the entire quality, revise the entire quality, that is good. But you have to be very specific in revising those areas which is coming in current affairs. See, the past two years, the trend is directly they're not asking questions from the current affairs, rather current affairs based static portion, they're asking more questions. Okay, for example, there are two questions related to judiciary, for example, bail and judicial custody, as well as parole, these are current affairs, but directly they did not ask. Okay, indirectly they've asked their question. So I insist upon all the UPSC aspirants to give emphasize on current affairs related static part of quality. Okay, let us get into the discussion. Now, we have taken set A, okay, so in set A question number 77 is a quality question. I've just compiled all the quality questions and I'm going to discuss them. So we adopted parliamentary democracy based on British model but how does our model differ from the model. Okay, so we have to compare the US parliament and the Indian parliament. The Indian parliament is supreme or sovereign, but Indian parliament, its power to legislate is limited how the power to legislate is limited is because there is judicial review. You know the parliament can enact law, only in those subjects which is given in the union list and concurrent list, rarely only they can enact law on the basis of a subject in state list. So first statement is correct. Okay, then second statement in India matters related to the constitutionality of the amendment of an act of parliament are referred to the constitutional bench by Supreme Court. So now, as sets the statement if you read the constitutionality of an amendment of an act, not the amendment of the constitution, the word is very important amendment of an act of the parliament are referred to the constitution bench by the Supreme Court. Okay. See, normally law, which is violating any provisions of the constitution fundamental rights or any other provisions of the constitution it can be dealt by a division bench itself. Okay, two member judicial bench itself can decide the case. It's not that always you know the matter will be referred to a constitutional bench. Only when interpretation is required. Okay, when a constitution is silent and judiciary has to know as to clarify on a particular provision, then in that case you know they will refer the matter to a constitutional bench in order to get a more better clarity. Normally, even a normal bench. Okay, because constitutional bench is one where we have five member judges. Okay, so here the statement they have given the constant related to the constitutionality of the amendment act of parliament are referred to constant bench. Normally it can be referred to constitutional bench. So the statement is correct. You may think that no sir it is referred to even a division of bench so the question the statement is wrong. So with that you may say, but remember you have to see the question we adopted parliamentary democracy based on British model but how does the model differ from the Indian model. So with British perspective, there is no judicial review but there is judicial review in India. So the essence of the statement is in India we are having judicial review. So that is how we are differ from the UK's parliament. So Indian law will be subjected to review. Okay, and moreover, it says that it can be subjected to constitutional bench. The other part is it may be also subjected to division of bench but the statement that it can be referred to constitutional bench by the Supreme Court is correct. Yes, if the court wants it can do it. Okay, so as such you know if they're asking that the Supreme Court always always should refer the matter to the constitutional bench then the statement would be wrong. Or independently when you see the statement you may appear wrong but along with the question when you see the statement is correct. So the answer is both one and yeah, the statement is one and to both the statements are correct. Okay, so both the statements are correct. Next, right to privacy is protected under which article of the Constitution of India. Now article 15 talks about right against discrimination article 19 talks about freedom of speech and expression. Okay, then freedom of speech speech and expression and right to privacy are conflicting certain cases. In certain cases they're complimentary but the court has declared in various cases that right to privacy is a fundamental right under article 21. Okay, so some of you may ask whether we have to remember all the article numbers. This has been in current affairs regularly. Okay, there have been a lot of cases. Okay, for example, the regulation from the government on OTT platforms, intermediaries social intermediaries and other things you know there was a rules it rules was framed in 2021, which they said you know effectively why it's the right to privacy so article 21 is the right answer. Okay, next one. Okay, in India, there is no law restricting the candidates from protesting in one look to buy election from three Constituencies. Earlier, earlier, you know they can contest any number of Constituencies but the election commission has framed a law now you can contest only in two Constituencies maximum two Constituencies. Okay, so earlier, it was true but now the statement is wrong, it's because you know the election commission has made changes and they said a person can contest only from two Constituencies. Okay, so statement one is wrong. 