Question 1

Consider the following pairs:
Committee/Commission : Mandate/Head
1. Dinesh Goswami Committee : State Funding of Elections
2. Vohra Committee : Nexus between Crime and Politics
3. National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution : M.N. Venkatachaliah
4. Second ARC Report on Ethics in Governance : J.S. Verma
How many of the pairs given above are correctly matched?

Accepted Answer

Only two pairs. Pair 1 is incorrect; the Indrajit Gupta Committee dealt with State Funding of Elections. Pair 2 is correct. Pair 3 is correct. Pair 4 is incorrect; the Second ARC was headed by Veerappa Moily. Therefore, only two pairs (2 and 3) are correctly matched.

Question 2

Statement I: The 61st Constitutional Amendment Act of 1988 reduced the voting age for Lok Sabha and assembly elections from 21 years to 18 years.
Statement II: The amendment was enacted to provide the unrepresented youth of the country an opportunity to express their feelings and become a part of the political process.

Accepted Answer

Both Statement I and Statement II are correct and Statement II is the correct explanation for Statement I.. The 61st Amendment Act did lower the voting age to 18. The stated rationale for this change was to enfranchise the youth and allow them to participate in the democratic process. Thus, both statements are correct, and the second statement provides the correct context and reason for the first.

Question 3

A provision for countermanding elections in case of booth capturing was made in 1989. In this context,
how many of the following activities are included in the definition of 'booth capturing'?
1. Seizure of a polling station to make polling authorities surrender voting machines.
2. Preventing any elector from going to the polling station through threats.
3. Using electors' photo identity cards to check bogus voting.
4. Seizure of the place being used for the counting of votes.

Accepted Answer

Only three. The definition of booth capturing includes: seizure of a polling station, taking possession of it, threatening electors, and seizure of the counting place. The use of photo identity cards is a separate electoral reform to prevent impersonation and is not part of the definition of booth capturing. Therefore, three of the listed activities are included.

Question 4

With reference to the electoral reforms before 1996, consider the following statements:
1. The 61st Amendment Act reduced the voting age for both Lok Sabha and assembly elections.
2. A provision was made in 1989 to facilitate the use of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) in elections.
3. The number of proposers for Rajya Sabha elections was increased to 10 per cent of the electors of the constituency or ten such electors, whichever is more.
Which of the statements given above is/are NOT correct?

Accepted Answer

3 only. Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is incorrect; the provision increased the number of proposers to 10 per cent of the electors or ten electors, 'whichever is less', not 'whichever is more'. The question asks for the incorrect statement.

Question 5

With reference to the staff engaged in electoral duties, consider the following statements:
1. A 1988 provision deems that staff involved in preparing, revising, and correcting electoral rolls are on deputation to the Election Commission.
2. During their period of employment for electoral duties, these personnel are under the control, superintendence, and discipline of the Election Commission.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Accepted Answer

Both 1 and 2. Both statements are correct. A 1988 provision established that staff engaged in electoral roll work are considered to be on deputation to the Election Commission. During this period, they fall under the Commission's direct control, superintendence, and discipline to ensure the independence and integrity of the electoral process.

Question 6

With reference to the 1996 electoral reforms, consider the following statements regarding the nomination of candidates:
1. A candidate sponsored by a recognised political party requires their nomination to be subscribed by 10 registered electors of the constituency.
2. An independent candidate requires their nomination to be subscribed by 10 registered electors of the constituency.
3. This change in the number of proposers was introduced to discourage non-serious candidates from contesting elections.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Accepted Answer

2 and 3 only. Statement 1 is incorrect; a candidate from a recognised political party needs only one proposer. Statements 2 and 3 are correct. The reforms mandated that candidates not sponsored by a recognised party (including independents and those from registered-unrecognised parties) need 10 proposers from the constituency, a measure aimed at deterring non-serious contestants.

Question 7

As per the 1996 electoral reforms, a person convicted for certain offences under the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act of 1971 is disqualified from contesting elections for 6 years. Consider the following offences:
1. Insulting the National Flag
2. Insulting the Constitution of India
3. Preventing the singing of the National Anthem
4. Insulting a public servant on duty
How many of the above offences lead to such disqualification?

Accepted Answer

Only three. The 1996 reforms specified three offences under the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, that would lead to a six-year disqualification: insulting the National Flag, insulting the Constitution of India, and preventing the singing of the National Anthem. Insulting a public servant is not on this specific list.

