Question 1

Statement I: The Constitution of India describes India as an 'indestructible union of destructible states'.
Statement II: The Parliament of India can form new states or alter the areas, boundaries or names of existing states by a simple majority and without the consent of the concerned state legislature.

Accepted Answer

Both Statement I and Statement II are correct and Statement II is the correct explanation of Statement I.. Statement I is correct as India is described as an 'indestructible union of destructible states'. Statement II is also correct because Article 3 of the Constitution empowers the Parliament to alter the political map of India by a simple majority, and the views of the state legislature are not binding. This power of the Parliament to destroy the existence of states without their consent is the reason why India is termed a union of 'destructible states', making Statement II the correct explanation for Statement I.

Question 2

With reference to the procedure for the formation of a new state by altering the boundary of an existing state, consider the following statements:
1. A bill for this purpose can be introduced in either House of Parliament only on the prior recommendation of the President.
2. The President is bound to accept the views of the concerned state legislature if they are submitted within the specified time.
3. It is not necessary to make a fresh reference to the state legislature every time an amendment to the bill is moved and accepted in Parliament.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Accepted Answer

1 and 3 only. Statement 1 is correct; Article 3 requires the prior recommendation of the President to introduce such a bill. Statement 2 is incorrect; the President or Parliament is not bound by the views of the state legislature and may accept or reject them. Statement 3 is correct; the Constitution does not require a fresh reference to the state legislature for every amendment to the bill proposed and accepted in Parliament.

Question 3

Consider the following actions:
1. Admission of a state which is already in existence but not part of the Union of India.
2. Formation of a new Union Territory by uniting a part of a state with another Union Territory.
3. Ceding a part of Indian territory to a foreign country following a treaty.
4. Settlement of a boundary dispute between India and another country.
How many of the above actions require a constitutional amendment under Article 368?

Accepted Answer

Only one. Only one action requires a constitutional amendment. Action 1 (admission of a new state) is done under Article 2 and is explicitly excluded from the purview of Article 368 by Article 4. Action 2 (formation of a new UT) is done under Article 3 and is also excluded from Article 368. Action 4 (settlement of a boundary dispute) can be done by executive action and does not require a constitutional amendment, as ruled by the Supreme Court in 1969. Only Action 3 (cession of Indian territory to a foreign country) requires a constitutional amendment under Article 368, as held by the Supreme Court in the Berubari Union case (1960).

Question 4

Consider the following statements regarding the Union and its territory:
1. The expression ‘Territory of India’ is a wider expression than the ‘Union of India’.
2. The special provisions under Part XXI of the Constitution are applicable to certain states, overriding the general provisions relating to the states as a class.
3. The power of Parliament to diminish the area of a state under Article 3 also includes the power to cede Indian territory to a foreign country.
Which of the statements given above is/are NOT correct?

Accepted Answer

3 only. Statement 1 is correct; the 'Territory of India' includes states, union territories, and acquired territories, whereas the 'Union of India' includes only states. Statement 2 is correct; the text explicitly mentions that special provisions for states like Maharashtra, Gujarat, Nagaland, etc., override general provisions. Statement 3 is incorrect; the Supreme Court in the Berubari Union case (1960) held that the power to diminish the area of a state under Article 3 does not cover the cession of Indian territory to a foreign country, which requires a constitutional amendment under Article 368. The question asks for the incorrect statement.

Question 5

Consider the following pairs:
1. Article 2 : Formation of new states and alteration of areas, boundaries or names of existing states.
2. Article 3 : Admission or establishment of new states that are not part of the Union of India.
3. Article 4 : Laws made for admission of new states are not to be considered as amendments of the Constitution under Article 368.
How many of the pairs given above are correctly matched?

Accepted Answer

Only one pair. Pair 1 is incorrectly matched. Article 3 deals with the formation and alteration of existing states. Pair 2 is incorrectly matched. Article 2 deals with the admission or establishment of new states that are not already part of the Union. The descriptions for Articles 2 and 3 have been swapped. Pair 3 is correctly matched. Article 4 clarifies that laws made under Articles 2 and 3 can be passed by a simple majority and are not considered constitutional amendments under Article 368. Therefore, only one pair is correctly matched.