1991 Lokshaba election Sri Devilal contestant from three Lokshaba Constituencies. Okay, so now this is a factual question. Okay, 1991 what happened, we will not know, but you know after this only they've made the amendment election commission has made the amendment that people should stand only in two Constituent to two Constituencies only. But let us now keep it like this itself. Let us see the third statement as per the existing rules if a candidate contest in one Lokshaba election from many Constituencies is a party should bear the cost of by elections to the Constituencies which is vacated by him or in the event of him elected to the both the Constituencies. Now here, whether by elections money will be spent by the government itself or by the political party, once again by elections government only. Okay, so far we have not created such law. Okay, so it is wrong but some may say sir is it not logic that when somebody stands in the election do Constituencies that particular political party may be responsible for the expenditure you must remember is a democracy wherein we give the political parties to represent as a voice of the people some political parties may not have enough money to conduct the elections point one. And you may be asking sir what is the logic behind allowing people to stand in more than one Constituencies. So remember, in India, we vote only for the representatives of people in the Lokshaba. The government is elected or the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers is selected among the members of Lokshaba. So, sometimes the government has to take strong measure the ruling party the sitting government has to take a strong decision, which may be unpopular. Okay, so sometimes when you take a decision it may be good for the country but not for the Constituency. So a sitting minister can be defeated easily, because you know election for government and election for legislature is not separated the same in India. So that is why we want to give a scope for the sitting ministers to contest at least in two Constituencies. Okay, so that you know their actions, their right actions, which has been done for the benefit of the country does not result in the defeat of the particular person okay so the person can stand in two Constituencies, in order to ensure that he's getting re-elected. So people need not worry while they are being ministers to take strong decisions even if it is unpopular. Okay, so that is the logic so the third statement is wrong. Okay, now if you see the options no two only will be the right answer. Okay, even though it is a factual question, you must remember. Okay, it is a factual question. So when you see the options no automatically two only will be the correct answer. Okay, fine. Next is 82 question number 82. With reference to India consider the following statements as judicial custody means and accuses in the custody of the concerned magistrate and such accused is locked up in police station not in jail. See, there are two types of custody police custody and judicial custody. An accused is arrested and produced before the magistrate, and the police is requiring the person to be in custody, they can ask the judge for police custody, or we can say that police demand of custody, which means the accused person can be in the police lock up under the investigation officer, but this is only for 15 days that is called as police custody. Usually judicial will not allow for police custody because you know the accused person can be threatened or induced to accept the crime. So they will be always put to judicial custody, which means the person will be sent to the jail sub jail, where the warden is in charge rather than the investigation officer. If the investigation officers wants to investigate, he has to take the permission from the warden and in the presence of the warden only investigation should take place. So there is no scope for it, threatening or inducing the person accused person to accept the crime. Okay, so maximum police custody we can be for 15 days after that definitely judicial custody. Usually the court prefers judicial custody over the police custody. So judicial custody, the person will not be locked up in police station. The person will be sent to jail. The first so first statement is wrong, because they're saying they will put a person under judicial custody will not be sent to jail, they will be sent to jail. During the judicial custody, the police officer in charge of the case is not allowed to integrate the suspect without the approval of the court. Okay, so this statement is correct. Why this statement is correct because the court will through the warden would have given permission does this month of this is the number of times the person can investigate like that. In every interrogation, they have to take permission from the court of law. So the second statement is correct. So now the answer is to only. Okay, next one is with refer to the once again the prison know when a prisoner makes out a sufficient case for parole cannot be denied to such person prisoner because it becomes a matter of this or her right. Parole is a discretion of the government, not a right. Okay, bail itself you know is a right under article 22, but that too only the court permits is a discretion of the court not as a matter of right. Parole is not a matter of right. Okay, so the first statement will be wrong. What is parole and what is bail bail is when you're an accused and your crime is not proven you are an accused person. Whereas parole is after you are convicted. If you want to visit your home for some important occasion like marriage or important date or some other important things then for a short period of time you will be allowed to go home and come back to the jail. So parole is not a matter of right. It is a discretion of the government. So first statement is wrong second state governments have their own prisoners release and parole rules. Yes, because prison is a state subject and every state government has its own rules, prison rules. Okay, so this statement is correct. Okay, so now what is the answer to only to only is the correct answer to only is the correct answer. Next