Question 8

Consider the following statements regarding the key measures introduced in the 1996 electoral reforms:
1. The minimum gap between the last date for withdrawal of candidature and the polling date was reduced from 20 to 14 days.
2. A candidate is not eligible to contest from more than two constituencies at a general election.
3. By-elections are to be held within one year of the occurrence of a vacancy in any House of Parliament or a state legislature.
Which of the statements given above is/are NOT correct?

Accepted Answer

3 only. Statement 3 is incorrect. The reforms mandated that by-elections must be held within six months of a vacancy, not one year. Statements 1 and 2 are correct descriptions of the changes made in 1996.

Question 9

Consider the following pairs regarding provisions of the 1996 electoral reforms:
1. Death of a candidate : Election is automatically countermanded.
2. Paid holiday on polling day : Violation by an employer is punishable with a fine up to ₹500.
3. Prohibition of liquor sale : Applicable for 48 hours ending with the conclusion of the poll.
4. Carrying arms near polling station : A non-cognizable offence.
How many of the pairs given above are correctly matched?

Accepted Answer

Only two pairs. Pair 1 is incorrect; the election is not countermanded. Pair 4 is incorrect; carrying arms near a polling station was made a cognizable offence. Pairs 2 and 3 are correctly matched as per the reforms.

Question 10

Given below are two statements:
Statement I: The 1996 electoral reforms mandate that by-elections must be held within six months of the occurrence of a vacancy in a House of Parliament or a state legislature.
Statement II: The six-month rule for holding by-elections is not applicable if the remainder of the term of the member whose vacancy is to be filled is less than one year.
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 states the general rule for holding by-elections. Statement II states a specific exception to this rule. Statement II does not explain the reason or principle behind the rule in Statement I; it merely qualifies it. Therefore, both are correct, but II is not the explanation for I.

Question 11

As per a 2003 order by the Election Commission, a candidate seeking election to the Parliament or a State Legislature must furnish information on
which of the following matters on their nomination paper?
1. Details of any criminal offence for which they have been convicted, acquitted, or discharged.
2. Assets and liabilities of the candidate, their spouse, and their dependents.
3. The educational qualifications of the candidate.
4. Details of any pending case where charges have been framed for an offence punishable with imprisonment for one year or more, prior to six months of filing nomination.
How many of the above statements are correct?

Accepted Answer

Only three statements. The 2003 order requires candidates to furnish information on their criminal history, assets/liabilities, and educational qualifications. However, for pending cases, the disclosure requirement applies to offences punishable with imprisonment for two years or more, not one year. Therefore, statements 1, 2, and 3 are correct, but statement 4 is incorrect.

Question 12

Consider the following statements regarding the electoral reforms related to Rajya Sabha elections introduced in 2003:
1. The requirement for a candidate to be an elector in the state from where they are contesting was removed.
2. An open ballot system was introduced, replacing the secret ballot system.
3. Under the new system, an elector from a political party must show their marked ballot paper to the Returning Officer before casting the vote.
Which of the statements given above is/are NOT correct?

Accepted Answer

3 only. The 2003 reforms for Rajya Sabha elections did remove the domicile requirement and introduced an open ballot system. However, under the open ballot system, an elector belonging to a political party has to show the ballot paper to a nominated agent of that political party, not to the Returning Officer. Thus, statements 1 and 2 are correct, while statement 3 is incorrect.

Question 13

With reference to the provision for voting by postal ballot introduced in 1999, consider the following statements:
1. The Election Commission, in consultation with the government, is empowered to notify a class of persons who can vote by postal ballot.
2. A person belonging to such a notified class can choose to vote either by postal ballot or in person at a polling station.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Accepted Answer

1 only. Statement 1 is correct as the Election Commission notifies the eligible class of persons in consultation with the government. Statement 2 is incorrect because the provision specifies that persons belonging to the notified class can give their votes by postal ballot 'and not in any other manner'.

Question 14

Consider the following statements:
Statement I: A 2003 reform provided the facility for service voters belonging to the Armed Forces to opt for voting through a proxy.
Statement II: To avail the proxy voting facility, the service voter must appoint a proxy in a prescribed format and intimate the Election Commission of India.

Accepted Answer

Statement I is correct but Statement II is incorrect. Statement I is correct; the facility for proxy voting for service voters was introduced in 2003. Statement II is incorrect because the procedure requires the service voter to intimate the Returning Officer of the constituency, not the Election Commission of India directly, about the appointment of a proxy.