Question 6

Consider the following pairs regarding the four-fold classification of states and territories in the original Constitution of 1950:
1. Part A State : Mysore
2. Part B State : Saurashtra
3. Part C State : Coorg
4. Part D Territory : Andaman and Nicobar Islands
How many of the pairs given above are correctly matched?

Accepted Answer

Only three pairs. In the original 1950 Constitution, Mysore was a Part B state, not Part A. Saurashtra was a Part B state, Coorg was a Part C state, and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands were the sole Part D territory. Therefore, pairs 2, 3, and 4 are correctly matched.

Question 7

With reference to the integration of princely states after the Indian Independence Act (1947), consider the following statements:
1. Hyderabad was integrated into India by means of a referendum.
2. Junagarh was integrated through police action.
3. Kashmir acceded to India by signing the Instrument of Accession.
Which of the statements given above is/are NOT correct?

Accepted Answer

1 and 2 only. Statement 1 is incorrect; Hyderabad was integrated by means of police action. Statement 2 is incorrect; Junagarh was integrated by means of a referendum. Statement 3 is correct; Kashmir's ruler signed the Instrument of Accession to join India. The question asks for the incorrect statements.

Question 8

Consider the following two statements:
Statement I: The 100th Constitutional Amendment Act (2015) was enacted to give effect to the acquiring of certain territories by India and transfer of certain other territories to Bangladesh.
Statement II: This amendment modified the provisions in the First Schedule of the Constitution relating to the territories of Assam, West Bengal, Meghalaya, and Tripura.
Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above statements?

Accepted Answer

Both Statement I and Statement II are correct and Statement II is the correct explanation for Statement I.. Statement I correctly states the purpose of the 100th Amendment Act. Statement II correctly identifies the constitutional procedure used to achieve this purpose, which involved altering the First Schedule that defines the territories of the states. Therefore, both statements are correct, and Statement II provides the correct explanation for how the action in Statement I was constitutionally implemented.

Question 9

Consider the following events related to the renaming of states and union territories in India:
1. Madras was renamed as Tamil Nadu in 1969.
2. Mysore was renamed as Karnataka in 1973.
3. Uttaranchal was renamed as Uttarakhand in 2011.
4. Orissa was renamed as Odisha in 2006.
How many of the above statements are correct?

Accepted Answer

Only two. Statements 1 and 2 are correct. Madras was renamed Tamil Nadu in 1969, and Mysore was renamed Karnataka in 1973. Statement 3 is incorrect; Uttaranchal was renamed Uttarakhand in 2006. Statement 4 is incorrect; Orissa was renamed Odisha in 2011. Thus, only two statements are correct.

Question 10

With reference to the historical background of the India-Bangladesh land boundary settlement, consider the following statements:
1. The Nehru-Noon Agreement of 1958 was followed by the 9th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1960, to address the Berubari Union issue.
2. The 1974 Land Boundary Agreement between India and Bangladesh was not ratified for a long time because it required a Constitutional Amendment.
3. The 2011 Protocol, which forms an integral part of the 1974 agreement, was prepared with the concurrence of the concerned state governments.
Which of the statements given above are correct?

Accepted Answer

1, 2 and 3. All three statements are correct. The Nehru-Noon Agreement led to the 9th Amendment for the Berubari Union. The 1974 agreement required a constitutional amendment for the transfer of territory, which caused a delay in its ratification. The 2011 Protocol, which finalized the details for the 1974 agreement, was prepared with the support and concurrence of the affected state governments (Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura, and West Bengal).

Question 11

Consider the following statements:
Statement I: The JVP Committee was appointed in December 1948 due to widespread resentment against the recommendations of the S.K. Dhar Commission.
Statement II: The creation of the Andhra state on a linguistic basis forced the Government of India to appoint the States Reorganisation Commission under Fazl Ali.

Accepted Answer

Both Statement I and Statement II are correct but Statement II is NOT the correct explanation for Statement I.. Both statements are historically accurate events that occurred in the process of state reorganization. Statement I correctly identifies the reason for the JVP Committee's formation. Statement II correctly identifies the trigger for the Fazl Ali Commission's appointment. However, the second event is a separate development and not an explanation for the first.