one. At the national level which is the nodal agency to ensure effective implementation of schedule tribes and other traditional forest dwellers. Recognition of Forest Right Act 2006. Yes. Now here, you will be easily saying that Ministry of Panjaitiraj will not come here. Ministry of Rural Development will not come here. Whereas Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, Ministry of Tribal Affairs you will have a confusion. See, with reference to all the rights based law. Okay, like right to education right to information. Okay, is law be on the people's side. So when you compare to environment, environment ministry, you know, it will be protecting the environment that is their priority. In that incidentally, they also will take care of the tribals but they're not, it's not the first priority. So usually when it comes to conservation versus tribal welfare, Ministry of Environment will stand behind the environment. Okay, they'll say no tribal should not be allowed to be part of the environment. But Ministry of Tribal Affairs only can talk about the rights of the tribe. So the nodal agency for this particular rights is the Ministry of Tribal Affairs. Whenever you have a doubt, just think in the perspective what kind of law it is. If it is a purely environmental law, then it will come under the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change. But if it is rights based, okay, then the particular concerned people ministry will take care of it. So in this case, you know, it is the Ministry of Tribal Affairs. Okay, legislation which confers on the executive or administrative authority and unguided and uncontrolled discretionary power in the matter of application of law. So in this case, which of the following articles of the Constitution of India here, the key word is uncontrolled, unguided, discretionary power. Okay, so the law can give discretionary power. Okay, to the executives, that is not a problem. But that discretionary power, if it is uncontrolled and unguided, then it definitely violates, violates which principle, it principles article 14. In article 28, you know, it is the provision which talks about whether religious instruction and worship shall be allowed in educational institutions or not. So 28 will not come. Article 44 is uniforms will go that also will not come. But you may have a confusion between article 14 and article 32 because article 32 says that whenever your fundamental right is violated, you can go to the court of law. Article 32 is the means to an end. Article 32 is a fundamental right, yes, but it acts as an agency, it acts as a means, which we can restore a fundamental right which has been violated. Okay, so we cannot say that whenever a fundamental right is violated, we can say article 32 is violated. Article 32 is there to restore the name of the article 32 itself is right to constitutional remedy. They talk about the remedy. Okay, so now here we have to go for article 14. So answer is a 85 answer is a. Okay, now next question is, which one of the following in India, Indian quality is an essential feature that indicates that it is a federal in character. Okay. Now, the independence of judiciary is always related to federally here the key word is Indian Indian quality. It is an essential feature that indicates that India is a federal character. Okay. So we need not you know worry about the other quality and all with respect to the quality alone we have to speak. Okay, the independence of judiciary is safeguarded. Okay, but whenever there is a correct answer you know you should not directly market, you should go for other answers then only you can go for other things also. Now, yeah, the union legislature has elected representatives from constituent units. The union legislature means parliament. Okay, parliament has elected members from constituencies as well as the states. Okay, Rajshaba is giving representation from the constituent units. Now you will have a doubt. Sir, federal character means yes bicameralism is also federalism. So second statement also appears to be correct. Okay, the union cabinet can have elected representatives from regional parties. See, this is a discretion. Okay, it is not always true. And it does not refer to the federal character. Okay, by law, actually, when even regional parties every region of this country is given representation in the union called cabinet. It is actually denotes that India is a federalism. Okay, substantially, but by constitution legally. Okay, this point will not come so the third statement is wrong. The fourth statement is not typed here. So I'll type it for you. Okay, it says that the fundamental rights are enforceable by the court of law. fundamental rights are enforceable by court of law. This statement is also wrong. This is the fourth option the option this is also wrong. Why, fundamental rights are enforceable by the court of law that statement is correct but that does not mean you know federalism, even in a unitary form of government, we can have fundamental rights. So these two statements are correct. Now, your dilemma will be between option A and option B, where independence of judiciary and this one up here, we must remember that even in unitary countries, there is representation from constant units, not only in a federal country. So this is also a federal feature but compared to option A, and we option is best because in that in these types of question you have to ask the opposite question. Say independence of judiciary safeguarded okay, what if there is no independent judiciary can we call a federal country, never at all. So independent judiciaries must, but sometimes there may be representation of the constant units they may not be represented of the constant units. Okay, in a unitary form of government. So when there is a representation of constant units it may be unitary