PYQ Bank — UPSC Civil Services

The Doctrine of Pleasure refers to the constitutional position of ministers holding office during the pleasure of the President/Governor.

Statement 1 is incorrect because the President cannot independently dismiss a minister; this requires the PM's recommendation, as per constitutional conventions and practice.

Statement 2 is correct as State Ministers hold office during the pleasure of the President as per Article 164.

Statement 3 is correct because landmark judgments have restricted the arbitrary exercise of this doctrine, establishing that dismissal cannot be arbitrary or violate natural justice principles.

Statement 1 is incorrect; only amendments affecting federal provisions (Article 368) require State ratification.

General amendments need only Parliamentary approval.

Statement 2 is correct—Basic Structure amendments require 2/3 majority in both Houses but do NOT require State ratification, as established by judicial precedent.

Statement 3 is incorrect because while amendment procedures can be amended, alterations to the basic amendment mechanism itself are restricted by the Basic Structure doctrine following the Kesavananda Bharati judgment, creating an implicit limitation on amending Article 368 itself.

The Golaknath case established that Parliament's amending power under Article 368, though broad, is not absolute and cannot be used to abridge or take away Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution.

This judgment held that constitutional amendments were 'laws' subject to Article 13, making any amendment curtailing Fundamental Rights void.

However, this decision was later overturned by the 24th Amendment Act (1971), which clarified that amendments are not 'laws' under Article 13.

The question asks about the principle established by Golaknath itself, not subsequent developments.

Under the Indian Constitution's concurrent list (List III), both Union and States can legislate.

However, Article 254 establishes a hierarchy: if there is a conflict between Union and State law on a concurrent subject, the Union law prevails.

But States retain significant residual powers—they can legislate on concurrent matters where Parliament has not yet legislated, or they can provide more stringent provisions complementing Union law.

This maintains the federal character while establishing Union supremacy in case of direct conflict, rather than absolute dominance or complete State autonomy.

Statement 1 is incorrect; the Constitution does not restrict the President to returning a bill only once—theoretically, a bill could be returned multiple times, though this is rare in practice.

Statement 2 is correct as per Article 111; if Parliament passes the same bill again (whether with or without amendments) after Presidential return, the President cannot withhold assent and must give it.

Statement 3 is correct; the President's power under Article 111 applies to all bills, including Private Members' Bills, making the President a constitutional check on both Government and Private legislation.

Dharmashastras like Manusmriti served as normative texts providing guidelines for conduct, governance, and legal matters, but archaeological and epigraphic evidence shows that actual social practices varied considerably based on regional, temporal, and local contexts.

The texts represented idealized frameworks rather than descriptive accounts of what was universally practiced.

Options A, C, and D misrepresent the nature and scope of these foundational texts.

Chakravartin literally means 'one who turns the wheel' and represented the ideal of a universal ruler in Indian political theory, whose sovereignty was justified by adherence to Chakravartin-defined duties and dharma rather than force alone.

This concept influenced political aspirations and legitimacy frameworks throughout Indian history, from the Mauryas to later kingdoms.

The term embodied a philosophical rather than purely military conception of imperial authority.

Statement 2 is correct—the Bhakti Movement fundamentally emphasized direct devotional relationship with the divine, reducing the role of Brahmanical ritualism and priestly intermediaries.

Statement 1 is incorrect as many Bhakti teachers engaged with Vedic traditions selectively rather than uniformly rejecting them.

Statement 3 is incorrect because Bhakti movements actively attracted lower-caste and marginalized communities, as evidenced by saints like Ravidas and Kabir, making it socially more inclusive than brahminical orthodoxy.

The movement's democratic spiritual approach was indeed revolutionary for medieval society.

The Subsidiary Alliance was a sophisticated mechanism that brought Indian states under British control through enforced military presence, treaty obligations, and financial burdens, without necessarily annexing territories immediately—achieving hegemony through structural dependence rather than conquest alone.

This system was more efficient than direct annexation as it used Indian resources and rulers' compliance to expand British dominion, creating a buffer of nominally independent but practically subordinate states.

It represented an evolution in colonial strategy that would become the template for much of British Indian expansion in the nineteenth century.

Anekantavada emphasized that truth could be perceived from multiple perspectives, fostering intellectual pluralism that influenced how Jain kingdoms approached governance and coexistence with other faith communities—yet this philosophical openness did not automatically produce democratic institutions but rather created space for relatively greater tolerance and institutional diversity within monarchical structures.

Mauryan Emperor Ashoka and other Jain-influenced rulers demonstrated this tendency toward acknowledging multiple traditions while maintaining centralized authority.

The principle had real political consequences in promoting religious tolerance and accommodating diverse practices, even if it did not fundamentally alter autocratic governance systems.