Daily Static Quiz Prelims Practice 2027
- The RPA, 1951 governs the actual conduct of elections to Parliament and State Legislatures, while the RPA, 1950 deals with the preparation of electoral rolls.
- Under the RPA, 1951, a candidate found guilty of a corrupt practice is disqualified from contesting elections for six years from the date of conviction.
- The RPA, 1951 provides that an election can be declared void by the High Court on the grounds of corrupt practices, but the Supreme Court has no original jurisdiction in election matters.
- The model code of conduct derives its legal force from the RPA, 1951 and is therefore legally enforceable.
Statements 1 and 2 are correct. RPA, 1950 covers electoral roll preparation and delimitation, while RPA, 1951 governs actual election conduct, qualifications, disqualifications, and corrupt practices. Under Section 8A read with Section 8, a person convicted of a corrupt practice under Section 123 is disqualified for six years from conviction (or release, if imprisoned). Statement 3 is incorrect — the High Court has original jurisdiction over election petitions, with appeals lying to the Supreme Court, which also has exclusive jurisdiction over President/Vice-President election disputes under Article 71. Statement 4 is incorrect — the MCC has no statutory basis; it is a voluntary set of guidelines from 1968, enforced only through the ECI's moral authority.
Option (c) is correct — under Paragraph 4, as amended by the 91st Amendment (2003), a merger is recognised, and members protected from disqualification, only if at least two-thirds of the original legislative party agree; the earlier one-third split provision was deleted. Option (a) is wrong — a member isn't disqualified if voting with prior party permission or if the party condones the vote within 15 days. Option (b) is wrong — in Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992), the Supreme Court held the Speaker's decision is subject to judicial review for mala fides, perversity, or natural justice violations. Option (d) is wrong — an independent member joining a party after election is immediately disqualified under Paragraph 2(2), with no six-month grace period.
- The President of India fixes the schedule of elections to the Lok Sabha on the advice of the Cabinet, while the Election Commission notifies the actual election dates.
- The "Model of Election Expenses" — the maximum expenditure a candidate can incur — is fixed by the Election Commission under powers conferred by the RPA, 1951.
- EVM (Electronic Voting Machine) use in elections was first authorised by an amendment to the RPA, 1951 in 1989.
- NOTA (None of the Above) option on EVMs was introduced following a Supreme Court directive in the PUCL v. Union of India case (2013).
Statements 2, 3 and 4 are correct. Election expenditure ceilings are fixed by the Central Government in consultation with the ECI under Rule 90 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. Section 61A, inserted by the 1989 Amendment, legally enabled EVM use. In PUCL v. Union of India (2013), the Supreme Court directed the ECI to provide NOTA, holding disapproval of all candidates part of freedom of expression. Statement 1 is incorrect — it is the Election Commission, not the President, that determines the schedule, dates, and phases of elections under Article 324; the President only issues the dissolution notification on Cabinet advice.
Option (b) is correct — under Section 123(4), publication of a false statement of fact about a candidate's personal character or conduct, by the candidate or agent, reasonably calculated to prejudice voters, is a corrupt practice. Option (a) is wrong — withdrawal of candidature is a normal legal procedure. Option (c) is wrong — welfare manifesto promises like free electricity aren't classified as corrupt practices absent individual voter inducement. Option (d) is wrong — campaigning within 48 hours of polling violates Section 126, an electoral offence, not a Section 123 corrupt practice, a precise legal distinction.
Reason (R): The Election Commission derives its authority to supervise and control elections from Article 324 of the Constitution, which grants it plenary powers over the electoral process.
A is incorrect — the ECI cannot disqualify a sitting MP for an MCC violation; disqualification is governed by Article 102 and the Tenth Schedule, with authority resting with the President (on ECI's opinion, under Article 103) or the Speaker (defection cases). The MCC itself has no statutory force, and violations attract only censure or campaign restrictions, not disqualification. R is correct — Article 324 does grant the ECI plenary supervisory powers over elections, upheld by the Supreme Court as residuary powers, but these operate within the election period and don't extend to post-election disqualification, making R correct yet unrelated to the false claim in A.