form of government as well as federal form of government. So there is a chance for a unitary form of government, even though there is representation from the constant units. So the most possible answer will be A. Okay, the best answer would be A. So A is the correct answer so you could mark A. Okay, next question. Which one of the following best defines the term state? Okay, so now this one, a community of persons permanently occupying a definite territory, okay, territory is there. They're independent of external control, in other words it means sovereignty. Okay, it means sovereignty, sovereignty is nothing but you know, externally independent that is you know, we shall not be subjected to any external control. Okay, an organized government, there is a government. Okay, so those who have attended my class in Shankarai's academy we have discussed this you know state is something which should have people territory, sovereignty and government. Okay, so this perfectly satisfies the condition with respect to United Nations. Also they have described state is some organization where it should have all these four. We must remember Palestine is not a state, it is just an observer state in United Nations because Palestinian government does not have sovereignty. Likewise let us take Kurd people. Okay, Kurds, they want, they live in northern Syria, southern Turkey and not western Iran. Okay, so Kurds also you know in recent news related to the Syrian states instability. So they want a land called as Kurdistan they're not called as a state because people is there they live in a territory but they don't have a government and they don't have sovereignty. And in fact you know they are spread across the territories of some other country, so they cannot be called as a state. Okay, so a politically organized people of next option be we know that this is correct but we have to see about the other statements also. So we segment a politically organized people of definite territory and possessing an authority to govern them, maintain law and order, protect their natural rights and safeguard their needs of sustenance. Okay, this one is also correct. Okay, but here sovereignty is not there. Okay, they're not mentioning about. Okay, external control is there or not. Okay, and primarily the state's role is to protect. Okay, so we can say protecting the natural rights safeguarding their needs this also is a correct statement I agree. But when there is a interpretation we have to go for the more specific answer okay or as the keyword in the question says best defines the same. Already the United Nations has defined us, political theorists are defining it. State means there must be sovereignty. The sovereignty itself means that you know you have the power to maintain law and order, govern everything. So the first statement is more comprehensive and inclusive of the second statement also, so we can go with the first statement. A third statement a number of persons who have been living in a definite territory for very long with the own culture now as I told you know goods. Okay, so the some people live in a particular territory for a longer period of time all those people is not recognized as state so the state statement will be wrong. The fourth statement is a society permanently living in a definite territory with a central authority. Okay, not necessarily a state may have central authority or a decentralized authority of federal power. And executive responsible for central authority and executive responsible for central authority and independent judicial. Okay, so this is also true for certain countries but not all the countries. So if you see that a is the most comprehensive definition of independently we can say that each of the statements is correct but when you compare with the first statement first statement is the more appropriate one. So answer is a. Any retired judge of the Supreme Court of India can be called back to sit and act as a Supreme Court judge by the Chief Justice of India yes he only can do it with the prior permission of the president of India why president of India, because it is the president of India gives the final appointment. Sometimes judicial appointments may delay. So in between to deal with the accumulation of cases to reduce the workload. Okay, the retired judges can be made to act as a temporary judge ad hoc judge they will call ad hoc judges. Okay, so that can be done. Okay, and the scope is given why the scope is given because usually the appointment process will be later. Sometimes vacancies are there means Supreme Court cannot function efficiently. So constitution itself itself is provides for ad hoc judges. Okay, so the first statement is correct. See this is also in current affairs, because you know, we were talking about vacancies right. There is a big problem, both in the Supreme Court and I code and recently we have seen that the Collegium has recommended many names to be appointed as I code judges as well as the Supreme Court judges. Okay, now this process is taking delay, a huge vacancy is there. So what are the alternate ways of reducing the problem of vacancy one is ad hoc judges another is additional judges. Okay, so temporarily you can make appointments. So if you have read that current affairs and relatedly if you have seen what are the problems related to vacancy how it is address in the Constitution and various laws, definitely would have read about additional judges and ad hoc judges. Okay, so while reading it what is the difference between additional judge and ad hoc judges ad hoc judges specifically. Okay, that is retired Supreme Court judges, but as additional judges anybody who's eligible to be appointed as Supreme Court judge. Okay, who's working in high court in other places they can be appointed as temporary as a judge. Okay, so ad hoc judges for retired