Answer: (b) 2 only

1 — WRONG: ECI does NOT administer panchayat/municipal elections. Those are administered by State Election Commission (Art. 243K) ✗
2 — CORRECT: CEC can be removed only by Parliament on address, same manner as SC judge ✓
3 — WRONG: Decisions by majority — CEC has NO casting vote. All three members (CEC + 2 ECs) have equal vote ✗

Answer: (c)

CEC Act 2023 Selection Committee: PM (Chairperson) + Union Cabinet Minister nominated by PM + Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha (or leader of largest opposition party if no recognised LoP).

Option (a) was the composition ordered by SC in Anoop Baranwal (2023) — the interim arrangement that Parliament then overrode by removing the CJI.
The removal of CJI from the committee is the central controversy — reducing judicial check on what is now an essentially executive-controlled appointment.

Answer: (b)/(c) — 1 and 3 only

1 — CORRECT: MCC has NO statutory basis. Not backed by any Act of Parliament. Derives authority from Art. 324 plenary powers ✓
2 — WRONG: MCC comes into effect from the date ECI announces the election schedule (when election dates are declared) — NOT from nomination filing date ✗
3 — CORRECT: ECI can report MCC violations by ministers to President (for Union ministers) or Governor (for state ministers) who may take action ✓

Answer: (b)

Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2013): SC struck down Sec. 8(4) RPA 1951 which allowed sitting MPs/MLAs to continue in office while on appeal against conviction.

Current position: Any MP/MLA convicted with sentence of 2 years or more is immediately disqualified from the date of conviction — regardless of appeal. The stay must come from HC/SC on the conviction itself, not just on the sentence.

Disqualification lasts: from date of conviction + 6 more years after release from prison.

Answer: (d) 1, 2, 3 and 4

1 — CORRECT: After Abhiram Singh (2017, 7-judge bench), appeal on ground of voters’ religion is corrupt practice under Sec. 123(3) ✓
2 — CORRECT: Publishing false statement of fact about candidate’s personal character/conduct = corrupt practice under Sec. 123(4). Note: false statement about financial assets qualifies ✓
3 — CORRECT: Booth capturing = Sec. 123(7) corrupt practice ✓
4 — CORRECT: Bribery (monetary gratification to vote or not vote) = Sec. 123(1) corrupt practice ✓

All four are corrupt practices — “all of the above” is the correct answer here.

Answer: (b)

The Electoral Bonds Scheme was struck down by a 5-judge SC bench (Feb 2024) primarily because:
1. It violated Art. 19(1)(a) — the right to information. Voters have a fundamental right to know who funds political parties; anonymous corporate donations deny this right.
2. It created a quid pro quo risk — companies could donate unlimited amounts anonymously, while government could trace donors through SBI records — asymmetric transparency.

The Court directed SBI to hand over all bond data to ECI, and ECI published it. This is one of the most significant electoral reform judgments in Indian history.

Answer: (a) 1 only

1 — CORRECT: PUCL v. Union of India (2013): SC held right to press NOTA is part of freedom of expression (Art. 19(1)(a)); ECI directed to add NOTA on EVMs ✓
2 — WRONG: If NOTA gets most votes, there is NO re-election. The candidate with the next highest votes wins. NOTA cannot “win” — it has no electoral effect on the outcome. Several state election commissions have tried to introduce re-election rules but SC has not mandated it nationally. ✗
3 — WRONG: NOTA is available for direct elections (Lok Sabha, State Assemblies, some local body elections). It is NOT available for Rajya Sabha elections (indirect, proportional representation by STV). ✗

Answer: (c) 1 and 3 only

1 — CORRECT: Sec. 61A RPA 1951 provides statutory basis for use of EVMs ✓
2 — WRONG: EVMs were NOT used in all constituencies in 1999. Full rollout in all constituencies happened in the 2004 General Election. Before that, EVMs were used in some constituencies in 1998, 1999 but not universally ✗
3 — CORRECT: ECIL and BEL — both government PSUs — are the sole manufacturers of Indian EVMs ✓

Answer: (b) 1 and 4 only

RPA 1950 covers: electoral rolls preparation (1), delimitation (1), voter qualification (4), allocation of seats, elections to Rajya Sabha.

RPA 1951 covers: candidate qualifications (2), conduct of elections (3), corrupt practices, election petitions (3).

Statements 2 and 3 belong to RPA 1951, not RPA 1950. This RPA 1950 vs 1951 distinction is tested in multiple years.

Answer: (b)

The original Constitution set voting age at 21 years. The 61st CAA 1988 reduced it to 18 years.

Option (a) is wrong — it was NOT always 18 years; originally 21 years.
Option (d) is wrong — it was the 61st CAA (1988), not 73rd CAA (1992). The 73rd CAA dealt with Panchayati Raj.
The year 1988 and the specific amendment number (61st) are both testable facts.

Answer: (b) 2 and 3 only

1 — WRONG: Under 2023 Act, salary downgraded to Cabinet Secretary equivalent — NOT SC judge equivalent. This downgrade is a major criticism ✗
2 — CORRECT: CEC removal by Parliament on address remains unchanged ✓
3 — CORRECT: Under 2023 Act, ECs removed on recommendation of the Selection Committee (change from pre-2023 when only CEC recommended removal) ✓
4 — WRONG: CJI was specifically EXCLUDED from the Selection Committee in the 2023 Act (overriding SC’s Anoop Baranwal order) ✗

Answer: (c)

Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India (March 2023, 5-judge bench):
— Held: Executive-dominated appointment (President on Cabinet advice alone) was constitutionally impermissible
— Interim direction: Committee of PM + LoP + CJI to advise President on ECI appointments
— Explicitly framed as interim — until Parliament enacted law under Art. 324(2)

Parliament responded with CEC Act 2023, removing CJI from the committee — replacing with a Cabinet Minister. The legal challenge to the 2023 Act is pending in SC.

