 Hi friends, this is Satya Paul Deepak. I teach Indian polity at Shankar IIS Academy. This video is part of series of videos where our staff from Shankar IIS Academy is explaining how to approach the questions asked in UPSC preliminary examination. We are not going to discuss the question but the techniques that should be applied in order to eliminate and arrive at the correct answer. Even if you do not know the answer but still by looking into the options by following various techniques will be able to arrive at the correct answer. So that is the purpose of this video. In today's video we are going to talk about Indian polity questions. There is a usual view that Indian polity questions are most interpretative in nature and most subjective of all the questions that is asked in the preliminary examination. There is a truth in it but remember out of 12 to 15 questions that is asked in preliminary examination 80% of the questions will be simple it will be straight to answer. Now only two or three questions is going to be interpretative in nature. So what we are going to today is to take up 30 questions of different type the different approaches that should be followed in taking up these questions especially interpretative basis questions how to arrive at answer with various techniques will be discussed. Dear friends, before going into the questions I would like to deal with a set of problems that aspirant will face while taking up polity questions. The first such problem is whether to follow the letter of the constitution or spirit of the constitution. What do you mean by letter of the constitution the exact constitutional provisions whereas when I say spirit of the constitution it means why and for what purpose the particular provision has been introduced in the constitution and if that provision is removed from the constitution what will be the impact that is called as the spirit of the constitution. For example we can take the example of election commission any constitutional body by spirit by logic should have some independence. So whether election commission will be allowed to take post retirement jobs or not by logic by spirit if you answer they should not be allowed because if they are allowed for post retirement jobs what happens they will lose their independence. So that is why many of the constitutional provisions for example CAG and all post retirement job is not there but in Indian constitution for certain reasons they have said election commissioner will be allowed will is not barred is not banned from post retirement job. So supposing they are asking giving a statement in prelims examination there is election commissioner can be appointed in post retirement jobs after the election commission post the answer the statement would be correct. Now we are answering by letter. So now generally students will have a dilemma whether to follow the letter or spirit. To solve this dilemma there are two types of questions one is philosophical questions or there may be some type of questions which is based on constitutional provisions. Philosophical questions or political theory based questions for example they are asking about okay nature of democracy, nature of federalism, nature of cabinet form of government like that you know they are asking philosophical based questions what we have to do is you have to go by the spirit that is the purpose of democracy purpose of other things because nowhere it will be written you know about democracy or federalism which is specific to India okay. So you can go by the general meaning by the spirit of the constitution but if there is a constitutional provision go by the letter of it. I will give you another example by spirit judges salary should not be reduced at all but as per the constitutional provision judges salary can be reduced during financial emergency. So when statement exactly is taken verbatim from the constitution you have to go for the letter of the constitution otherwise okay generic terms that is used in Indian polity like democracy federalism secularism and other things you can go by the spirit of the constitution. Now this is the first problem we have dealt with now let us discuss the second problem that is interpretation based questions how to solve these questions you know whenever you have been given a statement in Indian polity and you have two different interpretations at that time you first look into the options when we go to the questions you know with example I will explain to you but I will just tell you the technique first by looking into the options you will be arrived at the correct interpretation you have to apply both interpretation and see whether answer is coming for only one interpretation answer will come because you know when the examiner is taking the question he will be having one perspective only he will not thought otherwise so it have chosen the option accordingly so by looking into the option you can arrive at the correct interpretation that is first one second is okay by applying a general logic you can arrive at the answer for example certain statements will be sweeping statements like all always and all so you can generally think that you know all always and all will not come we can go for a plain statement then third one is okay to go by book whichever book that you have read okay on the basis of it you can go for the interpretation instead of you know worrying about multiple interpretations that is available that is being given for a particular concept it is better to go by a single book when I apply the interpretations in the same book you know mostly the answers will be correct the number the chances of you know getting a wrong answer will be very less okay so this is the second problem the third problem that you will face is whether to go for an updated judgment of the court of law this polity this is a big issue okay that is whatever you read in the Indian polity book okay that is keep on being updated by the judiciary every other day we have many judgments especially the current year plethora of judgments given by the judiciary so whether we have to answer based on the judicial judgment or whether we should we should be go going by the book okay so book versus judgment there will be certain judgments which are once for all fixed for example basic structure doctrine case another bar the case judicial review okay is a basic structure doctrine and it is applicable for all the laws and all the constitutional amendments the change from you know procedure established by law to due process of law all of these things has been fixed and accepted there is no question on it so we can always go by the judgment in those cases now in some cases where the final judicial judgment is not given maybe the high court has given a judgment and there is an appeal in the supreme court then you can go by the book and usually UPAC you know does not ask questions