Question 12

Consider the following pairs regarding commissions on state reorganization and their members:
1. S.K. Dhar Commission : Chaired by S.K. Dhar
2. JVP Committee : Included K.M. Panikkar
3. States Reorganisation Commission : Included H.N. Kunzru
How many of the pairs given above are correctly matched?

Accepted Answer

Only two pairs. Pair 1 is correct as the Linguistic Provinces Commission was chaired by S.K. Dhar. Pair 3 is correct as H.N. Kunzru was a member of the States Reorganisation Commission along with Fazl Ali and K.M. Panikkar. Pair 2 is incorrect; the JVP Committee consisted of Jawaharlal Nehru, Vallabhbhai Patel, and Pattabhi Sitaramayya, not K.M. Panikkar.

Question 13

Consider the following statements regarding the recommendations of various commissions on state reorganization:
1. The S.K. Dhar Commission recommended the reorganisation of states primarily on the basis of linguistic factor.
2. The JVP Committee formally accepted language as the basis for reorganisation of states.
3. The Fazl Ali Commission rejected the theory of 'one language-one state'.
Which of the statements given above is/are NOT correct?

Accepted Answer

1 and 2 only. Statement 1 is incorrect; the Dhar Commission recommended reorganization based on administrative convenience, not language. Statement 2 is incorrect; the JVP Committee formally rejected language as the basis for reorganization. Statement 3 is correct; the Fazl Ali Commission, while accepting language as a basis, explicitly rejected the 'one language-one state' theory. The question asks for the incorrect statements.

Question 14

With reference to the States Reorganisation Commission (1953) chaired by Fazl Ali, consider the major factors it identified for any scheme of reorganisation of states:
1. Preservation and strengthening of the unity and security of the country.
2. The theory of 'one language-one state'.
3. Financial, economic and administrative considerations.
4. Planning and promotion of the welfare of the people.
How many of the above were among the factors identified by the commission?

Accepted Answer

Only three. The Fazl Ali Commission identified four major factors: (1) Preservation of unity and security, (2) Linguistic and cultural homogeneity, (3) Financial, economic, and administrative considerations, and (4) Welfare planning. The list in the question includes items 1, 3, and 4 from the commission's report. However, item 2, 'the theory of one language-one state', was explicitly rejected by the commission. Therefore, only three of the listed items were identified by the commission.

Question 15

Consider the following pairs:
1. S.K. Dhar Commission : Recommended reorganisation based on administrative convenience.
2. JVP Committee : Formally rejected language as the basis for reorganisation.
3. Fazl Ali Commission : Recommended the theory of 'one language-one state'.
How many of the pairs given above are correctly matched?

Accepted Answer

Only two pairs. Pair 1 is correctly matched; the Dhar Commission prioritized administrative convenience over linguistic factors. Pair 2 is correctly matched; the JVP Committee also rejected language as the basis for state reorganization. Pair 3 is incorrectly matched; the Fazl Ali Commission broadly accepted language as a basis but explicitly rejected the 'one language-one state' theory. Thus, only the first two pairs are correct.

Question 16

Consider the following statements:
Statement I: The creation of the state of Haryana in 1966 was a response to the demand for a separate 'Punjabi Subha'.
Statement II: The Shah Commission (1966) recommended the division of the state of Punjab into Punjabi-speaking areas, Hindi-speaking areas, and hill areas.

Accepted Answer

Both Statement I and Statement II are correct and Statement II is the correct explanation for Statement I.. Statement I is correct as the demand for a separate Sikh homeland, 'Punjabi Subha', led by the Akali Dal, was the primary political driver. Statement II is also correct as the Shah Commission was appointed to address this demand, and its recommendation was to bifurcate the state along linguistic lines, creating Punjab, Haryana, and merging hill areas with Himachal Pradesh. Thus, Statement II provides the official mechanism and rationale that fulfilled the demand mentioned in Statement I.

