UPSC(2026) Prelims Practice questions based on The PM-SHRI Scheme & The Federal Fray

 UPSC(2026) Prelims Practice questions based on 

The PM-SHRI Scheme & The Federal Fray 

---

1. The PM SHRI scheme is directly associated with the implementation of which of the following?

(a) The Right to Education Act, 2009

(b) The Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan

(c) The National Education Policy (NEP)-2020

(d) The Mid-Day Meal Scheme

Answer: (c)

• Explanation: The article explicitly states that the PM SHRI scheme "dovetails the National Education Policy (NEP)-2020." It is the vehicle through which the Centre is promoting the adoption of the NEP.

---

2. Which of the following states mentioned in the article has approached the Supreme Court regarding the withholding of central funds?

(a) Kerala and Tamil Nadu

(b) Tamil Nadu

(c) Kerala and West Bengal

(d) West Bengal

Answer: (b)

• Explanation: The article states, "Earlier this year, Tamil Nadu had approached the Supreme Court of India after the Centre withheld funds under the Samagra Shiksha (SS) scheme over the State’s refusal to adopt the NEP-PM SHRI framework."

---

3. The primary reason cited by states like Kerala and Tamil Nadu for opposing the NEP-2020 is:

(a) It mandates the use of Hindi as a medium of instruction.

(b) It leads to a reduction in the number of teaching posts.

(c) It encroaches on the State's autonomy on a subject in the Concurrent List.

(d) It privatizes the entire school education system.

Answer: (c)

• Explanation: The article mentions Kerala's contention that the NEP "sought to encroach on the subject of school education, which is in the Concurrent List." This is the core constitutional issue related to federalism.

---

4. Consider the following statements regarding the status of the PM SHRI scheme in Kerala:

1. The Kerala Cabinet unanimously approved the signing of the MoU with the Centre.

2. The CPI, a partner in the ruling LDF, supported the decision to join the scheme.

3. A cabinet subcommittee will now scrutinize the MoU before any implementation.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

(a) 1 only

(b) 2 and 3 only

(c) 3 only

(d) 1, 2 and 3

Answer: (c)

• Explanation: Statement 1 is false as the MoU was signed "without Cabinet approval." Statement 2 is false as the CPI "demanded an immediate withdrawal." Statement 3 is true as the allies agreed that "a cabinet subcommittee will scrutinise the MoU."

---

5. The article argues that the Centre's action of withholding funds under the Samagra Shiksha scheme to enforce the adoption of NEP-PM SHRI undermines:

(a) The Fundamental Rights of citizens

(b) The principle of Cooperative Federalism

(c) The doctrine of Basic Structure

(d) The Directive Principles of State Policy

Answer: (b)

• Explanation: The article's central critique is that this action undermines federalism. It explicitly states, "In India’s federal polity, the judiciary must robustly defend cooperative federalism whenever it is undermined."

---

6. What was the immediate administrative reason given by the CPI(M) in Kerala for initially signing the PM SHRI MoU?

(a) To improve the state's learning outcomes.

(b) To avail of federal funds that were withheld, leading to salary arrears.

(c) To modernize the school infrastructure.

(d) To comply with a directive from the Supreme Court.

Answer: (b)

• Explanation: The CPI(M) argued that "enrolment in PM SHRI was necessary to avail of federal funds withheld under the SS, which had led to salary arrears for teachers and non-teaching staff."

---

7. The subject of 'Education' is included in which List of the Seventh Schedule of the Indian Constitution?

(a) Union List

(b) State List

(c) Concurrent List

(d) Residuary List

Answer: (c)

• Explanation: This is a fundamental question of Indian Polity. The subject 'Education' was moved from the State List to the Concurrent List by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act of 1976.

---

8. According to the article, a specific concern raised about the NEP-2020's content is the integration of 'Indian Knowledge Systems', which critics fear is a euphemism for:

(a) Modern Scientific Temper

(b) Pseudoscience

(c) Vocational Training

(d) Foreign Educational Models

Answer: (b)

• Explanation: The article states that Kerala would be forced to comply with provisions for the integration of ‘Indian Knowledge Systems’, "which many reckon is a euphemism for pseudoscience."

---

9. The article highlights Kerala's high performance in school education based on several parameters. Which of the following is NOT mentioned as one of these parameters?