which is currently being discussed by the court of law but however in case they are asking for example recently money bill controversy the now the court has finalized you know money bill can be subjected to judicial review however earlier there was a dilemma whether it is subjected to judicial review or not so at that time you should have gone by book so now since the final judgment has been given no question on that you can say that money bill is subjected to judicial review something which has arrived judicial finality you can decide on it then the next problem that the phase is fact or just opinion never answer based on your opinion how Indian polity should be supposing you want the governor's office to be having fixed tenure okay and giving you a simple example so that you will be able to understand that is your desire opinion if they ask governor has a fixed tenure you cannot be saying governor has a fixed tenure it is a wrong statement okay because you should go by the constitutional provisions not by your own opinion for example right to privacy right now right to privacy has been a settled matter by the court of law but however if you see some of our politicians still contesting there is no right to privacy under article 21 so now how we have to go whether you have to go by fact or opinion you have to go by the fact okay you should not go by the opinion okay so that is why in a thorough reading and revision of Indian constitutional and its provision will help you score more okay rather than you know just assuming and answering then the other problem that you will be facing is convention versus constitution convention versus constitution here sometimes some of the practices are followed in Indian polity based on convention some as constitutional provision so you must know which is a convention which is a constitution provision or for that matter what is a statutory provision look for these words according to Indian constitution whether according to convention according to the statutory provision so accordingly when they are asking the statement may be true but it is not true for the particular given word for example there is pro term speaker pro term speaker is a convention okay as per Indian constitution the pro term speaker presides over the first session of Lokshaba like that if they are giving the statement have used the word as per the Indian constitution as per the Indian constitution it is not right as per convention it is correct so you have to see whether a particular practice of particular provision is a convention or a constitutional provision or a statutory provision based on that you should be giving the answer and friends now we will go into the questions each one of the question each one of the question is of different type and we are going to see how to deal with each of the question so we have discussed the problems main problems faced by UPSS aspirants while taking polity questions now we are entering into the previous year UPSC question paper every question one by one question and we will see what are the problems faced in dealing with that question how to overcome it so first type of questions that we are going to discuss is current affairs based questions like other subjects you know in polity also there is a inclination for the examiner to ask more questions from the current affairs part that is why even when you are revising the polity those topics which were regularly appearing in the newspapers has to be dealt in depth multiple revisions is must and now this question last year okay on office of leader of opposition is asked because the leader of opposition post was continuously in use whether it is appointment of CBI director whether it is appointment of Lokpal or the leader of opposition post was not fully given to congress in these ways you know the office was in use continuously so whenever an office is in use immediately you have to go and study about the particular office so any preliminary reading okay any content that you look into any of the books or an online material if you put leader of opposition of India okay you will know that the first Lokshaba did not have a second single largest party in case the independence MPs were the second largest and then came the communist party of India okay and we know that in Lokshaba for party has to be recognized with the leader of opposition post it should have 10% of MP seats of the total membership of Lokshaba so which means political party requires at least 55 seats in order to claim the leader of opposition post so here now this is very familiar to us it was coming in the newspaper itself that enough 10% of the MPs is required in order to claim the leader of opposition post so three will definitely come then in the second statement okay preliminary reading of the book itself in the Lokshaba leader of opposition was recognized for the first time in 1969 yes okay first time recognition but remember statutory recognition this is where you may get confused statutory recognition that is through law office of leader of opposition was recognized only in the year 1977 so some may have a confusion but you know simple reading of book we know second statement is also correct that first statement you know Swadantara party you know UPC just not give option just like that because the first political party to be given leader of opposition post was Swadantara party that was in the year 1969 okay but it was not in the first Lokshaba it was in fourth Lokshaba 1969 so if you know the leader of opposition was first given 1969 to Swadantara party then easily you can eliminate one is a wrong one okay so now the answer is should be either B or C because A is eliminated D is eliminated okay and two and three we know that it is a correct answer so answer would be C so the main point that you have to take after this discussion is okay any constitutional office any provision which is appearing in the newspaper immediately that area has to be dealt with and that too in this last 20 days of preliminary preparation you have to heavily concentrate in this areas because quality is a very bulky subject to cover everything revising everything at the last minute is not possible okay while revising give more stress on current affairs related institutions current affairs related provisions from the constitution so some of them I have listed out JPC joint parliamentary committee after the Rafael deal you know there was a request from the opposition parties to establish a joint parliamentary committee the joint parliamentary committee you know what is this numbers what is this compensation and all is decided by speaker only decides everything then money bill was in use breach of privilege privilege motion office of chief vigilance commissioner office of CBI and also local so these institutions you have to read thoroughly okay fine next okay this question is an example where