Question 15

Consider the following pairs of electoral reforms and the year they were introduced:
1. Increase in security deposit for Presidential election : 1997
2. Provision for proxy voting for service voters : 2003
3. Provision for voting by postal ballot for certain classes : 1999
4. Requisitioning of employees of local authorities for election duty : 1998
How many of the pairs given above are correctly matched?

Accepted Answer

All four pairs. All four pairs are correctly matched based on the timeline of electoral reforms. The security deposit for Presidential elections was increased in 1997. The provision to requisition employees of local authorities was made in 1998. The provision for postal ballots for certain classes was made in 1999. The facility for proxy voting for service voters was introduced in 2003.

Question 16

Consider the following statements regarding the 'None of the Above' (NOTA) option in Indian elections:
1. Votes polled for the NOTA option are taken into account for calculating the total valid votes for the purpose of determining the return of security deposits to candidates.
2. If the number of votes for NOTA is the highest, the election is nullified and a re-election is conducted.
3. The provision for NOTA was introduced on the ballot paper following a directive from the Supreme Court of India.
4. The People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) filed a petition seeking the right for an elector to not vote for any candidate secretly.
How many of the above statements are correct?

Accepted Answer

Only two statements. Statement 1 is incorrect; votes for NOTA are not counted for calculating total valid votes for security deposit purposes. Statement 2 is incorrect; even if NOTA gets the most votes, the candidate with the largest number of votes is declared elected. Statements 3 and 4 are correct; the Supreme Court directed the ECI to provide the NOTA option, following a petition by the PUCL.

Question 17

Statement I: In a 2013 ruling, the Supreme Court struck down Section 8(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which allowed convicted lawmakers a three-month period to appeal and get a stay on their conviction before disqualification took effect.
Statement II: The Court reasoned that the Constitution does not permit Parliament to enact different laws for the disqualification of a person being chosen as a member and for a sitting member continuing in the House.

Accepted Answer

Both Statement I and Statement II are correct and Statement II is the correct explanation for Statement I.. Both statements are correct. The Supreme Court did strike down Section 8(4) of the RPA, 1951. The core reasoning, as stated in Statement II, was that Articles 102 and 191 of the Constitution envision a single, uniform law for disqualification that applies equally to candidates and sitting members, and Parliament had exceeded its powers by creating a special saving provision for sitting members.

Question 18

With reference to recent reforms in political funding, consider the following statements:
1. The Electoral Bond Scheme was introduced as an alternative to cash donations, and these bonds do not carry the name of the buyer or payee.
2. A company can now donate any amount to a political party, and the obligation to report such donations in its profit and loss account has been removed.
3. Political parties are now permitted to receive funds from foreign companies after an amendment to the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act.
Which of the statements given above is/are NOT correct?

Accepted Answer

None of the above. All the statements are correct based on the reforms introduced. The Electoral Bond is a bearer instrument. The cap on corporate donations (7.5% of net profit) and the requirement to disclose them in P&L accounts were removed. The FCRA was amended to allow political parties to receive foreign funds by changing the definition of a foreign company. Since all statements are correct, the correct option is 'None of the above'.

Question 19

Consider the following statements regarding procedural electoral reforms:
1. An appellate authority was established within each district to hear appeals against the orders of Electoral Registration Officers.
2. A further appeal against an order of the District Magistrate concerning electoral roll updation lies before the Chief Electoral Officer of the state.
3. A three-month time limit was set for the specified authority to submit the case of a person found guilty of corrupt practice to the President for a decision on disqualification.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Accepted Answer

1, 2 and 3. All three statements are correct. A 2009 provision created a two-tier appeal process for electoral roll matters: first to the District Magistrate (or equivalent) and then a further appeal to the Chief Electoral Officer. Another 2009 provision simplified the disqualification procedure for corrupt practices by mandating a three-month time limit for the case to be submitted to the President.

Question 20

Consider the following pairs related to electoral reforms:
1. VVPATs : First used in a bye-election in Nagaland.
2. Exit Polls : Prohibition on publishing results during a period notified by the President of India.
3. Overseas Voting Rights : Conferred to Indian citizens who have not acquired the citizenship of any other country.
4. Security Deposit for Lok Sabha : Increased to ₹25,000 for general candidates.
How many of the above pairs are correctly matched?

