UPSC Prelims 2027 Polity Quiz (Week 168): MCQs on Information Technology Act, defection and more

2. The IT Act defines “information” to include data, codes, computer programmes, software, and databases.

3. The IT Act does not have a procedure to be followed while blocking access to “information”.

4. It is not mandatory to have a hearing before a block.

How many of the statements given above are correct?

(a) Only one

(b) Only two

(c) Only three

(d) All four

Relevance: The Information Technology Act, 2000 is a recurring UPSC topic under Polity and Governance, especially provisions relating to internet regulation, intermediary liability, and digital governance. The issue has gained further importance due to recent debates over online content regulation and blocking orders under Section 69A.

Explanation

— The Delhi High Court’s order upholding the Central government’s block on the messaging app Telegram until June 22 does more than decide what happens to an app. It is the first for a court to rule that an app’s software, not just its content, counts as information the government can block under Section 69A.

— Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 lets the Centre block access to “information” where it is “necessary or expedient” on grounds that include public order. Section 2(1)(v) of the IT Act defines “information” to include data, codes, computer programmes, software, and databases. Hence, statements 1 and 2 are correct.

— The Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009, set out the procedure under Rule 8, which ordinarily requires a hearing before a block, and Rule 9, which lets the secretary issue an interim order first in an emergency with a hearing and then a confirmation by a committee constituted under Rule 7. Hence, statement 3 is not correct.

— While a hearing is typically offered to the originator or intermediary, it is not required in all cases. In an emergency, blocking can be requested first, with procedural safeguards implemented later. Hence, statement 4 is correct.

— The National Testing Agency, which conducts the NEET exam, had first written to MeitY about Telegram’s alleged misuse on May 21. A meeting followed on June 3 and by June 9, MeitY sent Telegram a list of 1,300 URLs, of which the company says that it disabled around 900. The June 16 interim order was followed by a statutory committee (constituted under Rule 7 of the IT blocking Rules, 2009) hearing Telegram the next day, after which the committee confirmed the block on June 18.

Therefore, option (c) is the correct answer.

QUESTION 2

With reference to the defection, consider the following statements:

1. An MP who gives up party membership or defies a whip is ordinarily disqualified under the Tenth Schedule.

2. Members of an original political party can merge with another political party and still retain their MP status “if and only if” not less than one-third of the members of the legislative party have agreed to “such merger”.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

(a) 1 only

(b) 2 only

(c) Both 1 and 2

(d) Neither 1 nor 2

Relevance: The Tenth Schedule (Anti-Defection Law) is a frequently tested Polity topic in UPSC Prelims. It has gained renewed relevance due to recurring instances of party defections, mergers, and judicial scrutiny of the Speaker’s powers.

Explanation

— Amid the ongoing tussle within the Trinamool Congress (TMC), 20 rebel MPs met Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla on June 14, claiming they had merged with the Nationalist Citizens Party of India (NCPI).

What the defection law says

— An MP who gives up party membership or defies a whip (a party directive in the legislature, or someone appointed to issue such directions) is ordinarily disqualified under Paragraph 2 of the Tenth Schedule. Hence, statement 1 is correct.

— Paragraph 4, however, carves out an exception for mergers. Sub-section 4(1) states that members of an original political party can merge with another political party and still retain their MP status. Paragraph 4(2) adds that this can happen “if and only if” not less than two-thirds of the members of the legislative party have agreed to “such merger”. Hence, statement 2 is not correct.

— The two terms mentioned in this Schedule must be noted — an MP’s “original political party” is the organisation that set them up as a candidate, is registered with the Election Commission of India and accountable for activities outside Parliament. The “legislature party” is narrower, including the members of that party sitting in a particular House.

— Members who proceed with the merger, and those who refuse it but choose to function as a separate group, are both protected from disqualification once that threshold is met.

— There existed an easier route to mergers under Paragraph 3 of the original 1985 Schedule, which protected a “split” if one-third of a legislative party broke away. The 91st Amendment Act of 2003 deleted that provision and raised the threshold to two-thirds because the exception was used to engineer bulk defections. Thus, at present, a merger under Paragraph 4 is the only route out of disqualification.

Therefore, option (a) is the correct answer.

QUESTION 3

With reference to the administration of Union territories, consider the following statements:

1. Every Union territory shall be administered by the President.

2. A Governor of a State can not simultaneously act as the administrator of an adjoining Union territory.

3. The President may, by ordinance, create legislatures for the Union territory.

How many of the statements given above are correct?

(a) Only one

(b) Only two

(c) All three

(d) None

Relevance: This is a core Constitutional Polity topic frequently tested by UPSC through conceptual questions on Union Territories and their administration. It has gained additional relevance due to recent developments concerning the governance of Union Territories such as Delhi and Jammu & Kashmir.

Explanation

— Every Union territory shall be administered by the President acting, to such extent as he thinks fit, through an administrator to be appointed by him with such designation as he may specify. Hence, statement 1 is correct.

— The President may appoint the Governor of a State as the administrator of an adjoining Union territory, and where a Governor is so appointed, he shall exercise his functions as such administrator independently of his Council of Ministers. Hence, statement 2 is not correct.

— Under Article 239A, Parliament may by law create:

(i) a Legislature, or

(ii) a Council of Ministers, or both, for certain Union Territories (originally Puducherry; later constitutional provisions separately cover Delhi and Jammu & Kashmir). Hence, statement 3 is not correct.

Therefore, option (a) is the correct answer.