you will have a confusion whether to give answer by the provision of constitution or we should be going for judicial judgment so this question also as asked in last year 2018 the first statement parliament of India can place particular law in nine schedule of the constitution of India this is a constitutional provision 31 b article 31 b talks about it the second provision the validity of law of a law placed in the nine schedule cannot be examined by any court and no judgment can be made on it now this was an amendment that was made under 42nd amendment okay when Indira Gandhi made an amendment when she introduced the you know talked about this nine schedule she said no law which is placed in nine schedule shall be subjected to judicial review however a judicial finality has been given in 1980 in a court case the court has declared that judicial review is a basic section doctrine and nine schedule any provision placed in nine schedule also can be reviewed and we have the court also has clarified 1973 is the dividing date dividing year that is the case on the bar the case before 1973 if you have placed any of the law within the nine schedule it will be not subjected to judicial review however all other laws can be subjected to judicial review so now the statement is the validity of a law placed in nine schedule cannot be examined by any court and no judgment can be made on it is a false statement judicial review is possible now the problem you will have is okay by the constitution you know nine schedule the purpose of nine schedule is no judicial review nine schedule provides judicial immunity but however judicial has said no it is not acceptable we will go for the review by which aspect we have to go whether we have to go by constitutional provision or by judicial judgment yes since judicial finality has been given no more question has been raised on this issue we can go for judicial judgment and say that judicial review is applicable so the second statement will be wrong so now what would be the correct answer A only is the right answer now some of the questions you know is asked to test whether you know whether it is a statutory body and non-statutory body okay now how to differentiate between statutory and non-statutory bodies even if you do not know because you know it is very difficult to memorize all the bodies which are all statutory bodies which are all you know non-statutory bodies statutory bodies will have powers with it a non-statutory bodies mostly will be advisory in nature so what is the logic is we follow the principle of rule of law so if you are going to give power for any of the institution any board any tribunal any institution okay you should be giving the powers only through law that is made in the parliament directly the prime minister cannot give power to any of the institution or bodies so if a statutory institution is having some powers okay definitely it is going to be a statutory body likewise see nithya yog is there it is a non-statutory body it has only advisory power okay so in this question they are asked about NGT and center pollution board national green tribunal we know it is a statutory body so the first statement NGT has been established by an act whereas the CPSB has been created by an executive order of the government that the first part of the statement you will say yes it is correct NGT is a statutory body CPCB whether it is a statutory body or an executive or a non-statutory body see when I say executive order it means it is a non-statutory body so whether it is a statutory non-statutory body it is a statutory body CPCB that is central pollution control board is a statutory body now there is an act that is prevention of pollution in water act from that act only CPCB was being created later on you know prevention of fire pollution act also has given the recognition for CPC given additional powers for central pollution control board so now central pollution control board as an authority okay it can give license to vehicles it can you know seal certain institutions you know which is not adhering to pollution standards and all okay so the second statement you know with itself tells that CPC is having a statutory power and by logic also by just our regular reading of newspaper we know it has certain powers so it should be a statutory body okay so first statement is wrong second statement is correct so answer is two only next type of question is opinion based question okay see what actually I'm trying to do is I've already explained to you in short earlier what are the problems that will be faced during taking up the preliminary examination questions now I'm dealing with each one of the question I'm giving example for each one of the problems that would be faced for your better understanding so some of the questions will be opinion based okay as we discussed already right to privacy is protected as an instinctive part of right to life and personal liberty so this is a statement which of the following in the constitution of India correctly and appropriately imply the above statement see here they are not asking whether right to privacy is right under right right to life and personal liberty and all because that is the contestation some having the opinion right to privacy is part of right to life and liberty some people are saying no it is not interested in sick part of right to life and personal liberty so that is opinion based but however they have given it to the statement itself to clarify they are telling the aspirants this is a stand taken by the examiner right to privacy is protected under right to life and personal liberty but here the question part is which of the following in the constitution of India correctly and appropriately imply the above statement so as we know all article 21 and the freedom guaranteed in the part three of the Indian constitution that is fundamental rights part article 14 you know will not directly be related to right to privacy article 14 talks about right to equality article 17 about and disability and article 24 right against exploitation so the appropriate answer will be see it is an easy question but remember okay whenever in case if they are asking opinion based question do not go by the opinion go by the court's final judgment what is the court has declared very recently go by that judgment a question number five it talks about certain questions where you have to understand the quest by looking at the keywords now here with reference to the election of president of India consider the following statement the value of vote of each MLA varies from state to state word state to state is very important that is because not all the MLA's of all the states have represent the same number of population for example supposing if you take UP okay if an MLA in UP is representing 20 lakh people MLA in Tamil Nadu will be representing 10 lakh people now when MLA's