Accepted Answer

Only three pairs. Pair 1 is correct; VVPATs were first used in the Noksen Assembly bye-election in Nagaland in 2013. Pair 2 is incorrect; the prohibition period for exit polls is notified by the Election Commission, not the President. Pair 3 is correct; the right is for Indian citizens abroad who have not acquired foreign citizenship. Pair 4 is correct; the security deposit for Lok Sabha general candidates was increased from ₹10,000 to ₹25,000. Therefore, three pairs are correctly matched.

Question 21

Consider the following states and union territories:
1. Arunachal Pradesh
2. Goa
3. Manipur
4. Puducherry
5. Sikkim
How many of the above have a maximum election expense limit of ₹20,00,000 for an Assembly Constituency?

Accepted Answer

All five. Based on the provided data, all five listed entities—Arunachal Pradesh, Goa, Manipur, Puducherry, and Sikkim—have a maximum election expense limit of ₹20,00,000 for their respective Assembly Constituencies.

Question 22

Consider the following statements regarding election expense limits:
1. The maximum election expense limit for a Parliamentary Constituency in the National Capital Territory of Delhi is ₹70,00,000.
2. The maximum election expense limit for an Assembly Constituency in Goa is ₹28,00,000.
3. Some Union Territories, such as Chandigarh and Lakshadweep, do not have a specified expense limit for Assembly Constituencies in the given data.
Which of the statements given above is/are NOT correct?

Accepted Answer

2 only. Statement 2 is incorrect. The maximum limit for an Assembly Constituency in Goa is ₹20,00,000, not ₹28,00,000. Statement 1 is correct as Delhi's Parliamentary limit is ₹70,00,000. Statement 3 is also correct as several UTs without legislatures have no specified Assembly election limit.

Question 23

Consider the following pairs regarding the maximum election expense limit for Parliamentary Constituencies:
1. Sikkim : ₹54,00,000
2. Bihar : ₹70,00,000
3. Puducherry : ₹70,00,000
4. Daman and Diu : ₹54,00,000
How many of the pairs given above are correctly matched?

Accepted Answer

Only three pairs. Pair 1 (Sikkim: ₹54,00,000) is correct. Pair 2 (Bihar: ₹70,00,000) is correct. Pair 4 (Daman and Diu: ₹54,00,000) is correct. Pair 3 is incorrect; the limit for Puducherry is ₹54,00,000, not ₹70,00,000. Therefore, only three pairs are correctly matched.

Question 24

Given below are two statements:
Statement I: Based on the provided data, there is a clear distinction in Parliamentary constituency expense limits, with smaller states and most union territories having a lower limit compared to larger states.
Statement II: The expense limit for an Assembly constituency is, in all listed cases, less than 50% of the Parliamentary constituency expense limit for that same state or union territory.
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.. Statement I is correct; larger states have a ₹70 lakh limit, while smaller states (like Goa, Sikkim) and most UTs have a ₹54 lakh limit. Statement II is also correct; the ratio is either ₹28 lakh / ₹70 lakh (40%) or ₹20 lakh / ₹54 lakh (approx. 37%) or ₹20 lakh / ₹70 lakh (approx. 28.5%). Both statements are correct observations from the data, but the ratio in Statement II does not explain the distinction mentioned in Statement I. They are independent facts.

Question 25

With reference to the structure of election expense limits in India, consider the following statements:
1. The expense limits for Parliamentary constituencies are uniform across all states of India.
2. All Union Territories with a legislative assembly have the same expense limit for their Assembly constituencies.
3. A single, uniform expense limit is prescribed for Assembly constituencies across all North-Eastern states.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Accepted Answer

None. All three statements are incorrect. Statement 1 is false because states like Arunachal Pradesh and Sikkim (₹54 lakh) have a different limit than states like Andhra Pradesh and Bihar (₹70 lakh). Statement 2 is false as Delhi (₹28 lakh) and Puducherry (₹20 lakh) have different limits. Statement 3 is false as Assam (₹28 lakh) has a different limit from other North-Eastern states like Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, and Tripura (all ₹20 lakh).

Question 26

Considering the ongoing debate on 'One Nation, One Election', match the following committees/reports on electoral reforms with their primary focus.

List-I (Committee/Report)
1. Indrajit Gupta Committee (1998)
2. Law Commission 170th Report (1999)
3. Tarkunde Committee (1974)
4. Dinesh Goswami Committee (1990)

List-II (Primary Focus)
A. Recommended lowering the voting age to 18 years.
B. Examined the issue of state funding of elections.
C. Suggested methods for holding simultaneous elections.
D. Proposed a comprehensive scheme of electoral reforms, including the use of EVMs and restrictions on candidate expenses.