(a) Near-universal gross enrolment ratio

(b) High retention rates

(c) Superior learning outcomes

(d) Highest number of schools in the country

Answer: (d)

• Explanation: The article praises Kerala's "near-universal gross enrolment ratio, high retention rates, superior learning outcomes, and modern infrastructure." The "highest number of schools" is not mentioned and is factually incorrect.

---

10. What is the core constitutional principle that the author believes is at stake in the dispute between the Centre and States over the PM SHRI scheme?

(a) The Principle of Equality

(b) The Principle of Secularism

(c) The Principle of Federalism and State Autonomy

(d) The Principle of Judicial Review

Answer: (c)

• Explanation: The entire article frames the issue as a conflict between the Centre's push for a unified policy and the autonomy of states. The concluding line, "Federalism and State autonomy cannot be bargaining points in the quest for funds," clearly identifies this as the core principle.

The PM-SHRI Scheme & The Federal Fray - A Case Study of Kerala

 

The PM-SHRI Scheme & The Federal Fray - A Case Study of Kerala

Why in News?

The recent political turmoil in Kerala over its initial decision to sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for the PM-SHRI (Prime Minister Schools for Rising India) scheme highlights a critical conflict between the Centre's policy vision and State autonomy in education. This issue is pivotal for understanding the dynamics of Indian federalism and the implementation of the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020.

---

Prelims Focus: Facts and Schemes

1. PM-SHRI Scheme:

   • Aim: To upgrade and develop more than 14,500 schools across India as model institutions, showcasing the components of the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020.

   • Features: These schools will serve as exemplar schools, providing high-quality education in an inclusive, equitable, and holistic manner.

   • Implementation: Selected schools will be upgraded with modern infrastructure, smart classrooms, and pedagogical support.

2. Samagra Shiksha (SS) Scheme:

   • It is an integrated scheme for school education extending from pre-school to Class XII.

   • It subsumes three former schemes: Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA), Rashtriya Madhyamik Shiksha Abhiyan (RMSA), and Teacher Education (TE).

   • Objective: To ensure equitable and inclusive quality education.

   • Funding: It is a Centrally Sponsored Scheme, meaning the cost is shared between the Centre and the States.

3. National Education Policy (NEP) 2020:

   • A comprehensive framework to guide the development of education in India.

   • Key pillars: Access, Equity, Quality, Affordability, Accountability.

   • Contentious Points for some States: Perceived centralization, integration of "Indian Knowledge Systems" (critiqued by some as promoting pseudoscience), and the three-language formula.

---

Mains Focus: Analytical Dimensions (GS Paper II)

The Kerala-PM SHRI episode is a rich case study for essays and answers on Federalism, Centre-State Relations, and Governance.

1. The Core Conflict: Cooperative Federalism vs. Coercive Federalism

• The Centre's Position: The Union government is using financial leverage (withholding funds under the Samagra Shiksha scheme) to push states into adopting the NEP 2020 framework via the PM-SHRI scheme. Tamil Nadu faced similar fund withholding.

• The States' Position (Kerala & Tamil Nadu):

  • Encroachment on Concurrent List: Education is a subject in the Concurrent List (List III). States argue that the Centre is overstepping by imposing a uniform policy, undermining the federal spirit.

  • Ideological Opposition: These states have raised concerns about the NEP's content, fearing it introduces a "communal bias" and "anti-scientific" ideas under the guise of "Indian Knowledge Systems."

  • Financial Coercion: States view the linking of essential funds (like those for teacher salaries) to the adoption of a specific policy as a form of arm-twisting.

2. The Kerala Conundrum: A Political and Pragmatic Tussle

• The Dilemma: Kerala, a state with exemplary educational indicators (near-universal enrolment, high retention, superior learning outcomes), found itself in a catch-22.

  • Pragmatic Argument (by CPI-M): Signing the MoU was a pragmatic move to access crucial central funds that had been withheld, which were causing salary arrears for teachers.

  • Ideological Argument (by CPI and others): Acceding to the Centre's demand would be a betrayal of the state's ideological opposition to the NEP and would compromise its autonomy over its curriculum.

• The Resolution: The formation of a cabinet sub-committee to scrutinize the MoU and the subsequent freeze on implementation is a classic example of a political compromise within a coalition government, balancing pragmatism with principle.

3. Legal and Judicial Dimensions

• Tamil Nadu's Precedent: Tamil Nadu has already approached the Supreme Court challenging the Centre's decision to withhold funds.