from two different states is taking part in the election of the president their vote value should be different naturally if you are saying both of them is having same value it is like undermining the people of UP okay because most number of people is represented by a UP MLA compared to the number of people represented by the MLA in Tamil Nadu so the value of the vote of each MLA varies from state to state now what problem would you have faced those who have taken last year's examination what problem they faced is they were thinking is it not the population of all the constituencies are same so since all the population of all the constituencies are same naturally vote value of all the MLA should be equal maybe MLA vote value in the presidential election is not equal to MP's vote value that everybody knows but between MLA's they will be thinking that it is equal remember vote value of MLA within state is equal okay because under the delimitation process we have just what is delimitation process you know two things are there one is allocation of seats to Lokshaba redrawing the boundaries of constituencies now in allocation of seats to Lokshaba has been freezed 1971 meaning it is based on 1971 census only we are following the same thing but redrawing the boundaries of the constituencies okay we have done it in the year 2001 that is after census 2001 we have gone for the redrawing of the boundaries of the constituencies so now what happened is we have not changed the number of constituencies but we have changed the boundaries of the states so now what happens is the population is different between different constituencies okay same number of MLA's is not being represented so the first statement you know the value of vote vote of each MLA varies like that only if they have given then it would have been a confusion you would have been thinking that within the state vote value of each MLA is same that would have created a confusion the keyword here is state to state so now between states so when you compare within states if you know this that MLA of one state represents more number of people compared to smaller states then automatically you will say this is a correct one and second the vote value of MPs of Lokshaba is more than the vote value of MPs of Rajeshabha this is wrong statement okay why it is a wrong statement that is because okay how we arrive at the vote value of total number of MPs first we will calculate vote value of all MLA's of all states then we will divide it by okay the total number of MPs who take part in presidential so automatically all the vote value of all the MPs is going to be the same there is not going to be different there is no difference between Lokshaba and Rajeshabha MPs so the second statement is wrong the vote value of vote of MPs of Lokshaba more the value of vote of MPs of Rajeshabha okay all of their vote values are the same so one is the correct answer okay here there is another interpretation that you may give okay calculating the vote value of all the MPs of Lokshaba Lokshaba has how many MPs 545 Rajeshabha 245 okay so you may be saying the vote value of all the MPs may be equal but since Lokshaba MPs are 545 their vote value is more okay but here now when they say the value of the vote of MPs which means single vote they are talking about not vote value of all the votes of the MPs so don't go for the other interpretation here the vote value of the vote of MPs means single MP so every MP whether it is Rajeshabha Lokshaba MP it is equivalently so second statement is wrong so answer would be one only then political theory or philosophy based questions okay I am taking some three four type of political theory questions and I will let you know how to arrive at the correct answer okay so just apply the logic okay so what are the logic one of the logic is good put the government filter now here in this question which one of the following reflects the nicest and appropriate relationship between law and liberty okay so this was a great dilemma question now first statement let us see if there are more laws there is less liberty it may appear to be correct but see the keywords nicest and appropriate relationship between law and liberty so when sometimes in order to ensure liberty we have to create law for example you know to ensure freedom of press freedom of speech and expression and other things we need law okay so let us keep on hold it cannot be most appropriate if there are no laws there is no liberty okay what will happen if this there is no law the might will be right and what will happen is only those people who are stronger those people have enough money power and muscle power will have the same will have the liberty the poor and the powerless will not be enjoying the liberty so if there should be liberty for all there should be law okay so this statement there is there are if there are no laws there is no liberty is correct but wait you should not always you know jump and go and mark in the Omar immediately after finding the correct answer you have to eliminate all other options then only arrive at the correct answer then go into the marking of Omar now the third statement let us see if there is liberty laws have to be made by the people okay this as such a statement yes okay the true liberty is where laws will have to be made by the people or at least by the representatives of the people okay but you know it is one of the case the second case is there shall be liberty even if law is created by the representatives of people and forth if law are changed too often liberty is in danger yes when we are changing the law too often okay when there is no predictability of the law there is liberty maybe today there is freedom of press suddenly tomorrow the freedom of press is removed by some of the restrictions the liberty of the individual is at stake so when laws are changed too often liberty is in danger so this statement also appears to be correct now this is a political theory question okay so political science students know that you know said by John Locke so they will easily put this answer but however even a common person can easily say B is the right answer you will be having a conflict with B and D only right that is because this can be eliminated okay so relatively it is not talking about the appropriate relation third one also does not talk about the appropriate relation between law and liberty but B and D is talking about it so now there is a dilemma which option to be choosing whether B or D so this is where this examination is about picking up bureaucrats okay your future bureaucrats okay and in the perspective of bureaucrats B statement stands to be more relevant because according to the government government requires law in order to provide liberty to all individuals whereas an activist will see change of law as a danger to his liberty okay but an appropriate government government