CLAT PG question bank

Administrative Law MCQs for CLAT PG, Page 3

CLAT PG Administrative Law questions 51-75 of 100, with answer keys and explanations covering delegated legislation, natural justice, tribunals, discretion, judicial review, and state accountability.

100 questions20 topics51-75 on this page
Start adaptive practiceBrowse CLAT PG

Coverage

Topics in this subject

Revise core LLB subjects through CLAT PG MCQs, passage-led questions, answer keys, explanations, statutes, and exam-oriented legal principles.

  • Administrative Discretion and its Abuse5
  • Administrative Tribunals5
  • Certiorari and Ultra Vires Doctrine5
  • Control of Delegated Legislation - Parliamentary and Judicial5
  • Delegated Legislation - Nature and Validity5
  • Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation in Government Contracts5
  • Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel5
  • Doctrine of Proportionality in Administrative Law5
  • Doctrine of Separation of Powers in Administrative Context5
  • Judicial Review of Administrative Action - Grounds5
  • Legitimate Expectation5
  • Natural Justice - Audi Alteram Partem5
  • Natural Justice - Rule Against Bias5
  • Nature and Scope of Administrative Law5
  • Ombudsman - Lokpal and Lokayukta5
  • Principles of Natural Justice - Fairness in Public Law5
  • Quasi-Judicial Functions and Duty to Give Reasons5
  • Right to Information and Transparency5
  • Rule of Law - Dicey and Indian Constitution5
  • Tortious Liability of the State5
Passage or principleAshok K. Jain Admin Law / Council of Civil Service Unions / Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corporation

The doctrine of legitimate expectation is an important principle of administrative law that bridges the gap between procedural fairness and substantive protection in dealing with the government. A legitimate expectation arises when a public authority has, through its conduct, representations, policies or past practice, led a person to reasonably expect that a certain procedure will be followed before an adverse decision is taken or that a certain benefit will be continued. The doctrine has two aspects: procedural legitimate expectation (the person expects to be consulted or given a hearing before an adverse decision) and substantive legitimate expectation (the person expects the continued enjoyment of a benefit or the fulfilment of a promise). English law initially recognised only procedural legitimate expectation, but later cases (like R v. North and East Devon Health Authority, ex parte Coughlan) also recognised substantive legitimate expectation - where public authorities have given clear, unambiguous and specific representations, they may be required to honour them unless there is an overriding public interest justification. In India, the Supreme Court recognised legitimate expectation in Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corporation (1993), holding that a legitimate expectation may arise from a representation, a practice of following a certain procedure, or from a statutory obligation. However, the Court also held that legitimate expectation does not give rise to an absolute right - it can be defeated if there is an overriding public interest. In the context of government contracts and licences, the doctrine prevents the State from arbitrarily withdrawing benefits on which persons have relied without fair hearing or justification.

Question 51EasyLegitimate Expectation

A legitimate expectation arises when:

  1. A

    Any person files a complaint before a government authority

  2. B

    A public authority has through conduct, representations, policies or past practice led a person to reasonably expect that a certain procedure will be followed or a benefit continued

  3. C

    The government signs an agreement with a private party

  4. D

    A citizen pays taxes and expects government services

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. A public authority has through conduct, representations, policies or past practice led a person to reasonably expect that a certain procedure will be followed or a benefit continued

The passage states: 'A legitimate expectation arises when a public authority has, through its conduct, representations, policies or past practice, led a person to reasonably expect that a certain procedure will be followed before an adverse decision is taken or that a certain benefit will be continued.'

Source note: Ashok K. Jain Admin Law / Council of Civil Service Unions / Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corporation

Question 52MediumLegitimate Expectation

The two aspects of legitimate expectation described in the passage are:

  1. A

    Civil and criminal legitimate expectation

  2. B

    Procedural (expecting consultation/hearing before adverse decision) and substantive (expecting continued enjoyment of a benefit or fulfilment of a promise) legitimate expectation

  3. C

    Individual and group legitimate expectation

  4. D

    Statutory and contractual legitimate expectation

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Procedural (expecting consultation/hearing before adverse decision) and substantive (expecting continued enjoyment of a benefit or fulfilment of a promise) legitimate expectation

The passage states the doctrine 'has two aspects: procedural legitimate expectation...and substantive legitimate expectation.'

