Question map
Not attempted Correct Incorrect ★ Bookmarked
Loading…
Q89 (IAS/2020) Polity & Governance › State Executive & Legislature › Legislative disqualifications Official Key

Consider the following statements : 1. According to the Constitution of India, a person who is eligible to vote can be made a minister in a State for six months even if he/she is not a member of the Legislature of that State. 2. According to the Representation of People Act, 1951, a person convicted of a criminal offence and sentenced to imprisonment for five years is permanently disqualified from contesting an election even after his release from prison. Which of the statements given above is/are correct ?

Result
Your answer: —  ·  Correct: D
Explanation

The correct answer is Option 4 (Neither 1 nor 2) because both statements contain factual inaccuracies regarding constitutional and legal provisions.

  • Statement 1 is incorrect: Article 164(4) allows a non-legislator to be a minister for six months. However, the eligibility to vote (18 years) is not the same as the eligibility to be a minister. To be a minister, one must meet the qualifications for the State Legislature under Article 173, which requires a minimum age of 25 years (for Legislative Assembly). Thus, a 19-year-old voter cannot be a minister.
  • Statement 2 is incorrect: Section 8(3) of the Representation of People Act, 1951, states that a person convicted and sentenced to at least two years is disqualified from the date of conviction and shall continue to be disqualified for a further period of six years since his release. It is not a permanent disqualification.

Since both statements are legally flawed, Option 4 is the right choice.

How others answered
Each bar shows the % of students who chose that option. Green bar = correct answer, blue outline = your choice.
Community Performance
Out of everyone who attempted this question.
57%
got it right
PROVENANCE & STUDY PATTERN
Full view
Don’t just practise – reverse-engineer the question. This panel shows where this PYQ came from (books / web), how the examiner broke it into hidden statements, and which nearby micro-concepts you were supposed to learn from it. Treat it like an autopsy of the question: what might have triggered it, which exact lines in the book matter, and what linked ideas you should carry forward to future questions.
Q. Consider the following statements : 1. According to the Constitution of India, a person who is eligible to vote can be made a minister i…
At a glance
Origin: Books + Current Affairs Fairness: Moderate fairness Books / CA: 5/10 · 5/10

This is a 'Precision Test' disguised as a simple Polity question. Statement 1 is a classic 'Age Trap' (Voter=18 vs Minister=25), while Statement 2 tests your knowledge of the 'Reformation Principle' in Indian law (bans are rarely permanent). If you mentally auto-corrected 'eligible to vote' to 'qualified to be a member', you walked into the trap.

How this question is built

This question can be broken into the following sub-statements. Tap a statement sentence to jump into its detailed analysis.