for the people okay when they change the law to enhance the power of the people now whether to take this question in the perspective of an activist or perspective of a government okay you take it in the perspective of a government because this examination to recruit the bureaucrats okay so even if you are not knowing political science okay a normal student just by reading the statement and applying the government filter okay in the perspective of the bureaucrat if you are going to give the answers then you will be able to give the correct answer for philosophy based questions okay or political theory based questions then once again another type of political theory question which can be solved by elimination method now what is rule of law now rule of law okay as such whether it is defined in the constitution now this is what I was talking about earlier letter was a spirit whether any provision according to Indian constitution is given for rule of law no okay but it should be understood by spirit there is no letter but you should be understanding by the spirit meaning there should be always a law on the basis of law only administration has to be carried out the whims and fancies of the rulers or bureaucrats should not be there okay according to one once one's own wish one's own desire administration cannot be carried out first if any prime minister chief minister ministers or bureaucrats has to do something first they have to create a law in the legislature then with the authority of the law they have to take measures okay so that is the meaning of rule of law it is opposed to rule of men now this if you apply this spirit no whether rule of law means limitation of powers yes you don't give excessive powers you put limitations on the powers of the constitutional authorities telling that you should work within the limitation of rule of law only the law that is created equality before law will also come okay because you know you have a law it should be applying it in equally among people if you are differentially applying it there is no rule of law there is no limitation of power the unequal application of law is excessive power in other words so now third statement people's responsibility to the government they are talking about fundamental duty now fundamental duty will not come because it is a responsibility of the people okay to the government okay rule of law whereas talking about the relationship between government to the people how government can use its power over the people okay so the third statement is people centric so automatically you can take it out third one in liberty and civil rights okay automatically liberty and civil rights is important if that is not there rule of law will not be there this is the general meaning by spirit you know liberty and civil rights must be there okay now three should not be there right so option a can be eliminated option D also can be eliminated now the doubt is between two and third option that is option B and option C you will be getting confused okay now 1 to 4 and 2 for 1 to 4 means limitation of power equal to be for law and liberty and civil rights okay now one will definitely be coming okay two also will be coming so naturally you can settle for C in option B they have not mentioned number one rule of law necessary limitation of power will come so here you know by elimination method only we are arriving at the answer you know because rule of law is defined differently for example in Lakshmikan book if you see dicey has defined rule of law differently in Indian context rule of law is you know defined differently so you will be having always a dilemma okay by which you have to go so in question paper in the examination all you have to go by the options by eliminating the options you have to arrive at the answers for political theory related questions or political philosophy related questions okay so be practical be logical don't worry you know that this is a you know political philosophy question theory question only political science or public students can answer even by common understanding common reading of polity you can do it okay now another important thing according to this is very important in polity as I discussed know whether it is according to constitution or the whether according to convention or statutory provision you must clearly know okay so these type of questions for example this question in the election for Lokshaba or state assembly the winning candidate must get at least 50% of the votes poll to be declared elected this is wrong it is not at least 50% it is plurality of votes meaning whichever candidate is getting maximum number of votes will be cleared as winner 50% means majority of votes it is very difficult to get okay and that to multi party system and a multicultural society like India getting 50% is plus one it is not possible possible at all so by logic itself you can say it is wrong and since we are all most of us are taking part in the elections we easily say it is you know not 50% but it is plurality of votes maximum number of votes okay so first statement would be wrong second according to the provisions laid down in the constitution of India in Lokshaba the speaker's post goes to the majority party and deputy speaker to the opposition yes from 1969 they have recognized opposition leaders post sorry 1960 and 1977 I said it has been made okay statutory provision and which one opposition leader only so the Lokshaba the speaker's post goes to the majority party yes this is true but this is by convention if they are want to make an person from opposition party that person also can be made as a speaker okay so it is just a convention it is not given in the constitution by convention only majority party person will become the speaker deputy speaker goes to the opposition this can be changed also for example 2004 to 2009 okay Somnath Chatterjee who belong to communist party okay was the speaker he did not belong to the majority party okay likewise the present deputy speaker deputy speaker of the recently concluded Lokshaba is from ADMK okay which is one of the you know partners of the majority party a member or representative from opposition party was not given the deputy speaker's post okay so this is this key word constitution you have to look people would have missed the word constitution as per convention this is correct but as per constitution it is wrong okay so most of them would have made a mistake here only so look for the keyword according to so you must know whether it is according to constitution convention or statutory provision now which is the correct answer they have asked for which is correct neither one nor two is correct both of them are wrong statements then contradicting verdicts for example question number nine night to vote and right to be elected in India whether it is a fundamental right natural right constitutional right