Source note: Ashok K. Jain Admin Law / Council of Civil Service Unions / Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corporation

Question 53MediumLegitimate Expectation

Substantive legitimate expectation as described in the passage requires that the representation must be:

  1. A

    Made in writing only

  2. B

    Clear, unambiguous and specific - the public authority may be required to honour it unless there is an overriding public interest justification

  3. C

    Made by the Prime Minister personally

  4. D

    Included in a statute

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Clear, unambiguous and specific - the public authority may be required to honour it unless there is an overriding public interest justification

The passage states: 'where public authorities have given clear, unambiguous and specific representations, they may be required to honour them unless there is an overriding public interest justification.'

Source note: Ashok K. Jain Admin Law / Council of Civil Service Unions / Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corporation

Question 54MediumLegitimate Expectation

In Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corporation (1993), the Supreme Court held that legitimate expectation:

  1. A

    Gives an absolute right to the expected benefit

  2. B

    Does not give an absolute right - it can be defeated if there is an overriding public interest

  3. C

    Must always be honoured regardless of public interest

  4. D

    Cannot arise from government conduct, only from statutes

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Does not give an absolute right - it can be defeated if there is an overriding public interest

The passage states: 'the Court also held that legitimate expectation does not give rise to an absolute right - it can be defeated if there is an overriding public interest.'

Source note: Ashok K. Jain Admin Law / Council of Civil Service Unions / Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corporation

Question 55EasyLegitimate Expectation

According to the passage, the doctrine of legitimate expectation prevents the State from:

  1. A

    Entering into any contract with private parties

  2. B

    Arbitrarily withdrawing benefits on which persons have relied without fair hearing or justification - in the context of government contracts and licences

  3. C

    Making any changes to its policies

  4. D

    Denying any application for government licences

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Arbitrarily withdrawing benefits on which persons have relied without fair hearing or justification - in the context of government contracts and licences

The passage states: 'In the context of government contracts and licences, the doctrine prevents the State from arbitrarily withdrawing benefits on which persons have relied without fair hearing or justification.'

Source note: Ashok K. Jain Admin Law / Council of Civil Service Unions / Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corporation

Passage or principleAshok K. Jain Admin Law Ch.5 / Ridge v. Baldwin / Maneka Gandhi

The principles of natural justice are fundamental procedural fairness requirements that administrative authorities must observe when exercising powers that affect individuals. The two core principles are: nemo judex in causa sua (no person shall be a judge in their own cause - the rule against bias) and audi alteram partem (hear the other side - the right to a fair hearing). The right to a fair hearing under audi alteram partem requires that before an adverse order is passed against a person, that person must be given adequate notice of the case against them, an opportunity to present their case, and an opportunity to rebut the evidence against them. The principle was initially applied only to judicial and quasi-judicial functions - pure administrative functions were excluded. However, in Ridge v. Baldwin (1964), the English House of Lords held that natural justice applied to any decision that affected a person's rights, regardless of whether it was technically 'judicial' or 'administrative'. Indian courts followed this evolution. In A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969), the Supreme Court of India held that the distinction between quasi-judicial and administrative functions was irrelevant - what mattered was whether the authority's decision affected the rights of the person. Natural justice would apply wherever a decision affected rights. The requirements of natural justice are not fixed or static - they vary with the nature of the decision, the severity of its consequences, the statutory context, and established usage in the field. A person facing a dismissal from service has a stronger right to hearing than a person whose tender has been rejected. However, natural justice can be excluded by clear statutory language if the legislature chooses to do so.

Question 56EasyNatural Justice - Audi Alteram Partem

The two core principles of natural justice as described in the passage are:

  1. A

    Reasonableness and proportionality

  2. B

    Nemo judex in causa sua (no person shall be a judge in their own cause) and audi alteram partem (hear the other side)

  3. C

    Equality before law and equal protection

  4. D

    Separation of powers and rule of law

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Nemo judex in causa sua (no person shall be a judge in their own cause) and audi alteram partem (hear the other side)

The passage states: 'The two core principles are: nemo judex in causa sua (no person shall be a judge in their own cause - the rule against bias) and audi alteram partem (hear the other side - the right to a fair hearing).'

Source note: Ashok K. Jain Admin Law Ch.5 / Ridge v. Baldwin / Maneka Gandhi

Question 57EasyNatural Justice - Audi Alteram Partem

The right to a fair hearing under audi alteram partem requires that before an adverse order is passed, the person must be given:

  1. A

    Only notice of the order after it is passed

  2. B

    Adequate notice of the case against them, an opportunity to present their case, and an opportunity to rebut the evidence against them

  3. C

    Only a right to file a written response without oral hearing

  4. D

    Only the right to appeal after the order

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Adequate notice of the case against them, an opportunity to present their case, and an opportunity to rebut the evidence against them

The passage states: 'the right to a fair hearing under audi alteram partem requires that before an adverse order is passed against a person, that person must be given adequate notice of the case against them, an opportunity to present their case, and an opportunity to rebut the evidence against them.'