Statement 1
Under the Constitution of India, can a person who is not a member of a State Legislature be appointed as a State Minister and is such a person required to become a member within six months?
Origin: Direct from books Fairness: Straightforward Book-answerable
From standard books
Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 32: State Council of Ministers > APPOINTMENT OF MINISTERS > p. 331
Presence: 5/5
“The same Amendment also extended the above provision to the newly formed states. Usually, the members of the state legislature, either the legislative assembly or the legislative council, are appointed as ministers. A person who is not a member of either House of the state legislature can also be appointed as a minister. But within six months, he/she must become a member (either by election or by nomination) of either House of the state legislature, otherwise, he/she ceases to be a minister. A minister who is a member of one House of the state legislature has the right to speak and to take part in the proceedings of the other House.”
Why this source?
  • Explicitly says a person who is not a member of either House of the state legislature can be appointed as a minister.
  • Explicitly requires that such a person must become a member (by election or nomination) of either House within six months or else cease to be a minister.
Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity. 7th ed., McGraw Hill. > Chapter 31: Chief Minister > APPOINTMENT OF CHIEF MINISTER > p. 325
Presence: 4/5
“However, on the death of a Chief Minister, the ruling party usually elects a new leader and the governor has no choice but to appoint him/her as Chief Minister. BThe Constitution does not require that a person must prove his/ her majority in the legislative assembly before he/she is appointed as the Chief Minister. The governor may first appoint him/her as the Chief Minister and then ask him/her to prove his/her majority in the legislative assembly within a reasonable period. A person who is not a member of the state legislature can be appointed as Chief Minister for six months, within which time, he/she should be elected to the state legislature, failing which he/she ceases to be the Chief Minister.”
Why this source?
  • States a person who is not a member of the state legislature can be appointed as Chief Minister for six months.
  • Specifies that the person must be elected to the state legislature within that six-month period or cease to hold office, reinforcing the six-month requirement for state executive appointments.
Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 11: The Union Executive > 3. The Council of Ministers > p. 227
Presence: 3/5
“Ministers may be those members of either House and a Minister who is a member of one House has a right to speak in and to take part in the proceedings of the other House though he has no right to vote in the House of which he is not a member [Article 88]. Under our Constitution, there is no bar to the appointment of a person from outside the Legislature as Minister. But he cannot continue as Minister for more than six months unless he secures a seat in either House of Parliament (by election or nomination, as the case may be), in the meantime.”
Why this source?
  • Confirms the constitutional principle that a non-member may be appointed as a minister but cannot continue for more than six months unless he/she secures a seat in either House (here stated for Parliament).
  • Provides a parallel Union-level formulation of the same six-month rule, supporting the general constitutional practice.
Statement 2
According to the Representation of the People Act, 1951, does a conviction with a five-year prison sentence permanently disqualify a person from contesting elections even after release from prison?
Origin: Web / Current Affairs Fairness: CA heavy Web-answerable

Web source
Presence: 5/5
"sentenced to imprisonment for not less than two years is disqualified from the date of such conviction and shall continue to be disqualified for a further period of six years since his release from prison."
Why this source?
  • Specifies disqualification applies when sentenced to imprisonment for not less than two years (so a five-year sentence qualifies).
  • Clarifies disqualification starts from conviction and continues for six years after release, not permanently.
Web source
Presence: 5/5
"Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 ... provides for the disqualification of a person convicted of a criminal offence and sentenced to imprisonment for not less than two years. Such a person is disqualified from contesting elections for a further period of six years from the date of release."
Why this source?
  • Confirms Section 8(3) disqualifies persons sentenced to imprisonment for not less than two years (covers five-year sentences).
  • States such a person is disqualified for a further period of six years from the date of release, indicating the disqualification is not permanent after release.

Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 23: Parliament > Disqualifications > p. 227
Strength: 5/5
“• 2. if he/she is of unsound mind and stands so declared by a court. • 3. if he /she is an undischarged insolvent. • 4. if he/she is not a citizen of India or has voluntarily acquired the citizenship of a foreign state or is under any acknowledgment of allegiance to a foreign state; and • 5. if he/she is so disqualified under any law made by Parliament. The Parliament has laid down the following additional disqualifications in the Representation of People Act (1951): • He/she must not have been found guilty of certain electoral offences or corrupt practices in the elections. • He/she must not have been convicted for any offence resulting in imprisonment for two or more years.”
Why relevant

States Rule in the Act that conviction for an offence resulting in imprisonment for two or more years is a disqualification under the Representation of People Act (1951).

How to extend

A student can take this threshold (2+ years) and compare it with a five-year sentence to see that the Act creates disqualification for such sentences, then look up the Act's provisions to determine whether the disqualification continues after release.

Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity. 7th ed., McGraw Hill. > Chapter 23: Parliament > Disqualifications > p. 227
Strength: 4/5
“He/she must not have been convicted for any offence resulting in imprisonment for two or more years. But, the detention of a person under a preventive detention law is not a disqualification. • 3. He/she must not have failed to lodge an account of his/her election expenses within the time. • 4. He/ she must not have any interest in government contracts, works or services. On the question whether a member is subject to any of the above disqualifications, the President's decision is final. However, he/she should obtain the opinion of the election commission and act accordingly. Disqualification on Ground of Defection The Constitution also lays down that a person shall be disqualified from being a member of Parliament if he/she is so disqualified on the ground of defection under the provisions of the Thnth Schedule.”
Why relevant

Reiterates the same statutory pattern: conviction with imprisonment of two or more years is a disqualification (and notes preventive detention is excluded).