• The Role of Judiciary: The editorial argues that the judiciary must "robustly defend cooperative federalism." This brings into question:

  • Article 246: The distribution of legislative power between the Union and States.

  • Judicial Review: The Supreme Court's role as the guardian of the Constitution and the federal structure. The lack of "judicial urgency" in hearing such cases is critiqued.

4. Way Forward & Conclusion

The standoff is not merely about funds or a scheme; it is about the very nature of Indian federalism.

• For the Centre: Policy persuasion should be based on consensus and demonstration of merit, not financial coercion. A "one-size-fits-all" approach ignores the diverse needs and achievements of different states.

• For the States: As suggested, states like Kerala should consider litigation to secure their rightful funds, establishing a legal precedent to protect state autonomy.

• The Path of Cooperation: True "cooperative federalism" requires the Centre to treat states as equal partners, especially in Concurrent subjects. Schemes like PM-SHRI should be flexible enough to accommodate the successful models already developed by high-performing states like Kerala.

Conclusion for Mains Answer:

The Kerala PM-SHRI saga is a microcosm of the larger tensions in India's federal landscape. While the central government has a legitimate role in setting national education goals, using financial sanctions to enforce policy compliance undermines the spirit of the Concurrent List and cooperative federalism. A sustainable solution lies in dialogue, respect for state expertise, and a legal framework that prevents the use of funds as a tool for political bargaining, thereby preserving the delicate balance of the Indian Union.

UPSC Prelims(2026) practice questions on the The 130th Constitutional Amendment Bill

 UPSC Prelims(2026) practice questions on the 

The 130th Constitutional Amendment Bill

---

1. The Constitution (One Hundred And Thirtieth Amendment) Bill, recently introduced, proposes amendments to which of the following Articles of the Indian Constitution?

(a) Article 75, Article 167, and Article 239AA

(b) Article 74, Article 164, and Article 371

(c) Article 75, Article 164, and Article 239AA

(d) Article 78, Article 167, and Article 239AB

Answer: (c)

• Explanation: The article explicitly states the Bill amends "Article 75, Article 164 and Article 239AA of the Constitution which pertain to the Union Council of Ministers, State Council of Ministers and the special administrative provisions for Delhi, respectively."

---

2. According to the provisions of the Bill, a Union Minister shall be removed from office if they are in continuous custody for how many consecutive days?

(a) 60 days

(b) 30 days

(c) 90 days

(d) Until the investigation is complete

Answer: (b)

• Explanation: The Bill specifies that a Minister shall be removed if arrested and detained in custody for "30 consecutive days" for an offence punishable with imprisonment of five years or more.

---

3. The Opposition's primary contention with the Bill revolves around the potential misuse of which of the following powers?

1. The power of the President to remove a Minister.

2. The discretionary power of the police to arrest.

3. The power of the court to authorize detention.

4. The power of the Prime Minister to advise the President.

Select the correct answer using the code given below:

(a) 1 and 2 only

(b) 2 and 3 only

(c) 1, 2 and 4 only

(d) 2, 3 and 4 only

Answer: (b)

• Explanation: The article states the two contentious issues for the Opposition were 'arrest' by the police (a discretionary power) and authorising 'detention' by a court. The advice of the PM/CM is a procedural part of the removal, not the core contentious power.

---

4. With reference to the power of arrest, the Supreme Court in the case of Joginder Kumar vs State of U.P. (1994) held that:

(a) Arrest is mandatory for all cognisable offences.

(b) A police officer must be able to justify the arrest beyond mere authorization.

(c) Private citizens have the power to arrest for any cognisable offence.

(d) Arrest without a warrant is unconstitutional.

Answer: (b)

• Explanation: The article cites this case, where the Supreme Court observed that "no arrest can be made only because a police officer is authorised to do so. The police officer must be able to justify the arrest."

---

5. The article highlights that a major concern regarding the grant of bail is the consideration of the "gravity of the offence" as a factor. This is problematic because it:

(a) Violates the principle of 'bail is the rule, jail is the exception'.

(b) Conflicts with the presumption of innocence of the accused.

(c) Is not part of the traditional "triple test" for bail.

(d) All of the above.