Source note: Ashok K. Jain Admin Law Ch.5 / Ridge v. Baldwin / Maneka Gandhi

Question 58MediumNatural Justice - Audi Alteram Partem

In Ridge v. Baldwin (1964), the House of Lords held that natural justice applied to:

  1. A

    Only judicial decisions

  2. B

    Any decision that affected a person's rights, regardless of whether it was technically judicial or administrative

  3. C

    Only criminal proceedings

  4. D

    Only government employment decisions

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Any decision that affected a person's rights, regardless of whether it was technically judicial or administrative

The passage states: 'In Ridge v. Baldwin (1964), the English House of Lords held that natural justice applied to any decision that affected a person's rights, regardless of whether it was technically judicial or administrative.'

Source note: Ashok K. Jain Admin Law Ch.5 / Ridge v. Baldwin / Maneka Gandhi

Question 59MediumNatural Justice - Audi Alteram Partem

In A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969), the Supreme Court held that:

  1. A

    Natural justice applies only to quasi-judicial functions

  2. B

    The distinction between quasi-judicial and administrative functions was irrelevant - natural justice would apply wherever a decision affected rights

  3. C

    Administrative functions are exempt from natural justice requirements

  4. D

    Only the Supreme Court can enforce natural justice

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. The distinction between quasi-judicial and administrative functions was irrelevant - natural justice would apply wherever a decision affected rights

The passage states: 'In A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969), the Supreme Court of India held that the distinction between quasi-judicial and administrative functions was irrelevant - what mattered was whether the authority's decision affected the rights of the person.'

Source note: Ashok K. Jain Admin Law Ch.5 / Ridge v. Baldwin / Maneka Gandhi

Question 60HardNatural Justice - Audi Alteram Partem

According to the passage, the requirements of natural justice are:

  1. A

    Identical and fixed in all situations

  2. B

    Variable - they vary with the nature of the decision, severity of consequences, statutory context and established usage, but can be excluded by clear statutory language

  3. C

    Absolute and cannot be excluded by any law

  4. D

    Only applicable in criminal cases

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Variable - they vary with the nature of the decision, severity of consequences, statutory context and established usage, but can be excluded by clear statutory language

The passage states: 'The requirements of natural justice are not fixed or static - they vary with the nature of the decision, the severity of its consequences, the statutory context, and established usage in the field...natural justice can be excluded by clear statutory language if the legislature chooses to do so.'

Source note: Ashok K. Jain Admin Law Ch.5 / Ridge v. Baldwin / Maneka Gandhi

Passage or principleAshok K. Jain Admin Law Ch.5 / Nemo Judex / A.K. Kraipak

The rule against bias - nemo judex in causa sua - is one of the two fundamental principles of natural justice. It requires that no person should be a judge in a matter where they have a personal interest in the outcome. The objective of this rule is to ensure that decision-making authorities act impartially. The rule applies not only where there is actual bias but also where there is a reasonable apprehension of bias - the test being whether a reasonable, fair-minded and informed observer would conclude that there was a real possibility of bias. Bias may take various forms: pecuniary bias (where the decision-maker has a financial interest in the outcome), personal bias (where the decision-maker has a personal relationship with one of the parties), subject-matter bias (where the decision-maker has pre-judged the issue or has a prior connection with the matter), departmental bias (where an official is both a party to proceedings and a member of the body deciding them), and institutional bias. In A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969), the Supreme Court found that a member of the selection committee for the Indian Forest Service had himself been a candidate - this constituted a clear violation of the rule against bias and the entire selection was set aside. In Manak Lal v. Dr. Prem Chand (1957), the Supreme Court held that the test for bias is not whether actual bias existed but whether there was a reasonable likelihood of bias - if a reasonable person would think bias was possible, the decision is vitiated. However, the principle of necessity - nemo judex in causa necessaria - provides an exception: when there is no other tribunal available to decide the matter, even an interested party may decide it, as non-decision would cause greater harm.