judges of Supreme Court. Okay, anyway, now, the first statement is correct. Second, high court in India has the power to review its own judgment as a Supreme Court does. So if you have a plain reading of Indian Constitution, you will see that for Supreme Court a separate provision is there telling that there is a review petition for Supreme Court article 136. But similarly for high court, there won't be an explicit. So you may think that the statement is wrong. But however, it is a current affair. Okay, that various courts recently the Kerala High Court have also said that high courts also have the power to review their own judgments. How because they are court of record. Now, how come, when we say that court is a court of record, immediately, it derives the power of review. What is the meaning of court of record, all the judgments of the court will be recorded. For that matter, even the district judgements will be recorded. But the important thing is the judgments that is made by the high court will be recorded. And that recorded judgment can be used as a president's legal presidents for future cases in future similar cases is taking place. Then the advocates can refer that earlier the same court has done with the same case. Okay, and has given a particular judgment so based on that judgment, please, you know you have to give the same judgment in this case also. So the judgments that is delivered by high court can be used as a reference by not only the same high court but other high courts as well as the Supreme Court also. Okay, because high court is a court of record. And sometimes high court may give a judgment, which is wrong interpretation, just because it is given wrong interpretation and it was done earlier, and it has been recorded in the court. We cannot blindly follow it right. So when a wrong judgment is asked to be taken as a legal president, then the high court will review its own judgment. Tell that whatever we told in that case is wrong, we are giving a new pronouncement. So in that sense, only the high court has the review powers. It can review its own judgment because it's a court of record, its judgments can be used as a legal president in future cases that should not happen. That is why they're doing it. So second statement also is correct. Okay, then citizenship question with reference to India, consider the following statements. There is only one citizenship. Yes, this is all of you know, because India, we do not have dual citizenship or double citizenship. Double citizenship means having citizenship for both center as well as state dual citizenship means having citizenship in multiple countries. So India have one citizenship and one domicile. What is the meaning of domicile permanent residence? Okay, you can be a permanent residence of only one place. Okay, so it has only one domicile and one citizenship. You cannot be called as a resident of two states either you are residing in India or you are a non-residential Indian. Okay, so domicile it only once you cannot have domicile in multiple countries. Then a citizen by birth only can become head of state no in India registered and naturally citizen also can become the head of state. In many countries including US naturalized citizens registered citizens cannot become the head of the state but in India it is a possibility. You may be asking Sir Kamala Harris, Barack Obama and all became the president and vice president of the USA how it is possible. When they were born they were citizens by birth their parents only were naturalized citizens. Okay, so persons position will be decided based on what was his position during the birth. So if a child is born citizen of USA then it is eligible for US Presidentship and vice president. That is what recent times Donald Trump was not talking while he quit his office. Birthday issue they will call it birthday. Okay, meaning whether the person is born in USA in order to be eligible to become the head of the state or not. In case of India, it's not the case even a citizen by registration naturalization can become the head of the state. Okay, next one is a foreigner once granted the citizenship cannot be deprived of it under any circumstances not like that. You must remember that okay the foreigner who gets Indian citizenship by registration and naturalization they can be deprived of citizenship under five conditions. We know the five conditions right whenever you have obtained Indian citizenship by fraud or disloyalty to the Constitution, whenever a person is doing an illegal trade and communication with an enemy, then a registered naturalized citizen. If he has punished by a foreign court for more than two years within five years of acquiring Indian citizenship, the person's citizenship can be taken away. Okay, then finally if a person lives outside India continuously for seven years, then also the citizenship can be revoked for a foreigner was obtained Indian citizenship. So this statement, okay statement three is wrong. So answer is one only okay one only is the right answer for the 89th question. Next, which one of the following factors constitutes the best safeguard of liberal, liberty in liberal democracy. Okay, now first statement is committed judiciary. What is committed judiciary. See, here itself, you know two things committed judiciary is one which is committed to the provisions of the Constitution. Okay, including the director principles of state policy, which means whenever they're giving judgment they'll keep in mind that DPSP fundamental rights, and then only they'll deliver. So liberty is in the fundamental rights. Okay, judiciary which is committed to the fundamental rights may safeguard the liberal democracy. That is how some of you might have interpreted. So let us keep this. Okay, then centralization of powers. Definitely when you have centralization of