State Government: The Governor

Statement 1 is correct: Article 156(3) fixes a five-year term from the date on which the Governor enters upon his office, subject to Article 156(1), under which he holds office during the pleasure of the President. Statement 2 is incorrect: the same clause says he continues to hold office until his successor enters upon his office, so the office never falls vacant merely because five years have passed. In B. P. Singhal v. Union of India (2010) the Supreme Court held that the pleasure cannot be exercised arbitrarily.

Article 164(1) says the Chief Minister shall be appointed by the Governor, and the other Ministers by the Governor on the advice of the Chief Minister. The Constitution prescribes no election. By convention the Governor invites the leader of the majority in the Assembly; where no party has a majority he uses his judgement, and the Supreme Court in S. R. Bommai (1994) held that majority must be tested on the floor of the House, not in Raj Bhavan.

Both statements are correct. Article 164(1) says the other Ministers are appointed by the Governor on the advice of the Chief Minister, and that the Ministers hold office during the pleasure of the Governor. In practice the pleasure is exercised only on the Chief Minister's advice, so long as the Council has the Assembly's confidence; this flows from collective responsibility to the Assembly under Article 164(2). A Chief Minister can thus drop a colleague by asking the Governor to remove him.

Statement 1 is correct: Article 164(2) makes the Council of Ministers collectively responsible to the Legislative Assembly, not to the Council or the Governor; a no-confidence vote in the Assembly ends the whole ministry. Statement 2 is incorrect: the Deputy Chief Minister is a political arrangement, usually to balance a coalition; the Constitution does not mention the post, and in law its holder is just a Minister. In 2024 the Supreme Court dismissed a challenge to such appointments, calling the title only a label that confers no higher status.

Statement 2 is correct: under Article 164(4), a Minister who for any period of six consecutive months is not a member of the Legislature of the State shall at the end of that period cease to be a Minister. Statement 1 is therefore incorrect; the Chief Minister's confidence cannot extend the limit. In S. R. Chaudhuri v. State of Punjab (2001), the Supreme Court also held that the same non-member cannot be reappointed in the same Legislature's term without getting elected, since that would defeat the six-month rule.

Statement 2 is correct: Article 164(1A), inserted by the 91st Amendment Act, 2003, says the total number of Ministers, including the Chief Minister, shall not exceed 15 per cent of the total number of members of the Legislative Assembly. Statement 1 is incorrect: the same clause says the number shall not be less than twelve. The amendment followed the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (2002), which had criticised oversized ministries; the Union ceiling is in Article 75(1A).

Pawan Kumar Chamling was Chief Minister of Sikkim from 12 December 1994 to 27 May 2019, a continuous tenure of over 24 years and 5 months, the longest for any Indian Chief Minister. Naveen Patnaik of Odisha (March 2000 to June 2024) served a little over 24 years and 3 months, falling about two months short. Jyoti Basu of West Bengal (1977–2000) served about 23 years, and Manik Sarkar of Tripura about 20 years (1998–2018).

Both statements are correct. Article 164(4) requires only that a Minister, including the Chief Minister, become a member of the Legislature of the State within six months; membership of either House qualifies, since Article 168 makes the Council part of the Legislature. Uddhav Thackeray was sworn in as Chief Minister of Maharashtra in November 2019 while not a member of either House, was elected unopposed to the Legislative Council in May 2020, and remained Chief Minister until June 2022. Collective responsibility is still to the Assembly under Article 164(2).

Neither statement is correct (d). Statement I is wrong: under the Fifth Schedule, the State's executive power still covers Scheduled Areas. No local body takes over total administration. What changes is that the Governor reports to the President, can modify laws for these areas, and a Tribes Advisory Council advises. Statement II is wrong: the Union can give the State directions on how to run these areas, but nothing lets it take over the administration. So options (a), (b) and (c) fail.

Notice the Sixth Schedule, for tribal areas of Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram, which does create Autonomous District Councils with law-making powers. PESA, 1996 extends panchayats to Fifth Schedule areas with strong gram sabha powers.

Answer as per the official UPSC answer key.

Open this question's page →

The Governor uses personal discretion when sending a report to the President under Article 356 for President's rule (1 correct) and when reserving a Bill for the President's consideration under Article 200 (3 correct). So the answer is (b). Ministers are appointed on the Chief Minister's advice under Article 164, not at discretion. Rules of business are made under Article 166(3) on the advice of the Council of Ministers, not as a discretionary power.

Article 163 allows discretion only where the Constitution provides it. Notice how the Supreme Court in S.R. Bommai (1994) restricted misuse of Article 356.

Answer as per the official UPSC answer key.

Open this question's page →

Statement I is wrong, Statement II is right (d). Under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, Statement II is right: the Centre decides which minerals count as "minor" (Section 3(e)). Statement I is wrong: the States make the rules for granting minor mineral concessions (Section 15), and they keep the royalty. So options (a), (b) and (c) fail.

Notice examples of minor minerals: sand, gravel, building stone, marble and brick earth. Illegal sand mining is a big problem that States must police. Major minerals, such as coal, iron ore and bauxite, are regulated mostly by the Centre. In 2024, the Supreme Court held that States can tax mineral-bearing land.

Answer as per the official UPSC answer key.

Open this question's page →

Both statements are correct and II explains I (a). Statement I is right: prisons are Entry 4 of the State List, so each State runs them under its own jail manual and rules. Statement II is right: the colonial Prisons Act, 1894 still applies and treats prisons as a provincial matter. UPSC accepted that this old arrangement explains why States run prisons today.

Notice the reform push. In 2023, the Home Ministry issued a Model Prisons Act, to replace the 1894 Act, with ideas like open jails, video trials and help for rehabilitation. India's prisons are overcrowded, and most inmates are undertrials, people not yet convicted. The Supreme Court has repeatedly urged bail for poor undertrials and the end of caste-based work in jails (2024).

Answer as per the official UPSC answer key.

Open this question's page →

Only statement 2 is correct (b). Statement 1 is wrong: parole is a concession, not a right. The authority may refuse it even when grounds exist, for example if release would threaten public order. Statement 2 is right: prisons are a State subject (Entry 4, State List), so each State frames its own Prisoners Release on Parole Rules. Parole is a temporary release, for reasons such as a death or wedding in the family, and the time may or may not count towards the sentence.

Notice the difference from furlough, which is a periodic short release as a matter of good conduct, and from remission, which cuts the sentence. The Union issued the Model Prisons Act, 2023 for States to adopt.

Answer as per the official UPSC answer key.

Open this question's page →