(Source: Constitution of India)

QUESTION 4

Consider the following statements regarding the implementation and oversight of the Pradhan Mantri Kaushal Vikas Yojana (PMKVY):

1. The National Skill Development Corporation (NSDC) implements PMKVY on behalf of the Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship.

2. The CAG audit of PMKVY identified deficiencies such as weak monitoring mechanisms, ineffective Centre–State coordination, and compromised beneficiary verification processes.

3. The CAG recommended that the implementation of PMKVY be transferred from the NSDC to the State Skill Development Missions to improve accountability.

Which one of the following conclusions based on the above statements is correct?

(a) There are two correct statements, that include statement 2.

(b) There are two correct statements, that are statements 1 and 3.

(c) There is only one correct statement.

(d) All three statements are correct.

Relevance: The question is relevant under Governance as it tests knowledge of PMKVY, skill development institutions, and the role of the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) in ensuring accountability of government schemes.

Explanation

— In the latest move that point to systemic failures within the organisation, The Indian Express has learnt that NSDC, which implements Pradhan Mantri Kaushal Vikas Yojana (PMKVY), has sent show cause notices to around 20 serving and former employees over alleged irregularities flagged by the Comptroller & Auditor General (CAG) in the flagship skills training scheme.

— The show cause notices, sent earlier this month, lists several “charges” against each of the staffers under scrutiny — including failure to match job role selection for candidates to market demand, verify accreditation and documents, or ensure Aadhaar attendance. The notices warn that the cases will be referred to investigating agencies if financial misconduct and criminal culpability are detected. Hence, statement 2 is correct.

— The NSDC implements PMKVY on behalf of the Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship (MSDE). PMKVY was launched in 2015 and has imparted skills training to over 1.64 crore youth till June 2025. Hence, statement 1 is correct.

— The CAG has audited three phases of PMKVY from 2015 to 2022, covering an outlay of Rs 14,450 crore and a combined target of training and certifying 1.32 crore candidates — the latest phase of the scheme PMKVY 4.0 is ongoing.

— The audit flagged multiple irregularities, including fake bank account numbers linked to beneficiaries, duplication of identification details across candidates, and non-payment to training partners for 34 lakh candidates.

— The CAG did not recommend transferring PMKVY implementation from NSDC to the State Skill Development Missions. The audit highlighted implementation deficiencies but made no such recommendation. Hence, statement 3 is not correct.

Therefore, option (a) is the correct answer.

QUESTION 5

With reference to the debates in the Constituent Assembly on the right to vote, consider the following statements:

1. B.R. Ambedkar favoured making the right to vote a Fundamental Right.

2. Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel opposed making the right to vote a Fundamental Right and argued that universal adult franchise itself was sufficient.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

(a) 1 only

(b) 2 only

(c) Both 1 and 2

(d) Neither 1 nor 2

Relevance: The question tests knowledge of the Constituent Assembly debates and the constitutional philosophy behind universal adult franchise, an area UPSC occasionally explores. It is especially relevant in the context of recent discussions on whether the right to vote should be made a Fundamental Right.

Explanation

— The Congress pitched for declaring the right to vote a fundamental right, arguing that it would act as a safeguard against voter suppression or arbitrary disqualifications that had taken place in different states during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.

— Congress leader Jairam Ramesh recalled that the Constituent Assembly had set up an Advisory Committee on Fundamental Rights, Minorities and Tribal and Excluded Areas under the Chairmanship of Sardar Patel and that the panel had discussed the matter. The courts have also weighed in on the matter, with a two-judge Supreme Court Bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and R Mahadevan in April saying that both the right to vote as well as to contest elections were not fundamental rights but statutory ones and there was a “well settled distinction between the right to vote and the right to contest an election, both of which are statutory in nature, but operate in distinct fields”.

— The first draft of fundamental rights prepared by the Sub-Committee on Fundamental Rights, which the Patel-led Advisory Committee had set up, proposed the right to vote as a fundamental right. The Advisory Committee itself ended up not endorsing it and saying the Constituent Assembly should settle the matter.

— Bharatiya Jana Sangh founder Dr Syama Prasad Mookerjee broached the subject of making voting a fundamental right, adding that it “will have to be considered. Shall we make it a fundamental right or shall we leave it to the Franchise Regulations to be made?” To this, Dr B R Ambedkar replied, “Let it be a fundamental right.” Hence, statement 1 is correct.

— Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel opposed this proposal, arguing that the adoption of universal adult franchise itself was sufficient to safeguard the right to vote. Hence, statement 2 is correct.

— C Rajagopalachari who was then serving as the Minister of Education in the Interim Government of India argued that it was “not an ordinary part of fundamental rights”. P R Thakur who represented West Bengal sought to underline that this matter was one for “the whole Assembly” to discuss and that the Committee’s members “should not appropriate this jurisdiction.”

Therefore, option (c) is the correct answer.

Previous Daily Subject-Wise-Quiz

Daily Subject-wise quiz — History, Culture, and Social Issues (Week 159)

Daily subject-wise quiz — Polity and Governance (Week 167)

Daily subject-wise quiz —  Science and Technology (Week 167)

Daily subject-wise quiz — Economy (Week 167)

Daily subject-wise quiz — Environment and Geography (Week 167)

Daily subject-wise quiz – International Relations (Week 167)

Subscribe to our UPSC newsletter and stay updated with the news cues from the past week.

Stay updated with the latest UPSC articles by joining our Telegram channel – IndianExpress UPSC Hub, and follow us on Instagram and X.