Answer: Option A. -> 3 only
:
A
Explanation:
Statement 1 is correct: The Council of Ministers is collectively responsible to the LokSabha. This provision means that a Ministry which loses confidence in the Lok Sabha is obliged to resign. The principle indicates that the ministry is an executive committee of the Parliament and it collectively governs on behalf of the Parliament. Collective responsibility is based on the principle of the solidarity of the cabinet. It implies that even if a single minister loses confidence of the House, it leads to the resignation of the entire Council of Ministers.
Statement 2 is correct: The Prime Minister acts as a link between the Council of Ministers on the one hand and the President as well as the Parliament on the other. It is this role of the Prime Minister which led Pt. Nehru described him as ‘the linchpin of Government’.It is also the constitutional obligation of the Prime Minister to communicate to the President all decisions of the Council of Ministers relating to the administration of the affairs of the Union and proposals for legislation.
Statement 3 is incorrect: In India, the Prime Minister enjoys a pre-eminent place in the government. The Council of Ministers cannot exist without the Prime Minister. The Council comes into existence only after the Prime Minister has taken the oath of office.The death or resignation of the Prime Minister automatically brings about the dissolution of the Council of Ministers but the demise, dismissal or resignation of a minister only creates a ministerial vacancy.

Answer: Option D. -> 91st Amendment Act
:
D
Explanation:
Before the 91st Amendment Act (2003), the size of the Council of Ministers was determined according to the exigencies of time and requirements of the situation. But this led to a very large size of the Council of Ministers. Besides, when no party had a clear majority, there was a temptation to win over the support of the members of the Parliament by giving them ministerial positions as there was no restriction on the number of the members of the Council of Ministers. This was happening in many States Also. Therefore, an amendment was made that the Council of Ministers shall not exceed 15 percent of total number of members of the House of the People (or Assembly, in the case of the States).

Answer: Option B. -> Public Interest Litigation
:
B
Explanation:
The chief instrument through which judicial activism has flourished in India is Public Interest Litigation (PIL) or Social Action Litigation (SAL). In a normal course of law, an individual can approach the courts only if he/she has been personally aggrieved. That is to say, a person whose rights have been violated, or who is involved in a dispute,could move the court of law. This concept underwent a change around 1979. In 1979, the Court set the trend when it decided to hear a case where the case was filed not by the aggrieved persons but by others on their behalf. As this case involved a consideration of an issue of public interest, it and such other cases came to be known as public interest litigations. Around the same time, the Supreme Court also took up the case about the rights of prisoners. This opened the gates for large number of cases where public spirited citizens and voluntary organisations sought judicial intervention for protection of existing rights, betterment of life conditions of the poor,protection of the environment, and many other issues in the interest of the public. PIL has become the most important vehicle of judicial activism.

Answer: Option C. -> Directive Principles of State Policy
:
C
Explanation:
Articles 36-51 under Part-IV of Indian Constitution deal with Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP). They are borrowed from the constitution of Ireland which had copied it from the Spanish Constitution.
They are an ‘instrument of instructions’ which are enumerated in Government of India Act, 1935.They seek to establish economic and social democracy in the country. DPSPs are ideals which are not legally enforceable by the courts for their violation.

Answer: Option C. -> 2 only
:
C
Explanation:
Statement 1 is correct:

Statement 2 is Incorrect: Both the Houses of Parliament can exercise control over the executive by asking questions, introducing motion and resolutions.
Statement 3 is correct: The process for removal of the Vice President can be initiated in Rajya Sabha only. The Vice-President can be removed from office by a resolution of the Council of States (Rajya Sabha), passed by a majority of its members at that time and agreed to by the House of the People (Lok Sabha). A resolution for this purpose may be moved only after a notice of at least a minimum of 14 days has been given of such an intention.