powers liberty won't be there. There is a more chance of liberty being cut out. Example China, elected government. Yes, elected government provides for liberty. But once you elect the government five years, you know, they're not controlled. So only election alone will not ensure liberty after election. There must be some kind of check and balances to ensure the government is not curtailing the liberty of the individual. So it is one of the condition but not the comprehensive condition to have liberty. So elected government also will not come separation of powers between executive legislation and judiciary when you separate the powers and have different people having the powers. Definitely liberty can be protected. Okay, so when you have independent judiciary, they can protect your liberty. So compared to a committed judiciary and independent judiciary, sometimes committed judiciary may be even committed to the ruling party. There is a problem. Okay, and there is an issue where if a judiciary is committed more to DPSP, then the fundamental rights then liberty will be cut it. So there is a chance of committed judiciary being against liberty also. So when there is a chance, A will not come, but separation of powers in all ways, you know, it helps in safeguarding of the liberty. So here, you know, A and D you will have a confusion. A will not come because committed judiciary may result in commitment to the ruling party, like which happened during the Indra Gandhi time she called for a committed judiciary, which means you know they have to go in line with the government policy which is very dangerous. Okay, so separation of powers is more appropriate compared to a committed judiciary. So D is the right answer. Under the Indian Constitution, concentration of wealth violates right to equality. You may say yes, right to equality is violated because you know, one people become rich, other further become poor. Okay. So let us keep it like this itself. Okay, fine. Let's not put it wrong. The principle of state policy. Okay, article 39 C says that there should be prevention of concentration of wealth. Okay, so direct principles of state policy also will come right to freedom. Okay, when there is concentration of wealth, you may say that's a freedom of certain individuals violate but that is indirect. Okay, concept of welfare. Yes, whenever concentration of wealth is violating. When there is concentration of wealth is there, you cannot provide welfare for the individual. So all four appears right, but be directly it is given in the Constitution. Okay, provision itself has been dedicated 39 C. So whenever such question is coming, you go by the letter of the Constitution. When all other things can indirectly mean, you know, relate to the question indirectly may become an answer directly for constitutional provision is given in a particular path. You can directly say that is the right answer. So here that the principles of state policy is that 91 B Bombay. Okay, next, what is the position of right to property in India, whether it is a legal right available only to the citizens, whether it is a legal right available to any person, whether it is a fundamental right. The 44th Amendment Act has deleted right to property from fundamental right and it shifted to other part of the Constitution to 300 A. Okay, so C will not come. Neither a fundamental right nor legal right. Okay, some of me say that it is a constitutional right. Okay, other constitutional legal rights. So it is neither a fundamental right. Okay, but not see those things which is apart from part three of the Constitution which is there in the Constitution. They are constitutional rights as well as legal rights. Okay, those rights which is apart from part three of the Constitution is called as legal rights also constitutional rights also so we will not come. Okay, now legal right available to citizen only legal right available to person you have to read article 300 a it says that a person have the right to acquire, manage and dispose of the property. Any person, any person they've used the word person. So person means it involves both citizens as well as foreigners. If it is only citizen they would have given the word citizen. Okay, citizen. Okay, citizen of India. So let me ask sir property rights are there only for the citizens of India. Property rights are there for any citizen foreigners cannot come and buy property in India, only citizens can buy. So can't we say that legal rights is available to citizens only like that you can ask or interpret. But remember fundamental rights are negative in character. What do you mean by that already if properties existing government cannot take your property. This right to property is available for foreigners as well as Indian citizens already exist which means what when 1950 came in the fundamental rights came people are having property, both foreigners and Indian citizens that property cannot be taken away. Now foreigners wants to buy a new property in India that they cannot do that is not their fundamental right. See fundamental rights are generally negative nature limitation on state power we don't want state to take your property arbitrarily. Now state can say foreigners should not buy property in India you will be given only property on the basis of lease or only in special economic zones, we will allow the foreigners to buy property like that we can decide government can decide. Okay, but if already a property is existing that cannot be taken away one more thing is there. Supposing you are an Indian citizen, but you are taking US citizenship, leaving Indian citizenship. After taking US citizenship your parents are no more. So their property should be naturally inherited to you. Just because you are a foreigner government cannot deny you the right to inheritance of property. Okay already the property