Question 61EasyNatural Justice - Rule Against Bias

The rule against bias - nemo judex in causa sua - requires that:

  1. A

    No person should make any decision affecting others

  2. B

    No person should be a judge in a matter where they have a personal interest in the outcome

  3. C

    Judges must disclose all their previous decisions

  4. D

    Decision-makers must always be senior officers

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. No person should be a judge in a matter where they have a personal interest in the outcome

The passage states: 'The rule against bias - nemo judex in causa sua - requires that no person should be a judge in a matter where they have a personal interest in the outcome.'

Source note: Ashok K. Jain Admin Law Ch.5 / Nemo Judex / A.K. Kraipak

Question 62MediumNatural Justice - Rule Against Bias

The test for bias as described in the passage is:

  1. A

    Whether the decision-maker admits to being biased

  2. B

    Whether a reasonable, fair-minded and informed observer would conclude that there was a real possibility of bias

  3. C

    Whether the losing party claims bias

  4. D

    Whether actual prejudice was caused to the party

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Whether a reasonable, fair-minded and informed observer would conclude that there was a real possibility of bias

The passage states the test is 'whether a reasonable, fair-minded and informed observer would conclude that there was a real possibility of bias.'

Source note: Ashok K. Jain Admin Law Ch.5 / Nemo Judex / A.K. Kraipak

Question 63EasyNatural Justice - Rule Against Bias

'Pecuniary bias' as described in the passage refers to:

  1. A

    Bias due to previous judicial decisions

  2. B

    Bias where the decision-maker has a financial interest in the outcome

  3. C

    Bias due to personal friendship

  4. D

    Bias in financial matters only

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Bias where the decision-maker has a financial interest in the outcome

The passage states: 'pecuniary bias (where the decision-maker has a financial interest in the outcome)'

Source note: Ashok K. Jain Admin Law Ch.5 / Nemo Judex / A.K. Kraipak

Question 64MediumNatural Justice - Rule Against Bias

In A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969), the Supreme Court set aside the selection because:

  1. A

    The selection committee was not properly constituted

  2. B

    A member of the selection committee had himself been a candidate - constituting a clear violation of the rule against bias

  3. C

    The interview was too short

  4. D

    The candidates were not given sufficient notice

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. A member of the selection committee had himself been a candidate - constituting a clear violation of the rule against bias

The passage states: 'In A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969), the Supreme Court found that a member of the selection committee for the Indian Forest Service had himself been a candidate - this constituted a clear violation of the rule against bias and the entire selection was set aside.'

Source note: Ashok K. Jain Admin Law Ch.5 / Nemo Judex / A.K. Kraipak

Question 65HardNatural Justice - Rule Against Bias

The 'principle of necessity' described in the passage provides that:

  1. A

    Natural justice can always be excluded by the government

  2. B

    Even an interested party may decide a matter when no other tribunal is available - non-decision would cause greater harm

  3. C

    Only the Supreme Court can apply the necessity exception

  4. D

    The rule against bias is absolute with no exceptions

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Even an interested party may decide a matter when no other tribunal is available - non-decision would cause greater harm

The passage states: 'the principle of necessity - nemo judex in causa necessaria - provides an exception: when there is no other tribunal available to decide the matter, even an interested party may decide it, as non-decision would cause greater harm.'

Source note: Ashok K. Jain Admin Law Ch.5 / Nemo Judex / A.K. Kraipak

Passage or principleAshok K. Jain Administrative Law Ch.1 / A.V. Dicey / Rule of Law

Administrative law is that branch of public law which deals with the organisation, powers, functions and duties of administrative authorities, the limits of their powers, the methods and procedures followed by them in exercising their powers and functions, the remedies available to a person aggrieved by their actions, and the control exercised by judicial and other authorities over administrative authorities. Administrative law has grown significantly in the twentieth century with the expansion of the welfare State - as the government undertook to regulate more aspects of social and economic life, the need for controlling executive and administrative action expanded correspondingly. A.V. Dicey, the English constitutional scholar, was initially hostile to administrative law, arguing in his concept of Rule of Law that all persons - including government officials - should be subject to the ordinary law of the land administered by ordinary courts, and that special administrative tribunals and administrative courts represented an unequal privileged treatment of government officials. However, critics of Dicey pointed out that he misunderstood the French droit administratif system and that separate administrative courts (as in France) could actually provide more effective control of the administration than ordinary courts. In India, the relationship between administrative law and the Rule of Law is seen through Article 14 of the Constitution which prohibits arbitrary State action, and through the writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and High Courts which enables judicial control of administrative action. The growth of delegated legislation, administrative tribunals, and discretionary powers has made administrative law one of the most significant branches of Indian public law today.