Question 17

Consider the following pairs:
(Territory) : (Constitutional Amendment Act that made it a Union Territory)
1. Dadra and Nagar Haveli : 10th Constitutional Amendment Act
2. Goa, Daman and Diu : 12th Constitutional Amendment Act
3. Puducherry : 14th Constitutional Amendment Act
4. Meghalaya (as an autonomous state) : 22nd Constitutional Amendment Act
How many of the pairs given above are correctly matched?

Accepted Answer

All four pairs. All four pairs are correctly matched. The 10th Amendment Act of 1961 incorporated Dadra and Nagar Haveli as a Union Territory. The 12th Amendment Act of 1962 constituted Goa, Daman and Diu as a Union Territory. The 14th Amendment Act of 1962 made the French establishments of Puducherry a Union Territory. The 22nd Amendment Act of 1969 created Meghalaya as an 'autonomous state' or 'sub-state' within Assam.

Question 18

Consider the following statements regarding the formation of new states after 1956:
1. Gujarat was established as the 15th state of the Indian Union by dividing the bilingual state of Bombay.
2. Nagaland was formed as the 16th state by taking the Naga Hills and Tuensang area out of the state of Assam.
3. The Union Territory of Himachal Pradesh was elevated to the status of a state before Haryana was created as a state.
Which of the statements given above is/are NOT correct?

Accepted Answer

3 only. Statement 1 is correct; Gujarat was formed in 1960 as the 15th state. Statement 2 is correct; Nagaland was formed in 1963 as the 16th state. Statement 3 is incorrect; Haryana was created as the 17th state in 1966, whereas Himachal Pradesh was elevated to statehood (18th state) later, in 1971.

Question 19

Consider the following territories:
1. Himachal Pradesh
2. Manipur
3. Tripura
4. Arunachal Pradesh
5. Goa
How many of the territories mentioned above were Union Territories immediately before being conferred the status of a full-fledged state?

Accepted Answer

All five. All five territories listed were Union Territories before attaining statehood. Himachal Pradesh was a UT until 1971. Manipur and Tripura were UTs until 1972. Arunachal Pradesh was a UT from 1972 until 1987. Goa was part of the Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu until it became a state in 1987.

Question 20

With reference to the reorganisation of North-East India, consider the following statements:
1. In 1972, Manipur and Tripura were elevated from Union Territories to full-fledged states.
2. Meghalaya was first created as a sub-state within Assam before it attained full statehood in 1972.
3. The Mizoram Peace Accord of 1986 led to the immediate creation of Mizoram as the 23rd state of the Indian Union.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Accepted Answer

1 and 2 only. Statement 1 is correct; the reorganisation in 1972 granted statehood to the UTs of Manipur and Tripura. Statement 2 is also correct; the 22nd Amendment Act of 1969 created Meghalaya as an autonomous state within Assam, which did not satisfy local aspirations, leading to full statehood in 1972. Statement 3 is incorrect; while the Mizoram Peace Accord was signed in 1986, the state of Mizoram came into being in 1987, not immediately upon the signing of the accord.

Question 21

With reference to the integration of Sikkim into the Indian Union, consider the following statements:
1. Following the lapse of British paramountcy in 1947, Sikkim immediately became a full-fledged state of India.
2. The 35th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1974, conferred upon Sikkim the status of an 'associate state'.
3. The transition of Sikkim to a full-fledged state was preceded by a referendum where the people voted for the abolition of the institution of Chogyal.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Accepted Answer

2 and 3 only. Statement 1 is incorrect; Sikkim became a protectorate of India in 1947, not a full-fledged state. Statement 2 is correct; the 35th Amendment Act of 1974 introduced the unique status of an 'associate state' for Sikkim. Statement 3 is also correct; a referendum in 1975 showed popular support for abolishing the Chogyal's rule and fully integrating with India, leading to the 36th Amendment Act.

Question 22

Consider the following statements regarding the constitutional amendments related to Sikkim:
1. The 35th Amendment Act added Article 2-A and a new 10th Schedule to the Constitution.
2. The 36th Amendment Act made Sikkim the 22nd state of the Indian Union.
3. Article 371-F, containing special provisions for Sikkim, was repealed by the 36th Amendment Act.
Which of the statements given above is/are NOT correct?

