Quiz 1

For how long, a joint sitting of both the houses of Parliament may be convened to consider a bill which was passed by one house and pending in another house?

• 3 months

• 6 months

• 9 months

• 12 months

Answer explanation

If an ordinary bill has been rejected by any house of the parliament and if more than six months have elapsed, the President may summon a joint session for purpose of passing the bill. The bill is passed by a simple majority of a joint sitting.

Which among the following articles defines the Money Bill ?

• Article 110

• Article 111

• Article 112

• Article 113

Answer explanation

Only those financial bills which contain provisions exclusively on matters listed in article 110 of the constitution are called Money Bills.

Which amendment of the Constitution abolished the special privileges of ICS officers and empowered the Parliament to determine their service conditions?

• Twenty-eighth Amendment Act, 1972

• Twenty-fourth Amendment Act, 1971

• Twenty-ninth Amendment Act, 1972

• Twenty-sixth Amendment Act, 1971

Answer explanation

Constitution (28th) Amendment Act, 1972 abolished the special privileges of ICS officers and empowered the Parliament to determine their service conditions. It has provisions of deletion of article 314 and inclusion of a new article 312-A which confers powers on Parliament to vary or revoke by law the conditions of Civil Services.

Which among the following presidents of India represented India in UNESCO once in his lifetime?

• Dr. Shankar Dayal Sharma

• Dr. Rajendra Prasad

• Dr. S Radhakrishnan

• Giani Jail Singh

Answer explanation

Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan represented India at UNESCO in 1947.

In which case, Supreme court held that any Constitutional amendment that takes away or abridges a Fundamental Right conferred by Part III is void?

• SR Bommai Vs. Union of India, 1994

• Kesavananda Bharati Vs. State of Kerala (1973)

• Golaknath v. State of Punjab, 1967

• Minerva Mills v. Union of India, 1980

Answer explanation

In Golaknath v. State of Punjab case, the Supreme Court held that an amendment of the Constitution is a legislative process, and that an amendment under article 368 is “law” within the meaning of article 13 of the Constitution and therefore, if an amendment “takes away or abridged” a Fundamental Right conferred by Part III, it is void.