Answer: (b) 2 and 3 only

1 — WRONG: Delimitation Commission is NOT permanent. It is constituted as needed under the Delimitation Act 2002 — an ad hoc statutory body ✗
2 — CORRECT: Chaired by a retired SC judge; members include CEC and State Election Commissioners ✓
3 — CORRECT: Art. 329 bars courts from questioning orders of Delimitation Commission — its orders have force of law ✓
4 — WRONG: 84th CAA 2001 extended the freeze — not lifted it. It froze delimitation based on 1971 census till post-2026. Freeze was originally imposed by 42nd CAA 1976. The freeze is still in place. ✗

Answer: (b) 1/6th

Under RPA 1951, a candidate’s security deposit is forfeited if the candidate secures less than one-sixth (1/6th) of the total valid votes polled in the constituency.

Security deposit amounts: ₹25,000 for Lok Sabha; ₹12,500 for State Assembly constituencies (SC/ST candidates pay half).

“1/4th” is the most common wrong option inserted. The correct fraction — 1/6th — is frequently tested because it’s a specific statutory number students tend to misremember.

Answer: (b)/(c) — 1, 2 and 4 only

ONOE requires amendments to multiple articles:
1 — YES: Art. 83 (Lok Sabha duration) — to allow early dissolution alignment ✓
2 — YES: Art. 172 (state legislature duration) — to align state assembly terms with LS ✓
3 — NO: Art. 280 (Finance Commission) has no relation to simultaneity of elections ✗
4 — YES: Art. 356 (President’s Rule) — if a state is under President’s Rule, how to handle elections needs amendment ✓

Kovind Committee also noted need to amend Art. 85 (dissolution of LS) and Art. 174 (dissolution of state legislature) + RPA 1951.

Answer: (b) 1 and 3 only

1 — CORRECT: Art. 329(a) — no court shall question validity of any law relating to delimitation ✓
2 — WRONG: Art. 329 does NOT bar election petitions challenging results. On the contrary — Art. 329(b) says disputes must be raised through election petition in High Court. Courts are NOT barred from hearing election petitions ✗
3 — CORRECT: Art. 329(b) — no election shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to HC after declaration of result ✓

The trap is Statement 2 — Art. 329 bars intervention DURING elections (to prevent courts from halting election process) but explicitly allows election petitions AFTER result declaration.

Answer: (d)

Pre-Abhiram Singh: Sec. 123(3) was interpreted to cover only appeals on the ground of the candidate’s own religion, caste, community — not the voters’.

Abhiram Singh (2017, 7-judge): The majority held that Sec. 123(3) covers appeals on ground of both candidate’s AND voters’ religion, race, caste, community or language — a significant expansion.

Option (a) was the pre-2017 interpretation — only candidate’s religion. The judgment expanded to include voters’ religion too, making option (d) the correct post-2017 position.

Answer: (c) 1, 2 and 3 only

1 — CORRECT: Dinesh Goswami Committee (1990) recommended state funding of elections ✓
2 — CORRECT: Vohra Committee (1993) documented nexus between politicians, criminals, and the state — recommended action against criminalisation of politics ✓
3 — CORRECT: Indrajit Gupta Committee (1998) recommended partial state funding of elections (not full funding) ✓
4 — WRONG: Law Commission 170th Report (1999) did NOT recommend proportional representation. It recommended measures for electoral reform including state funding, anti-defection changes, and criminal background disclosure — not PR system. ✗

Answer: (b) 45 days — before the High Court

RPA 1951: Election Petition must be presented to the High Court having jurisdiction within 45 days of declaration of result.

Not the Supreme Court — HC has original jurisdiction for election petitions for both Lok Sabha and State Assembly elections (from HC, appeal goes to SC).

Common traps: “30 days” (that’s the expense account filing deadline) and “Supreme Court” (SC only hears appeals, not original petitions).

Answer: (b) 1 and 3 only

1 — CORRECT: Candidate maintains account from date of nomination to declaration of result ✓
2 — WRONG: Party expenditure is NOT counted towards the candidate’s ceiling — this is the major loophole in Indian election finance law. Only the candidate’s own account is capped. ✗
3 — CORRECT: Account must be submitted within 30 days of declaration of result (to District Election Officer / Election Commission). Failure = disqualification under Sec. 10A ✓

Answer: (c)

Kovind Committee (March 2024) recommended a two-phase approach:
Phase 1: Simultaneous elections to Lok Sabha and all State Legislative Assemblies
Phase 2: Local body elections (Panchayats and Municipalities) to be held within 100 days of the general elections

The government introduced the 129th Constitutional Amendment Bill in December 2024 to implement Phase 1; referred to Joint Parliamentary Committee. Phase 2 requires cooperation of State Election Commissions and state governments.

Answer: (b)/(c) — 1, 2 and 4 only

1 — CORRECT: MCC derives from Art. 324 plenary powers — no parliamentary legislation needed ✓
2 — CORRECT: ECI can postpone/countermand elections in extraordinary situations ✓
3 — WRONG: ECI CANNOT imprison anyone. Imprisonment is a judicial function. ECI can only censure, warn, restrict campaigning, or report to President/Governor. For actual criminal punishment, police and courts are involved under IPC/RPA. ✗
4 — CORRECT: Under Art. 103 (MPs) and Art. 192 (MLAs), the President/Governor shall act in accordance with the opinion of ECI on disqualification matters — ECI’s opinion is binding ✓