Accepted Answer

3 only. Statements 1 and 2 are correct. The 35th Amendment Act (1974) introduced Article 2-A and the 10th Schedule for the 'associate state' status. The 36th Amendment Act (1975) made Sikkim the 22nd full-fledged state. Statement 3 is incorrect; the 36th Amendment Act added Article 371-F to provide for special provisions for Sikkim; it did not repeal it. It repealed Article 2-A and the 10th Schedule.

Question 23

Consider the following pairs:
(Newly Formed State : Parent State)
1. Chhattisgarh : Madhya Pradesh
2. Uttarakhand : Bihar
3. Jharkhand : Uttar Pradesh
4. Telangana : Andhra Pradesh
How many of the pairs given above are correctly matched?

Accepted Answer

Only two pairs. Pair 1 is correct: Chhattisgarh was created from Madhya Pradesh in 2000. Pair 2 is incorrect: Uttarakhand was created from Uttar Pradesh, not Bihar. Pair 3 is incorrect: Jharkhand was created from Bihar, not Uttar Pradesh. Pair 4 is correct: Telangana was created from Andhra Pradesh in 2014. Therefore, only two pairs are correctly matched.

Question 24

Consider the following actions related to state reorganisation:
1. Creation of the first linguistic state of India by taking Telugu-speaking areas from Madras state.
2. Bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir into two separate union territories.
3. Creation of the states of Chhattisgarh, Uttarakhand, and Jharkhand.
4. Merger of Telugu-speaking areas of Hyderabad state with the Andhra state.
How many of the above actions were carried out by a 'Reorganisation Act' mentioned in the text?

Accepted Answer

Only three. Action 1 was done by the Andhra State Act (1953). Action 2 was done by the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act (2019). Action 4 was done by the States Reorganisation Act (1956). Action 3, the creation of Chhattisgarh, Uttarakhand, and Jharkhand, was done through the Madhya Pradesh Reorganisation Act, Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, and Bihar Reorganisation Act respectively in 2000. The question asks how many actions were carried out by a 'Reorganisation Act' mentioned in the text. The text mentions the States Reorganisation Act (1956), the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act (2014), and the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act (2019). These acts correspond to actions 4, the creation of Telangana (not listed but implied in the act's name), and 2. However, the creation of Chhattisgarh, Uttarakhand, and Jharkhand also involved specific reorganisation acts. The question is broad. Let's re-evaluate based on the text. The text mentions: States Reorganisation Act (1956), Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act (2014), and Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act (2019). These correspond to actions 4, part of Telangana's history, and 2. The creation of Chhattisgarh, Uttarakhand, and Jharkhand (action 3) also required reorganisation acts, even if not named in full. Thus, actions 2, 3, and 4 were all results of specific Reorganisation Acts. Action 1 was by the 'Andhra State Act'. Therefore, three of the listed actions were carried out by acts with 'Reorganisation' in their title or function.

Question 25

Consider the following statements:
Statement I: The Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, bifurcated the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir into two separate union territories.
Statement II: The special status of Jammu and Kashmir was abolished in 2019 by a presidential order that superseded the 1954 order and extended all provisions of the Indian Constitution to the region.
Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above statements?

Accepted Answer

Both Statement I and Statement II are correct but Statement II is NOT the correct explanation for Statement I.. Both statements are factually correct. Statement I accurately describes the outcome of the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019. Statement II correctly explains the process of abolishing the special status via a Presidential Order. However, Statement II is not the direct explanation for Statement I. The abolition of special status (Statement II) was a constitutional prerequisite that enabled the Parliament to pass the Reorganisation Act (Statement I). The act itself, which determined the specific institutional design of two UTs, was a subsequent legislative action, not a direct consequence explained by the presidential order.

Question 26

Consider the following pairs:
Act : Provision
1. Andhra State Act, 1953 : Formed the first linguistic state.
2. Bombay Reorganisation Act, 1960 : Formed the State of Nagaland.
3. Chandernagore (Merger) Act, 1954 : Merged a former French enclave into West Bengal.
4. Assam (Alteration of Boundaries) Act, 1951 : Transferred territory from Assam to Bhutan.
How many of the pairs given above are correctly matched?