Answer: Option C. -> Justice Venkatachaliah
:
C
Explanation:
In the late nineties, efforts were made to review the entire Constitution. In the year 2000 a commission to review the working of the Constitution was appointed by the Government of India under the chairmanship of a retired Chief Justice of the SupremeCourt, Justice Venkatachaliah. Opposition Parties and many other organisations boycotted the commission. While a lot of political controversy surrounded the commission, the commission stuck to the theory of basic structure and did not suggest any measures that would endanger the basic structure of the Constitution.

Answer: Option D. -> 3 only
:
D
Explanation:
The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) established in 1993, is an independent statutory body as per the provisions of the Protection of Human Rights Act of 1993 which was amended in 2006.
The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) is composed of a Chairperson and eight other members.Those eight members are:Four full-time members and Four deemed members.
Chairperson of the National Human Rights Commission is always a retired Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
There is no such obligation for other bodies mentioned.

Answer: Option C. -> Government of India Act, 1935
:
C
Explanation:
The Constitution of India is the backbone of democracy in our country. It is an umbrella of rights that gives the citizens an assurance of a free and fair society.
The Constituent Assembly adopted the Constitution on 26th November 1949 and it came into effect on 26th of January 1950.
Major portion of Indian Constitution has been borrowed from Government of India Act 1935:

• The Constitution of 1950 was a by-product of the legacy started by the Government of India Act 1935. This was the longest act passed by the British government with 321 sections and 10 schedules. This act had drawn its content from four sources – Report of the Simon Commission, discussions and deliberations at the Third Round Table Conference, the White Paper of 1933 and the reports of the Joint select committees.


• This act abolished the system of provincial dyarchy and suggested the establishment of a dyarchy at the centre and a ‘Federation of India’ consisting of the provinces of British India and most of the princely states.


• Most importantly, the act established the office of the Governor; all the executive powers and authority of the centre was vested in the Governor.

Some features of the Government of India Act 1935 were:

• Federal Legislature: The act suggested that the legislature will have two houses, i.e., the Council of States and a Federal Assembly. The Council of States was the upper house which was a permanent body with a tenure of three years and composed of 260 members of which 156 were representatives of British India and 101 of the Princely Indian states. The Federal Assembly was the lower house with a tenure expanding up to five years and its composition included 250 representatives of British India and 125 members from Princely states.


• Provincial Autonomy: This act enabled the Provincial Governments to be responsible only to Provincial Legislatures and helped them break free from external control and intrusion.


• It was with the establishment of this act that the powers between the centre and provinces were divided in terms of three lists – Federal list (59 items for the Centre), Provincial list (54 items for Provinces) and Concurrent list (36 items for both). The Residuary powers were handed over to the Viceroy.

Answer: Option A. -> It is dynamic, open to interpretation and responds to changing situations.
:
A
Explanation:
Almost like a living being, this document keeps responding to the situations and circumstances arising from time to time. Like a living being, the Constitution responds to experience. Even after so many changes in society, the Constitution continues to work effectively because of its ability, to be dynamic, to be open to interpretations and the ability to respond to the changing situation. This is a hallmark of a democratic constitution. In a democracy, practices and ideas keep evolving overtime and the society engages in experiments according to these. The Constitution, which protects democracy and yet allows for the evolution of new practices, becomes not only durable but also the object of respect from the citizens.

Answer: Option D. -> Writ Of Certiorari
:
D
Explanation:
The Supreme Court and the High Court can issue orders and give directives to the government for the enforcement of rights.The courts can issue various special orders known as writs.

• Habeas corpus: A writ of habeas corpus means that the court orders that the arrested person should be presented before it. It can also order to set free an arrested person if the manner or grounds of arrest are not lawful or satisfactory.


• Mandamus: This writ is issued when the court finds that a particular office holder is not doing legal duty and thereby is infringing on the right of an individual.


• Prohibition: This writ is issued by a higher court (High Court or Supreme Court) when a lower court has considered a case going beyond its jurisdiction.


• Quo Warranto: If the court finds that a person is holding office but is not entitled to hold that office, it issues the writ of quo warranto and restricts that person from acting as an office holder.


• Certiorari: Under this writ, the court orders a lower court or another authority to transfer a matter pending before it to the higher authority or court.