Answer: (d)

• Explanation: The article states that considering the gravity of the offence as a factor for bail conflicts with the presumption of innocence. It is an important "fourth factor" outside the triple test, and its use can violate the core principle that bail should be the norm.

---

6. The new Amendment Bill is considered particularly dangerous when applied to offences under special statutes like PMLA and UAPA because:

(a) These statutes have a lower punishment threshold.

(b) These statutes have more stringent "twin conditions" for granting bail.

(c) The investigation in these cases is usually completed within 30 days.

(d) These offences are not covered under the CrPC.

Answer: (b)

• Explanation: The article explains that special statutes have "infamous twin conditions of bail," which reverse the burden of proof onto the accused, making it extremely difficult to secure bail within the 30-day window stipulated by the Bill.

---

7. The concept of 'Default Bail' under Section 167(2) of the CrPC is a right of the accused when:

(a) The police fail to file a chargesheet within 24 hours of arrest.

(b) The investigation is not completed within 60 or 90 days of custody.

(c) The accused is a Minister and has completed 30 days in custody.

(d) The court finds the arrest to be unjustified.

Answer: (b)

• Explanation: The article mentions default bail as the right of an accused when the investigation is not completed within 60 days to 90 days (depending on the gravity of the offence) of custody.

---

8. According to the article, what dilemma does a Minister face under the proposed law regarding their position and bail?

(a) A Minister must choose between contesting elections or applying for bail.

(b) Remaining a Minister may jeopardize their bail application, while resigning would forfeit their ministerial powers.

(c) A Minister can only get bail after admitting to the charges.

(d) The Prime Minister's advice is mandatory before a Minister can apply for bail.

Answer: (b)

• Explanation: The article describes a "Hobson’s choice": staying on as a Minister could be used as a reason to deny bail (due to influence), leading to removal after 31 days. Resigning might help get bail but would mean losing the ministerial position regardless.

---

9. The article cites the Satender Kumar Antil vs CBI case (2022) to emphasize that investigating agencies are bound to comply with the provisions of:

(a) The Constitution of India regarding fundamental rights.

(b) The Indian Penal Code regarding cognisable offences.

(c) Sections 41 and 41A of the CrPC regarding procedure for arrest.

(d) The Prevention of Corruption Act regarding public servants.

Answer: (c)

• Explanation: The article states that the Supreme Court in the Satender Kumar Antil case held that investigating agencies are bound to comply with the provisions of Section 41 (conditions for arrest) and Section 41A (notice for appearance) of the CrPC.

---

10. Which of the following statements best reflects the core criticism of the Bill as presented in the article?

(a) It is too lenient on ministers with criminal backgrounds.

(b) It does not apply to the Prime Minister and Chief Ministers.

(c) It relies on discretionary powers of arrest and detention, which are vulnerable to misuse as a political tool.

(d) It undermines the federal structure of the Indian Constitution.

Answer: (c)

• Explanation: The central theme of the article's criticism is the potential for misuse. It argues that the discretionary powers of arrest (with police) and detention (with courts) can be weaponized to target and unseat opposition party ministers, making it a potent political tool rather than a purely ethical reform.

The 130th Constitutional Amendment Bill: for UPSC Aspirants

 

The 130th Constitutional Amendment Bill:  for UPSC Aspirants

Why in News?

The Central Government recently introduced The Constitution (One Hundred and Thirtieth Amendment) Bill in Parliament. The Bill seeks to amend Article 75 (Union Council of Ministers), Article 164 (State Council of Ministers), and Article 239AA (Special provisions for Delhi) concerning the disqualification of Ministers upon arrest and detention. The Bill has been referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) for scrutiny, making it a significant topic for both current affairs and the polity syllabus.

---

Prelims Focus: The Core Provisions of the Bill (The "What")

The Bill introduces a new mechanism for the automatic removal of Ministers under specific circumstances. Here’s a quick breakdown:

Scenario	Action Required	Consequence
A Minister (Union/State) is arrested and detained for 30 consecutive days for an offence punishable with imprisonment of 5 years or more.	The Prime Minister (at Centre) or Chief Minister (in State) must advise the President/Governor to remove the Minister.	The Minister shall be removed by the 31st day. If advice is not tendered, the Minister ceases to hold office automatically.
The Prime Minister or a Chief Minister is in the same situation.	They must tender their resignation by the 31st day.	If they don't resign, they shall cease to hold office automatically.