and legal right now you know that it is not a fundamental right it is not a natural right now your confusion will be between constitutional right as well as legal right I see sometimes court gave contradicting verdicts okay according to the context in one case the court has said right to vote is a constitutional right in one case they have said it is a legal right okay in case of contradictions okay what should we do you should apply three principles one is apply logic okay and see see here when you apply logic what are rights rights are claims of the individual against a state okay now these claims okay if it is accepted justified then it can be called as a rights okay or in other words rights are justified claims when it is accepted by society okay if society accepts that it is the basic claim of the individual against it then it is called as a moral right okay example human rights okay then if a claim is accepted by state okay it is called as a legal right see here I am using the word capital L this legal right is used okay just to differentiate it with human rights okay this completely changes in Indian context in Indian context rights are divided into constitutional rights statutory rights rights which is given the constitution is called as constitutional rights statute is called as a statutory rights okay statutory rights there is also interchangeably is called as legal rights but in fact technically you have to say statutory rights but people interchangeably use the word legal rights that is why the confusion is now under constitutional rights you have fundamental rights and other constitutional legal rights so part 3 of Indian constitution whatever rights is there we will say fundamental rights the remaining part is called as other constitutional legal rights you have to exactly use the technical term other constitutional rights but people interchangeably use legal rights for this also that is the confusion okay so now by logic okay are they mentioning the if you say right to vote and the electorate to be India is a legal right it is not a right based on statutory right it is coming under the constitution if you say legal right only it means that the right is only based on the law but it is based on the constitutional provisions 325 326 will come okay so you can go for a constitutional right okay as the correct answer the book also NCRT also says it is a constitutional right and you know some people will still argue that no sir it is legal rights also dear friends this is where you must understand in questions like this come contradictory verdicts are there especially on political theory questions okay do not keep thinking over thinking if you keep overthinking you know the consequent questions that you will face there also you will have the impact so just think a little bit and by some logic arrive at the answer either constitutional right or legal right now the answer key depends upon the differences of UPSC UPSC may give it constitutional right or legal right you know whichever source they are referring to so in k questions like this I told no it will be like two or three questions only in the out of entire hundred questions so do not worry about do not worry about these two and three questions definitely attend it but attend it in the second round okay so at the time you know why I am saying do it in the second round first time you will be keep thinking you are not be able to take any decision but first round after completing after answering substantial number of questions now you will have some confidence say 35 to 40 questions if you have answered already okay you will have confidence at that time you know questions like this you will take right decisions and moreover even if it goes wrong okay 50 percent the questions will be correct so at the end you will be getting positive marks only okay extra marks only so interpretation based since two or three questions which is there take it in the second round okay do not overthink okay just apply some logic or whatever there is given by the in the book you know accordingly answer and come logic and elimination method once again here the election commission of India is a five member body okay is it a five member body it is a multi member body okay some of you may think it is a three member body that is also wrong statement because according to the constitution it is a multi member body union ministry of home affairs decides the election schedule for the contract of both general election by election we know the government will not be responsible it is completely election commission okay so now two will definitely not come by logic because if home ministry is deciding the election they will be conducting the election is favorable to the ruling party so the election date okay should be carried out by the election commission only second store statement completely wrong if you know that alone okay simple first statement won't come second statement won't come and this will also not come so you are arriving at the answer that option D is the right answer because the third statement no election commission resolved the disputes relating to split and merger of recognition of political parties you know splits and mergers you would have learnt in anti defection law only their election commission in whether it is coming or not speaker only come okay so you may have a doubt third statement whether it is completely wrong or correct okay there there will be a dilemma because constitution specifically mentions election commission resolved the disputes related to election symbol okay whenever there is a split or merger refer recognized political party okay so the words election symbol is not there now other things are not there who is the correct party so you may get a doubt in this third statement but however second statement logically will not come automatically by elimination method you will be able to arrive at the answer so that is why when you see some statements if it is appearing to be confusing you are not able to know whether it is a correct statement or wrong statement go by option okay by one eliminating one statement by clearly knowing one statement whether it is completely correct or completely wrong thereby you can eliminate you know maximum number of options sometimes three options will be deleted so you will arrive at one definite option you can arrive at the correct answer okay in case of two answers okay two options is coming after all elimination then go by 50-50 rule which means think by some logical and put the put that answer and come mostly you will get it right okay with 80 percentage coverage of syllabus and good preparation okay whenever you are making a logical decision on a 50-50 question when you have a doubt between two options okay you can think and immediately put an option definitely it will be correct only okay maximum probability the chances of