Question 66EasyNature and Scope of Administrative Law

According to the passage, administrative law deals with which of the following?

  1. A

    Only the criminal liability of government officials

  2. B

    The organisation, powers, functions and duties of administrative authorities, limits on their powers, procedures and remedies for aggrieved persons

  3. C

    Only the financial accounts of government bodies

  4. D

    Only the constitutional rights of citizens

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. The organisation, powers, functions and duties of administrative authorities, limits on their powers, procedures and remedies for aggrieved persons

The passage states: 'Administrative law is that branch of public law which deals with the organisation, powers, functions and duties of administrative authorities, the limits of their powers, the methods and procedures followed by them in exercising their powers and functions, the remedies available to a person aggrieved by their actions...'

Source note: Ashok K. Jain Administrative Law Ch.1 / A.V. Dicey / Rule of Law

Question 67EasyNature and Scope of Administrative Law

A.V. Dicey was hostile to administrative law because he argued that:

  1. A

    Government officials are superior to ordinary citizens

  2. B

    All persons including government officials should be subject to the ordinary law of the land administered by ordinary courts

  3. C

    Administrative tribunals are more efficient than ordinary courts

  4. D

    Separate administrative courts provide better remedies

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. All persons including government officials should be subject to the ordinary law of the land administered by ordinary courts

The passage states Dicey argued 'all persons - including government officials - should be subject to the ordinary law of the land administered by ordinary courts, and that special administrative tribunals and administrative courts represented an unequal privileged treatment of government officials.'

Source note: Ashok K. Jain Administrative Law Ch.1 / A.V. Dicey / Rule of Law

Question 68MediumNature and Scope of Administrative Law

Critics of Dicey's position on administrative law pointed out that:

  1. A

    He was entirely correct in opposing all administrative tribunals

  2. B

    He misunderstood the French droit administratif system and that separate administrative courts could actually provide more effective control of administration

  3. C

    Administrative law should be abolished

  4. D

    Administrative tribunals are always inferior to ordinary courts

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. He misunderstood the French droit administratif system and that separate administrative courts could actually provide more effective control of administration

The passage states: 'critics of Dicey pointed out that he misunderstood the French droit administratif system and that separate administrative courts (as in France) could actually provide more effective control of the administration than ordinary courts.'

Source note: Ashok K. Jain Administrative Law Ch.1 / A.V. Dicey / Rule of Law

Question 69MediumNature and Scope of Administrative Law

According to the passage, in India the relationship between administrative law and the Rule of Law is seen through:

  1. A

    Only constitutional amendments

  2. B

    Article 14 of the Constitution (prohibiting arbitrary State action) and the writ jurisdiction of courts enabling judicial control of administrative action

  3. C

    Only the Representation of People Act

  4. D

    Only the Administrative Tribunals Act

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Article 14 of the Constitution (prohibiting arbitrary State action) and the writ jurisdiction of courts enabling judicial control of administrative action

The passage states: 'In India, the relationship between administrative law and the Rule of Law is seen through Article 14 of the Constitution which prohibits arbitrary State action, and through the writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and High Courts which enables judicial control of administrative action.'

Source note: Ashok K. Jain Administrative Law Ch.1 / A.V. Dicey / Rule of Law

Question 70EasyNature and Scope of Administrative Law

The growth of administrative law in the twentieth century was primarily caused by:

  1. A

    The reduction of government activity in social and economic life

  2. B

    Expansion of the welfare State - as the government undertook to regulate more aspects of social and economic life, the need for controlling executive and administrative action expanded

  3. C

    Judicial activism creating new administrative bodies

  4. D

    International treaty obligations

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Expansion of the welfare State - as the government undertook to regulate more aspects of social and economic life, the need for controlling executive and administrative action expanded

The passage states: 'Administrative law has grown significantly in the twentieth century with the expansion of the welfare State - as the government undertook to regulate more aspects of social and economic life, the need for controlling executive and administrative action expanded correspondingly.'