Accepted Answer

1-B, 2-C, 3-A, 4-D. The Indrajit Gupta Committee (1998) specifically dealt with state funding of elections. The Law Commission's 170th Report (1999), as mentioned in the current affairs article, suggested methods for simultaneous elections. The Tarkunde Committee (1974) was one of the earliest to recommend lowering the voting age from 21 to 18, a reform later enacted by the 61st Amendment. The Dinesh Goswami Committee (1990) provided a wide range of recommendations, including on EVMs and candidate expenditure, which are foundational to the current electoral system.

Question 27

Consider the following pairs regarding committees on electoral reforms and their primary focus:

1. Tarkunde Committee (1974) : State Funding of Elections
2. Vohra Committee (1993) : Nexus between Crime and Politics
3. Indrajit Gupta Committee (1998) : Appointment of Election Commissioners
4. Ram Nath Kovind Committee (2024) : Feasibility of Simultaneous Elections

How many of the above pairs are correctly matched?

Accepted Answer

Only two pairs. Pair 1 is incorrect: The Tarkunde Committee recommended a collegium for appointing Election Commissioners. The Indrajit Gupta Committee focused on State Funding. Pair 3 is incorrect for the same reason. Pair 2 is correct: The Vohra Committee investigated the nexus between crime and politics. Pair 4 is correct: The recent High-Level Committee under former President Ram Nath Kovind examined the feasibility of 'One Nation, One Election'. Therefore, only two pairs are correctly matched.

Question 28

With reference to the regulation of exit polls in India, consider the following statements:
1. The legal provision prohibiting the conduct and publication of exit poll results during a specified period was introduced in 2009.
2. This prohibition is codified under Section 126A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
3. The penalty for violating the prohibition on exit polls includes potential imprisonment for up to two years, a fine, or both.

How many of the above statements are correct?

Accepted Answer

All three. All three statements are correct. The static content confirms that a provision prohibiting exit polls was made in 2009, with a penalty of imprisonment up to two years or a fine. The current affairs article specifies that this prohibition is detailed in Section 126A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Question 29

With reference to the Voter Verified Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) system in India, consider the following statements:
1. The Supreme Court, in the Subramanian Swamy vs ECI case (2013), declared VVPATs an 'indispensable requirement' for free and fair elections.
2. The Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 were amended in 2013 to legally facilitate the use of VVPATs with EVMs.
3. Following a 2019 Supreme Court directive, VVPAT slips from five randomly selected polling stations per assembly constituency are mandatorily matched with the EVM count.
4. A 2024 petition before the Supreme Court seeks to revert to the earlier system of matching VVPAT slips from only one EVM per assembly segment.

How many of the above statements are correct?

Accepted Answer

Only three. Statement 1 is correct, as confirmed by both the static text and the current affairs update. Statement 2 is also correct; the rules were amended in 2013. Statement 3 is correct; the Supreme Court in 2019 increased the mandatory verification from one EVM to five per constituency. Statement 4 is incorrect; the 2024 petition mentioned in the current affairs update seeks 100% verification of VVPAT slips, not a reversion to the one-EVM system. Therefore, three statements are correct.

Question 30

Considering the legal framework governing elections in India, as highlighted by recent discussions on undertrial disenfranchisement, evaluate the following statements:

1. Section 62(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which prohibits voting for persons in prison, makes an explicit exception for individuals held under preventive detention.
2. A 2013 amendment to the Representation of the People Act, 1951, affirmed that a person in jail or police custody does not cease to be an 'elector' and is therefore qualified to contest elections.
3. The Supreme Court's 2013 judgment striking down Section 8(4) of the RPA, 1951, led to the immediate disqualification of convicted lawmakers, thereby aligning their status with that of undertrials who are also barred from contesting elections.

How many of the above statements are correct?

Accepted Answer

Only two. Statement 1 is correct as the current affairs text explicitly mentions that the prohibition to vote does not apply to a person subjected to preventive detention. Statement 2 is correct as the static content (point 34) details the 2013 amendment which clarified that a person in custody remains an elector and can contest elections. Statement 3 is incorrect because while the first part is true (the SC did strike down Section 8(4)), the conclusion is false. Undertrials are NOT barred from contesting elections; in fact, the 2013 amendment mentioned in statement 2 confirms their right to contest. The paradox is that they can contest but cannot vote. Therefore, only two statements are correct.