Key Objective: The stated aim is to uphold constitutional morality and ensure that individuals facing serious charges do not continue in high public office while in prolonged custody.

---

Mains Focus: The Contentious Issues & Critical Analysis (The "Why" and "How")

For GS Paper II (Polity, Governance) and Essay, the debate around this Bill is a goldmine. The Opposition and legal experts have raised several critical concerns that touch upon the core principles of democracy, justice, and federalism.

1. The Problem of Discretionary "Arrest"

The first trigger for removal is "arrest." This is highly problematic because the power of arrest is discretionary with the police.

• Legal Precedents:

  • The Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and its successor, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), use the term "may arrest" (Sections 41 & 41A CrPC / Section 35 BNSS), indicating it is not mandatory.

  • Supreme Court in Joginder Kumar vs State of U.P. (1994) held that an arrest must be justified and cannot be made merely because it is legally possible.

  • In Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar (2014), the SC mandated that police must record reasons in writing for making an arrest.

• Potential for Misuse: Given that nearly 60% of arrests were deemed "unnecessary" by the National Police Commission (1977), there is a genuine fear that this power could be weaponized. A politically motivated arrest on a dubious charge can initiate the process of unseating a rival Minister, even if the case is weak.

2. The Hurdle of Obtaining "Bail" within 30 Days

The second parameter is "detention for 30 consecutive days." The escape route is to obtain bail within this period. However, this is often easier said than done.

• Bail is the Rule, Jail is the Exception: While the Supreme Court has reaffirmed this principle, in practice, bail is often denied based on factors beyond the standard "triple test" (flight risk, tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses).

• The "Fourth Factor": Courts often consider the "gravity of the offence," which conflicts with the presumption of innocence.

• The Special Statute Trap: The phrase "offence under any law" includes draconian laws like:

  • UAPA (Unlawful Activities Prevention Act)

  • PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act)

  • NDPS (Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act)
    These laws have "twin conditions" for bail, effectively reversing the burden of proof onto the accused. Obtaining bail within 30 days under these acts is nearly impossible, as seen in the case of Manish Sisodia, who got bail after 17 months of incarceration.

3. Ignoring the Provision of "Default Bail"

The Bill fails to account for Default Bail under Section 167(2) CrPC (Section 187 BNSS). An accused has a right to be released on bail if the investigation is not completed within 60 or 90 days (depending on the offence). Since the 30-day detention period under the Bill is well within this investigation period, a Minister could be disqualified even when the investigation is incomplete and they are entitled to default bail. This appears irrational.

4. The Minister's Hobson's Choice

A Minister facing charges is caught in a catch-22 situation:

• Option A: Continue as a Minister. The court may deny bail citing the potential to influence witnesses due to their position of power.

• Option B: Resign to improve the chances of bail. However, this means giving up their portfolio and political influence even if they are eventually granted bail and exonerated.

This creates an unfair dilemma where the mere accusation can force a resignation.

---

Way Forward & Conclusion

The intention to cleanse politics of criminal elements is laudable and aligns with the spirit of the Supreme Court's directions in cases like Manoj Narula vs Union of India (2014), which emphasized "constitutional morality." However, the mechanism proposed is fraught with risks.

A balanced approach could involve:

1. Judicial Oversight: Instead of arrest by police, the trigger for disqualification could be the framing of charges by a court, which is a more rigorous judicial process.

2. Strengthening Bail Compliance: Ensuring that the guidelines of the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil vs CBI (2022) are strictly followed, reducing arbitrary arrests.

3. Debate in JPC: The Joint Parliamentary Committee must thoroughly examine these loopholes to prevent the law from becoming a tool for political vendetta.

Conclusion for Mains Answer:

While the 130th Constitutional Amendment Bill is a well-intentioned step towards ethical governance, its operational reliance on the discretionary power of arrest and the difficult bail process under special laws makes it vulnerable to misuse. To truly uphold constitutional morality, the law must strike a delicate balance between ensuring accountability of public officials and protecting them from politically motivated prosecutions, thereby safeguarding the principles of justice and fair play.

---

Keywords for Revision: 130th Constitutional Amendment Bill, Article 75, Article 164, Joint Parliamentary Committee, Arrest, Detention, Bail, BNSS, CrPC, UAPA, PMLA, Constitutional Morality, Manish Sisodia Case, Arnesh Kumar Guidelines.