Source note: Ashok K. Jain Administrative Law Ch.1 / A.V. Dicey / Rule of Law

Passage or principleAshok K. Jain Admin Law / Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act 2013

The institution of the Ombudsman originated in Scandinavia - particularly Sweden where the Justitieombudsman was established in 1809 - as an independent official to whom citizens could complain about maladministration and abuse of power by government officials. The concept was adopted in various forms across democracies as a mechanism for external review of administrative action. In India, the First Administrative Reforms Commission (1966-70) recommended the establishment of a Lokpal (at the Central level) and Lokayuktas (at the State level) as independent anti-corruption watchdogs. While many States established Lokayuktas, the Central Lokpal remained a legislative aspiration for decades due to political disagreements. The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act 2013, enacted after sustained civil society pressure (particularly by the India Against Corruption movement led by Anna Hazare), finally established the Lokpal at the Central level. The Lokpal has jurisdiction to inquire into allegations of corruption against public servants including the Prime Minister (subject to limitations), Ministers, Members of Parliament, Group A, B, C and D officials, and officers of entities receiving Central government grants above a threshold. The Lokpal consists of a Chairperson (who is or has been a Chief Justice or Judge of the Supreme Court) and up to eight Members (of whom half must be judicial members from the High Courts or Supreme Court). The Lokpal has powers of a civil court for receiving evidence and requiring production of documents. The institution embodies the administrative law principle that independent oversight of the executive is necessary to prevent abuse of public power.

Question 71EasyOmbudsman - Lokpal and Lokayukta

The institution of the Ombudsman originated in:

  1. A

    The United States as part of the Bill of Rights system

  2. B

    Scandinavia - particularly Sweden where the Justitieombudsman was established in 1809

  3. C

    France as part of the conseil d'état system

  4. D

    India's colonial administration under the British

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Scandinavia - particularly Sweden where the Justitieombudsman was established in 1809

The passage states: 'The institution of the Ombudsman originated in Scandinavia - particularly Sweden where the Justitieombudsman was established in 1809.'

Source note: Ashok K. Jain Admin Law / Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act 2013

Question 72EasyOmbudsman - Lokpal and Lokayukta

In India, the establishment of the Lokpal at the Central level was recommended by:

  1. A

    The Second Administrative Reforms Commission

  2. B

    The First Administrative Reforms Commission (1966-70)

  3. C

    The Sarkaria Commission

  4. D

    The Punchhi Commission

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. The First Administrative Reforms Commission (1966-70)

The passage states: 'the First Administrative Reforms Commission (1966-70) recommended the establishment of a Lokpal (at the Central level) and Lokayuktas (at the State level).'

Source note: Ashok K. Jain Admin Law / Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act 2013

Question 73MediumOmbudsman - Lokpal and Lokayukta

The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act 2013 was enacted after:

  1. A

    A directive from the Supreme Court

  2. B

    Sustained civil society pressure - particularly by the India Against Corruption movement led by Anna Hazare

  3. C

    A constitutional amendment requiring its creation

  4. D

    International pressure from anti-corruption bodies

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Sustained civil society pressure - particularly by the India Against Corruption movement led by Anna Hazare

The passage states: 'enacted after sustained civil society pressure (particularly by the India Against Corruption movement led by Anna Hazare).'

Source note: Ashok K. Jain Admin Law / Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act 2013

Question 74MediumOmbudsman - Lokpal and Lokayukta

The Lokpal's jurisdiction covers allegations of corruption against public servants including:

  1. A

    Only Central Government Ministers

  2. B

    The Prime Minister (subject to limitations), Ministers, Members of Parliament, and Group A, B, C and D officials

  3. C

    Only the Prime Minister and Cabinet Ministers

  4. D

    Only judicial officers

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. The Prime Minister (subject to limitations), Ministers, Members of Parliament, and Group A, B, C and D officials

The passage states the Lokpal has jurisdiction to inquire into 'allegations of corruption against public servants including the Prime Minister (subject to limitations), Ministers, Members of Parliament, Group A, B, C and D officials, and officers of entities receiving Central government grants above a threshold.'

Source note: Ashok K. Jain Admin Law / Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act 2013

Question 75EasyOmbudsman - Lokpal and Lokayukta

The Lokpal consists of a Chairperson who must be:

  1. A

    A retired Prime Minister

  2. B

    A person who is or has been a Chief Justice or Judge of the Supreme Court

  3. C

    A retired civil servant

  4. D

    A retired Member of Parliament

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. A person who is or has been a Chief Justice or Judge of the Supreme Court

The passage states: 'The Lokpal consists of a Chairperson (who is or has been a Chief Justice or Judge of the Supreme Court) and up to eight Members.'

Source note: Ashok K. Jain Admin Law / Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act 2013

Continue revision

ADR and Arbitration20 questions with explanationsBSA70 questions with explanationsCode of Civil Procedure 190845 questions with explanationsConstitutional Law100 questions with explanationsCriminal Law (BNS 2023)85 questions with explanationsEnvironmental Law50 questions with explanations