Accepted Answer

Only three pairs. Pair 2 is incorrect. The Bombay Reorganisation Act, 1960, formed the State of Gujarat by separating Gujarati-speaking regions from Bombay. The State of Nagaland was formed by the State of Nagaland Act, 1962. Pairs 1, 3, and 4 are correctly matched as per the provided data.

Question 27

Consider the following statements:
Statement I: The States Reorganization Act, 1956, was a pivotal legislation that reorganized state boundaries primarily on a linguistic basis.
Statement II: The Act of 1956 effectively abolished the four-fold classification of states (Parts A, B, C, and D) that existed in the original Constitution, replacing it with a system of states and union territories.

Accepted Answer

Both Statement I and Statement II are correct but Statement II is not the correct explanation for Statement I.. Both statements are correct. The States Reorganization Act, 1956, did reorganize states linguistically, creating 14 states and 6 union territories. This new structure replaced the original constitutional classification of states into Parts A, B, C, and D. However, Statement II describes a consequence or a structural change resulting from the Act, not the primary reason or explanation for why the reorganization (Statement I) was undertaken.

Question 28

With reference to the reorganization of states in India, consider the following statements:
1. The State of Nagaland was formed by carving out the Naga Hills - Tuensang Area from Assam.
2. The Bombay Reorganisation Act, 1960, led to the formation of the State of Gujarat from Gujarati-speaking regions of Bombay.
3. The first linguistic state, Andhra, was formed by taking Telugu-speaking areas from the State of Bombay.
Which of the statements given above is/are NOT correct?

Accepted Answer

3 only. Statement 3 is incorrect. The Andhra State Act, 1953, formed the state of Andhra by taking Telugu-speaking areas from Madras State, not Bombay State. Statements 1 and 2 are correct descriptions of the formation of Nagaland and Gujarat, respectively.

Question 29

Consider the following legislative acts:
1. Bihar and West Bengal (Transfer of Territories) Act, 1956
2. State of Nagaland Act, 1962
3. Himachal Pradesh and Bilaspur (New State) Act, 1954
4. Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh (Transfer of Territories) Act, 1959
How many of the acts listed above resulted in the formation of a new state, rather than just a transfer of territories between existing states?

Accepted Answer

Only two. Two of the listed acts resulted in the formation of a new state. The State of Nagaland Act, 1962, formed the new State of Nagaland. The Himachal Pradesh and Bilaspur (New State) Act, 1954, formed the new State of Himachal Pradesh. The other two acts only involved the transfer of territories between existing states.

Question 30

Consider the following statements regarding the legislative acts related to state reorganization:
1. The formation of the first linguistic state in 1953 preceded the comprehensive linguistic reorganization of states in 1956.
2. Not all boundary alterations during this period involved the creation of new states; some were limited to ceding territory to a foreign country or transferring territories between existing Indian states.
3. The State of Gujarat and the State of Nagaland were both formed by bifurcating the State of Assam.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Accepted Answer

1 and 2 only. Statement 3 is incorrect. The State of Gujarat was formed by separating Gujarati-speaking regions from Bombay State, not Assam. The State of Nagaland was formed from territory taken from Assam. Statement 1 is correct as the Andhra State Act (1953) came before the States Reorganization Act (1956). Statement 2 is also correct, as evidenced by the Assam (Alteration of Boundaries) Act, 1951 (ceding territory to Bhutan) and the Bihar and West Bengal (Transfer of Territories) Act, 1956.

Question 31

With reference to the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, which reorganised the state into two Union Territories, consider the following statements regarding the constitutional procedure under Article 3:

1. The bill for such reorganisation could only be introduced in Parliament with the prior recommendation of the President.
2. The President was constitutionally bound to accept the views expressed by the Jammu and Kashmir state legislature on the bill.
3. The power of Parliament to diminish the area of a state under Article 3 includes the power to cede Indian territory to a foreign country.
4. The law enacting the reorganisation is not considered a constitutional amendment under Article 368.

How many of the above statements are correct?