getting wrong is very less concept clarity of article 21 this is very important okay now judicial review in India what does it mean now judicial review has it been defined anywhere in the constitution no but the word judicial review whether there is in the constitution no okay only article 13 says that you know in case of fundamental right is violated judicial review is possible judiciary comments strike down the strike down the law okay so let us read each one of the statement and try to understand what is the correct statement the power of the judiciary to pronounce upon the constitutionality of laws and executive orders yes this statement is correct now here you will be having a doubt executive order is given constitutionality of laws with one doubt that will be faced by students okay earlier article 21 it use the word procedure established by law not due process of law okay so they were using procedure established by law meaning only you know arbitrary actions executive order okay article 21 gave protection against arbitrary against arbitrary executive action only okay that is before okay when they use the word procedure established by law but as we know they have changed the word to due process of law now the meaning of the word article 21 procedure established by law is due process of law okay so now it is not only against arbitrary executive action but also it is against arbitrary legislative action okay so now constitutionality of laws under article 21 as well as executive orders both is correct but as I said already even when you are arriving at the correct answer first itself do not immediately go and mark OMA sheet first just check whether option B option C and D is valid or not okay sometimes you know they may be most appropriate answer okay let us look at the option B the power of the judiciary to question the wisdom of the laws enacted by the slasher here use the word wisdom wisdom means what experience okay it is not the validity constitutional validity of the laws they are talking of wisdom of laws meaning okay the law makers MPs would have created a law for a particular purpose okay so the judiciary cannot question the purpose the judiciary should check only whether the constitutional provisions has been adhered to or not so second one will not come the power of judiciary to review all the legislative enactments before they are assented to by the president okay the review judicial review will follow only after assent that you know by logic okay then the power of the judiciary to review its own judgment given earlier in its different cases this is article 137 which talks about review petition review petition is different from judicial review when judiciary reviews the action of executive legislature it is called as judicial review when judiciary's reviews its own judgment it is called as review petition article 137 so this also will not come this clarity should be there what is the difference between judicial review and review petition okay now if they are asking whether we are following procedure established by law due process of law in India if they ask in under original constitution we are following procedure established by law as of now article 21 is based on due process of law so in present examination if they are asking be clear article 21 talks about due process of law only okay if they are giving option article 21 deals with procedure established by law option a option b due process of law go for due process of law then interpretation based questions okay sometimes there will be interpretation based questions okay how to achieve it by elimination method now which of the following are not necessarily the consequence of the proclamation of presidential rule in a state okay now dissolution of state legislative assembly it is a consequence removal of council of ministers of a state is also a consequence but dissolution of local bodies not a consequence here students will face one problem of interpretation because in SR Bomi case okay the court has clarified that when the presidential rule is declared in a state there are two chances to or two options with the state legislative assembly either it it can be suspended or dissolved but remember the Bomi case is said first you have to suspend only after getting approval form parliament you have to dissolve the state legislative assembly so whenever presidential rule is proclaimed in a state there is no direct consequence it is not necessary that you know the state legislative assembly shall be dissolved okay so you may say the first statement is also not a consequence not a not not necessarily a consequence because okay the suspension of state legislative assembly is the first consequence in case of approval of parliament only dissolution of state legislative assembly will come so the first statement is not a direct consequence like that you may interpret some of you may interpret like that also but this is where you have to go by elimination method you have doubt in interpretation go to the key and see options and see supposing if you are considering the first statement as not a consequence first statement as not a consequence not necessarily a consequence then answer will be one and three okay then if you say only local bodies okay dissolution of state legislative assembly is a consequence removal of council of ministers in the state is a consequence the third one is only a not a consequence so your answer should be three only okay so you are arriving at answers by applying both interpretations but okay if you apply the first statement not a consequence like that one and three should come you have an answer but if you think that first statement is a consequence answer should be only three which is not available here okay so the simple reading we won't you know immediately get this difference between dissolution and the suspension but however the person who has taken the question just they wanted to know that the first consequence of proclamation of presidential rule is only removal of council of ministers and suspension of the state legislative assembly not the dissolution okay so your answer is one and three only so this is how you have to arrive if there is a problem in interpretation automatically by seeing the options you can arrive at the correct level of interpretation okay so if two interpretations available I am concluding two and interpretations that are simple apply both interpretations and see what is the options are coming if there is an option that is available there then that that interpretation of yours is right and another way of dealing with interpretation based question is keyword okay now which of the following are envisaged by their envisage as right against exploitation in the constitution of India the question you know the keyword is constitution of India because okay abolition of untouchability is also against exploitation only