Question 31

Considering the electoral reforms related to political funding undertaken between 2017 and 2018, which of the following statements is NOT correct?

1. The 2017 budget removed the cap on corporate donations, which was previously limited to 7.5% of a company's average net profit of the past three financial years.
2. The Electoral Bond Scheme, introduced in 2018, was designed to enhance transparency by mandating the disclosure of the donor's name on the promissory note.
3. The limit for anonymous cash donations that a political party can receive from an individual was reduced from ₹20,000 to ₹2,000.
4. A significant change was the removal of the obligation for a company to report its political contributions in its profit and loss account.

Accepted Answer

Statement 2. Statement 2 is incorrect. The static text explicitly states that an electoral bond is a 'bearer banking instrument and does not carry the name of the buyer or payee.' The current affairs article further highlights that the scheme's core controversy is its provision for donor anonymity, which is contrary to the idea of enhanced transparency.

Question 32

Considering the evolution of the NOTA (None of the Above) option in Indian elections, how many of the statements below are correct?

1. The Supreme Court's 2013 directive to introduce NOTA was a direct outcome of a petition filed by the People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) which argued that the preceding system under the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, violated voter secrecy.
2. As per the current rules established by the Election Commission, if NOTA receives the highest number of votes in a constituency, the election is declared null and void, and a fresh poll is conducted.
3. The NOTA option was first used in the 2014 General Elections across India.
4. In the *Shailesh Manubhai Parmar v. ECI* case (2018), the Supreme Court held that NOTA is unsuitable for indirect elections, such as those for the Rajya Sabha.

Accepted Answer

Only two. Statement 1 is correct; the PUCL petition in 2004 led to the 2013 Supreme Court judgment introducing NOTA to protect voter secrecy, which was compromised under Rule 49-O. Statement 4 is also correct; the Supreme Court ruled in 2018 that NOTA is not applicable to Rajya Sabha elections. Statement 2 is incorrect; currently, even if NOTA gets the most votes, the candidate with the next highest number of votes wins. The SC is only considering a petition for re-elections. Statement 3 is incorrect; NOTA was first used in the 2013 Assembly elections in five states, not the 2014 Lok Sabha elections. Therefore, only two statements are correct.

Question 33

Consider the following statements regarding the financial implications of the 'One Candidate, Multiple Constituencies' (OCMC) practice:

1. If a candidate wins Lok Sabha seats in both Uttar Pradesh and Arunachal Pradesh and subsequently vacates the Arunachal Pradesh seat, the expenditure limit for a new candidate in the resulting bye-election would be ₹54,00,000.
2. The proposal to make a vacating candidate bear bye-election costs aims to address the financial strain, which includes not only official expenses but also the significantly larger, often unaccounted, political party spending.
3. If a candidate wins Assembly seats in both Goa and Manipur and vacates the Goa seat, the expenditure limit for a new candidate in the resulting bye-election would be ₹20,00,000.

How many of the above statements are correct?

Accepted Answer

All three. Statement 1 is correct as the maximum limit for a Parliamentary Constituency in Arunachal Pradesh is ₹54,00,000. Statement 2 is correct as the current affairs text highlights the proposal to recover bye-election costs and mentions the larger issue of unaccounted party spending. Statement 3 is correct as the maximum limit for an Assembly Constituency in Goa is ₹20,00,000. Therefore, all three statements are correct.

Question 34

Considering the historical evolution of electoral reforms in India, match the following committees with their primary focus area.

**List-I (Committee)**
1. Tarkunde Committee (1974)
2. Vohra Committee (1993)
3. Indrajit Gupta Committee (1998)
4. M.N. Venkatachaliah Commission (2000-2002)

**List-II (Primary Focus)**
A. State Funding of Elections
B. Reviewing the working of the Constitution, including electoral laws
C. Nexus between Crime and Politics
D. Comprehensive reforms suggested by an unofficial committee during the 'Total Revolution' movement

Select the correct code:

Accepted Answer

1-D, 2-C, 3-A, 4-B. The Tarkunde Committee (1974) was an unofficial committee appointed by JP Narayan. The Vohra Committee (1993) focused on the crime-politics nexus. The Indrajit Gupta Committee (1998) dealt with state funding of elections. The National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution, headed by M.N. Venkatachaliah, undertook a comprehensive review.

Electoral Reforms

Unlock All Questions