How to extend

Use this repeated rule as corroboration that a five-year sentence meets the disqualification criterion, then consult the statutory text/case law to establish duration of the disqualification post-release.

Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 82: Electoral Reforms > 22Ibid. > p. 588
Strength: 4/5
“Consequently, the persons in jail or in police custody are allowed to contest the elections. Immediate Disqualification of Convicted MPs and MLAs In 2013, the Supreme Court held that chargesheeted Members of Parliament and MLAs, on conviction for offences, will be immediately disqualified from holding membership of the House without being given three months' time for appeal, as was the case before. The concerned Bench of the Court struck down as unconstitutional Section 8 (4) of the Representation of the People Act ( 1951 ) that allows convicted lawmakers a three-month period for filing appeal to the higher court and to get a stay of the conviction and sentence29 .”
Why relevant

Explains a related judicial development: the Supreme Court held that convicted MPs/MLAs are immediately disqualified on conviction and struck down a provision that allowed a three-month period to appeal and obtain stay.

How to extend

A student could combine this judicial rule (immediate disqualification on conviction) with the Act's imprisonment threshold to infer that conviction triggers disqualification immediately and then check whether any appellate stay or post-release restoration affects the disqualification period.

Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 89: National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution > 12. On Electoral Processes > p. 621
Strength: 3/5
“• 1. Any person charged with any offence punishable with imprisonment for a maximum term of five years or more, should be disqualified from being chosen as or for being a member of Parliament or Legislature of a State. • 2. Any person convicted for any heinous crime like murder, rape, smuggling, dacoity, etc., should be permanently debarred from contesting for any political office. earmarked exclusively for the disposal of election petitions and election disputes. 621 • 5. Any system of State funding of elections bears a close nexus to the regulation of working of political parties by law and to the creation of a foolproof mechanism under law with a view to implementing the financial limits strictly.”
Why relevant

Offers a recommendation/example distinction in which persons charged with offences punishable up to five years should be disqualified, and suggests permanent debarring for certain heinous crimes.

How to extend

A student can contrast this suggested rule (disqualification on charge for offences punishable with up to five years) and the separate idea of permanent debarment for heinous crimes to probe whether the Act's actual disqualification for a five-year sentence is temporary or permanent.

Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 3: THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE CONSTITUTION > THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE CONSTITUTION > p. 25
Strength: 3/5
“I h b"1l b People, by the or teState LegiS ature, as t ~ case may e, WI .not e Peopl.e and for the saved by sub-sectIOn (4) of sectIOn 8 of the Act whICh has People. been held ultra vires the Constitution notwithstanding that he files the appeal or revision against the conviction and/or sentence. Further, a person who has no right to vote by virtue of the provisions of sub-section (5) of section 62 of the 1951 Act is not an elector and is therefore, not qualified to contest the election to the House of the People or the Legislative Assembly of a State. (b) The offering of equal opportunity to men and women, irrespective of their caste and creed, in the matter of public employment also implements this democratic ideal.”
Why relevant

Notes that a person deprived of the right to vote under a provision of the 1951 Act is not qualified to contest elections, linking voting-disqualification provisions to candidacy-disqualification.

How to extend

A student could use this link to check whether the Act's provisions that remove voting rights or impose disqualification after conviction continue after release, thereby informing whether a five-year sentence causes permanent loss of contesting rights.

