Statement I: Sarkaria Commission recom- mended that Governor of a state should be a non- political person appointed after consultation with the Chief Minister of the state. Statement II: This could be achieved through amending Article 165 of the Constitut

examrobotsa's picture

Submitted by examrobotsa on

Q: 36 (NDA-II/2010)
Statement I: Sarkaria Commission recom- mended that Governor of a state should be a non- political person appointed after consultation with the Chief Minister of the state.
Statement II: This could be achieved through amending Article 165 of the Constitution of India.

question_subject: 

Polity

question_exam: 

NDA-II

stats: 

0,20,41,25,12,20,4

keywords: 

{'governor': [5, 1, 0, 6], 'chief minister': [7, 1, 1, 4], 'political person': [0, 0, 1, 0], 'constitution': [39, 3, 11, 39], 'consultation': [5, 0, 3, 3]}

Option 1 states that both statements are individually true and statement 2 is the correct explanation of statement 1. However, this is incorrect.

Option 2 states that both statements are individually true, but statement 2 is not the correct explanation of statement 1. This is the correct answer.

Explanation:

Statement 1 states that the Sarkaria Commission recommended that the Governor of a state should be a non-political person appointed after consultation with the Chief Minister of the state. This means that the Governor should be someone who is not affiliated with any political party and their appointment should be made after consulting with the Chief Minister.

Statement 2 suggests that this recommendation by the Sarkaria Commission can be achieved by amending Article 165 of the Constitution of India. However, there is no explanation provided as to how this amendment would lead to the implementation of the recommendation by the Sarkaria Commission. Therefore, statement 2 is not the correct explanation of statement 1.

Hence, option 3 is the correct answer as it states that statement 1 is true but statement 2 is false.