is existing and you are eligible for it you are entitled to it. That right cannot be taken. So right to property in 300 a is available for both citizens as well as foreigners. So that is why they have used the word person, if they wanted to insist that it is for citizen, they would have used the word citizen. Okay, now, once again, when we say right to property is there for foreigners it means, if already the foreigners have inherited the property they're having the property they can continue to have it. The government cannot normally take the property. So answer is yeah. Okay, what was the exact constitutional status of India on 26 January 1950. Okay, now they're asking for the keywords that is present in the preamble. So we know that in 44th Amendment Act only the word secularism and socialism was added. Okay, so this statement see will not come. Okay, because secular is here secular is here. So whether it's a democratic republic or sovereign democratic republic, these three keywords were present in the 1950. Now, you may have a doubt like this, sir, even though the words secularism and socialism has not mentioned in the preamble, we had secular features in the Indian constitution. Socialistic features in the constitution so where the constitutional status of India, can't we say that you know it is a sovereign socialist democratic republic. Okay, sovereign socialist secular democratic republic, whether option we will come like that you may ask, see, in these cases, you have to see what exactly it is there. Okay, the questioner, the person who has taken the question want to know that whether you know the word secularism and socialism has been added by 44th Amendment Act. So you have to stick with the B is the right answer, compared to the B is the right answer Bombay is the right answer. So normally when explicitly something is given you go by it. Okay, you go by it, that is better. We will always should think you know, like examiner what you would have thought why this question is there. Okay, so their purpose is to ask you know that something has happened in 44th Amendment Act whether you know it or not. Sorry 42nd Amendment Act. I must correct. It is 42nd Amendment Act in which these two words were added secularism and socialism. Yeah, so whether you know that or not, you know, you must be. That is why this question is asked so B is the answer. Next is constitutional government means a representative government of the nation with federal structure. Okay, so constantly going both federalism and unitary form of government can have constitutional. Okay, so this one will be wrong. Okay, not a correct answer. A government who said enjoys nominal powers. Now, both in a written constitution and constitutional or countries which is not present in the countries with where the constitutionalism is not present there also the government may be a nominal head. A government who said enjoys real powers this also is wrong. A government limited by terms of the Constitution. See, there is a word called as constitutionalism. Simply when you have a constitution, it doesn't mean that it is fulfilling the principle of constitutional constitutional means there must be limitation of the powers checks and balances separation of power. No one institution in the Constitution will be fully powerful. That is why basic structure doctrine also is being justified and being told as legal. It's because it limits the power of the parliament to change the law. So this one. So, we have concluded, we have finished discussing all the quality questions. Here, the important takeaway is quality as usual the questions are not difficult but they are trickier, which means you have to look all the keywords and then only answer you have to look at the keywords in the question and as well as option. Always go by elimination method in order to arrive the correct answer. There will be always possibility of interpretation in quality question. So whenever there is a case of interpretation, okay, go by the actual provisions of the Constitution. Okay. And secondly, whenever you are interpreting interpret the provision as a bureaucrat from the government side, not as a lay person. Or an activist or a journalist or a head of a newspaper, an editorial person know don't think like that think in the perspective of the government. Okay, so rights based for example tribal rights and all know rights based. Okay, if it is a rights based legislation then the particular concern ministry will be taking care of it. Okay, and try to give a more comprehensive answer. Okay, there will be two options for example, with respect to the definition of state. First and second statement, both is correct, but first statement covers even the second statement. So you have to go for the first statement. Okay, so whenever there is an interpretation see which one covers more and also do this negative test, just give the opposite for example federalism question. If there is no independent judiciary can we call a country federal never at all. So that is why independent judiciary is an essential feature of federal character of India. Okay, so like that you know you have certain principles, which will be helpful. So, myself, you know I have done analysis of previous year quality questions for the past five years. Okay, which is available in same our Shankara S Academy channel as part one and part two. Okay, they're also have dealt with interpretation based question because last five years, you know, they're asking interpretation based questions in polity. And then, okay, with examples with UPSC questions itself I explained. Okay, do watch it will be helpful for you to handle quality questions effectively in future. Thank you all. I wish all the best for those people who are going to hear the brilliant examination take up the main examination. Best wishes. Thank you.