Accepted Answer

Only two. Statement 1 is correct as per Article 3. Statement 4 is correct as per Article 4. Statement 2 is incorrect; the President or Parliament is not bound by the views of the state legislature. Statement 3 is incorrect; the Supreme Court in the Berubari Union case (1960) held that ceding territory to a foreign country requires a constitutional amendment under Article 368, and is not covered under Article 3. Therefore, only two statements are correct.

Question 32

Considering the historical evolution of state reorganization in India, match the following commissions/committees with their primary recommendations.

**List-I (Commission/Committee)**
1. S.K. Dhar Commission
2. JVP Committee
3. Fazl Ali Commission

**List-II (Primary Recommendation)**
A. Formally rejected language as the basis for reorganization, prioritizing national unity and security.
B. Recommended reorganization based on administrative convenience rather than linguistic factors.
C. Broadly accepted language as a basis but rejected the 'one language-one state' theory, emphasizing India's unity as the primary consideration.

Select the correct match:

Accepted Answer

1-B, 2-A, 3-C. The S.K. Dhar Commission (1948) recommended reorganization based on administrative convenience (1-B). In response to resentment, the JVP Committee (1949), comprising Nehru, Patel, and Sitaramayya, formally rejected language as the basis (2-A). Finally, the Fazl Ali Commission (1955) took a balanced approach, accepting language as a basis but prioritizing national unity and other factors, rejecting the 'one language-one state' formula (3-C).

Question 33

Considering the historical process of Sikkim's integration into India and the ongoing demands from Ladakh, how many of the following statements present a correct comparative analysis?

1. Sikkim's integration involved a unique, albeit short-lived, 'associate state' status via the 35th Amendment, a constitutional experiment that provides a historical precedent for creating special autonomy arrangements.
2. While Sikkim was granted special provisions under Article 371-F after becoming a full-fledged state, Ladakh's primary demand is for inclusion in the Sixth Schedule, a framework originally designed for specific northeastern states.
3. The abolition of the Chogyal institution in Sikkim was confirmed by a referendum, a democratic process that resonates with the calls for greater public participation and representation in Ladakh following its transition to a Union Territory without a legislature.
4. The repeal of Article 2-A and the 10th Schedule (related to Sikkim) by the 36th Amendment demonstrates that constitutional provisions for a state's status can be transitional, a concept relevant to the evolving discussions about Ladakh's future governance structure.

Accepted Answer

All four. All four statements provide a correct comparative analysis. Statement 1 is correct as the 35th Amendment did create a unique 'associate state' status for Sikkim. Statement 2 correctly contrasts the specific constitutional safeguards sought by Ladakh (Sixth Schedule) with those granted to Sikkim (Article 371-F). Statement 3 accurately links the use of a referendum in Sikkim to the current democratic aspirations in Ladakh. Statement 4 correctly points out that the repeal of Sikkim-specific articles shows that constitutional arrangements can be temporary, which is a relevant point in the context of Ladakh's demands.

Question 34

Considering the constitutional processes for altering the status of states, analyze the following statements:

1. The integration of Sikkim as a full-fledged state was finalized through the 36th Constitutional Amendment Act, which also introduced special provisions for it under Article 371-F.
2. The change in Jammu and Kashmir's special status in 2019 was accomplished through a Constitutional Amendment Act that formally repealed Article 370 from the Constitution's text.
3. Sikkim was briefly granted a unique 'associate state' status via the 35th Amendment, an experiment that was subsequently undone.
4. The bifurcation of the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir into two Union Territories was enacted through a Reorganisation Act, a legislative tool also used for creating new states like Telangana from Andhra Pradesh.

How many of the above statements are correct?

Accepted Answer

Only three. Statement 2 is incorrect. The special status of J&K was altered by making Article 370 inoperative through a Presidential Order, not by a Constitutional Amendment Act that repealed it. The article, though inoperative, remains in the text of the Constitution. Statements 1, 3, and 4 are correct. Sikkim's full statehood came via the 36th Amendment (Statement 1), its 'associate state' status via the 35th Amendment (Statement 3), and Reorganisation Acts are standard legislative procedures for altering state boundaries (Statement 4).

Union and its Territory

Unlock All Questions