okay untouchability is exploitation when you abolish untouchability it is against exploitation only but they have given the word in the constitution of India okay so you can go for point number one point number four protection of interest of minorities once again it is a in article 29 and 30 okay which is not you know related to right against exploitation it is a religious freedom so now can see that you know two options one and four only is correct here you may have a dilemma you may say abolition of untouchability also so you may be having a dilemma with one to four also so in that case only go for the keyword if you have a problem in interpretation okay by spirit you are saying you know abolition of untouchability will come under right against exploitation only but in Indian constitution okay it is given under right to equality so if they say that you know untouchability is considered to be exploitation that statement is correct they say which of the following are envisaged what is the meaning of the word envisaged okay thought about or spoken about by the constitution so by constitution it is prohibition of trafficking of in human beings and prohibition of employment of children factories and mines those two are the provisions under right against exploitation next question okay once again letter versus spirit okay so this is an example this question is a political theory question which you can decide by letter versus spirit now out of the following statement choose one of the bring out the principle underlying the cabinet form of government first statement and arrangement for minimizing the criticism against the government whose responsibilities are complex and hard to carry out to the satisfaction of all okay it is it is not about minimizing the criticism okay so first statement it is evident it is wrong a mechanism for speeding up the activities of the government whose responsibilities are increasing day by day of course this statement as such is correct for a cabinet system the purpose of cabinet as an institution this statement appears to be correct so you may think B is correct C a mechanism of parliamentary democracy for ensuring collective responsibility of the government to the people okay now why do we have see here see this is where once again underlying cabinet form of government now here there is no where cabinet form of government is defined in Indian constitution except we know in article 352 the word cabinet has been mentioned for what purpose to tell that you know during national emergency declaration signature should be obtained from all the cabinet ministers there is no definition of the word cabinet and here they have not used the cabinet as an institution here see it is a cabinet is a mechanism for speeding up the activities of the government whose responsibilities are increasing day by day but cabinet form of government they have given so the purpose you have to see spirit you have to answer by spirit okay so very simple political theory based questions know okay political theory based questions when they are asking go by the spirit and answer so here political theory cabinet form of government what is the spirit behind cabinet form of government to have collective responsibility but exactly there is a provision of the constitution is there then you answer by letter that is why I have added this point here very important if it is political theory you have to answer by spirit if it is provision of constitution you have to answer by letter now you know right to life against a private individual listen carefully right to life is there in article 21 but it is against a state not against private individual but logically if an individual is killed okay it is a very bad thing and you know the very sacrosanct thing the life itself is eliminated so life is a fundamental right whether it is eliminated by government or whether it is eliminated by a private individual but for practical purposes the constitution has said right to life and right to life is against state only not against private individual if private individual is murdering another person he will be subjected to legal right violation only case will be filed in an ordinary court and they will be continuing with the prosecution but when state kills an individual it will be seen as violation of fundamental right and the matter will be taken up by the supreme court directly or the high court directly okay that is the difference see by spirit by political theory right to life is there against state as well as private individual right because the private individual also cannot kill another individual state also cannot kill but for constitutional provision they are saying right to life is a fundamental right according to article 21 it is not available against private individual so when there is a explicit provision right to life article 21 which says that it is not against private individual now whether you have to go by the spirit of the provision or letter of the provision you have to go by the letter of the provision because there is explicit constitutional provision you can apply only spirit of the provision only when there is a political theory concepts political concept like democracy federalism cabinet form of government etc etc okay so when you have a dilemma between b and c the answer would be c for question number 14 okay then which of the following is not a feature of Indian federalism okay now this is also a political theory okay now here even though federalism is a political theory now they have clearly mentioned Indian federalism keyword okay now should be answer based on the letter of the constitution or spirit of the constitution since you have they have said Indian federalism and they have used the constitutional provisions you go by letter here because actually if you say a federal country there should be equal representation in Rajshaba but unequal representation in Rajshaba is a unique feature for Indian federalism so here you have to go by the spirit of the Indian constitution sorry letter of the Indian constitution because the provisions are given there is an independent judiciary India yes powers has been clearly divided between the center and state yes the unequal representation Rajshaba yes okay so three statements would be correct it is the result of agreement among the federating units usually a federalism this statement is correct but by looking at the letter of Indian constitution this statement is not correct why because in Indian federalism is based on the principle of holding together not coming together okay so whenever there is a common question political theory question like federalism democracy is they put the India filter okay and in the options you have provisions in the constitution then it means it is a question not based on political theory it is a based on constitutional provision so you have to go by the letter