Pattern takeaway: UPSC creates difficulty by mis-mapping common definitions. They swapped 'Qualified to be a member' with 'Eligible to vote'. Always debug definitions in Polity questions; never assume synonyms.
How you should have studied
  1. [THE VERDICT]: Trap. Statement 1 is a logic bomb (Minimum Age 18 vs 25). Statement 2 is standard RPA static. Source: Laxmikanth Ch 32 & RPA 1951 Sec 8.
  2. [THE CONCEPTUAL TRIGGER]: Qualifications vs. Disqualifications. Specifically, the constitutional gap between an 'Elector' (Voter) and a 'Candidate' (Contestant).
  3. [THE HORIZONTAL EXPANSION]: Memorize the Age Ladder: Vote (18) < Panchayat (21) < LS/MLA (25) < RS/MLC (30) < Pres/VP/Gov (35). RPA Disqualification Math: Jail term (≥ 2 yrs) → Disqualification = Jail term + 6 years. Corrupt practices = Max 6 years. Failure to lodge accounts = 3 years.
  4. [THE STRATEGIC METACOGNITION]: When a statement links two conditions ('Eligible to vote' → 'Minister'), test the minimum threshold. Can an 18-year-old voter be a Minister? No. Statement falsified immediately.
Concept hooks from this question
📌 Adjacent topic to master
S1
👉 Temporary appointment of ministers from outside the legislature
💡 The insight

The Constitution permits appointment of persons who are not members of the legislature as ministers for a limited time.

High-yield for questions about appointment rules and exceptions in parliamentary democracy; connects to chapters on Council of Ministers, executive-legislature relations, and comparative practice between Union and States. Enables answering MCQs and short-answer questions on who may be appointed as ministers and under what conditions.

📚 Reading List :
  • Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 32: State Council of Ministers > APPOINTMENT OF MINISTERS > p. 331
  • Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 11: The Union Executive > 3. The Council of Ministers > p. 227
🔗 Anchor: "Under the Constitution of India, can a person who is not a member of a State Leg..."
📌 Adjacent topic to master
S1
👉 Six-month rule to secure legislative membership
💡 The insight

A non-member appointed as a minister must become a member of either House within six months or vacate office.

Crucial for UPSC MCQs and conceptual questions on constitutional safeguards and tenure of executive offices; links to topics on disqualification, by-elections, and stability of governments. Helps in analyzing time-bound constitutional exceptions and judicial interpretations.

📚 Reading List :
  • Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 32: State Council of Ministers > APPOINTMENT OF MINISTERS > p. 331
  • Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity. 7th ed., McGraw Hill. > Chapter 31: Chief Minister > APPOINTMENT OF CHIEF MINISTER > p. 325
🔗 Anchor: "Under the Constitution of India, can a person who is not a member of a State Leg..."
📌 Adjacent topic to master
S1
👉 Ministerial participation rights across Houses
💡 The insight

A minister who is a member of one House has the right to speak and take part in proceedings of the other House (though not to vote there).

Useful for questions on bicameral functioning, legislative privileges, and role of ministers in legislative processes; connects to study of parliamentary procedures and the interaction between Council of Ministers and both Houses. Helps tackle questions on legislative privileges and inter-house participation.

📚 Reading List :
  • Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 32: State Council of Ministers > APPOINTMENT OF MINISTERS > p. 331
  • Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 11: The Union Executive > 3. The Council of Ministers > p. 227
🔗 Anchor: "Under the Constitution of India, can a person who is not a member of a State Leg..."
📌 Adjacent topic to master
S2
👉 Disqualification threshold — imprisonment of two or more years
💡 The insight

A conviction resulting in imprisonment of two or more years triggers statutory disqualification for membership of Parliament or a State Legislature.

High-yield: this is a core eligibility rule under electoral law, links directly to Articles 102/191 and Representation of the People Act, and is frequently tested in polity questions on candidate qualifications and disqualifications. Mastering it helps answer questions that require distinguishing which sentences lead to disqualification and differentiating criminal conviction from preventive detention.

📚 Reading List :
  • Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 23: Parliament > Disqualifications > p. 227
  • Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity. 7th ed., McGraw Hill. > Chapter 23: Parliament > Disqualifications > p. 227
🔗 Anchor: "According to the Representation of the People Act, 1951, does a conviction with ..."
📌 Adjacent topic to master
S2
👉 Immediate disqualification on conviction; removal of the 3-month reprieve
💡 The insight

Convicted legislators can be immediately disqualified without a three-month period to seek a stay on appeal once the relevant provision was struck down.

Important for understanding the temporal aspect of disqualification and the effect of judicial intervention on electoral law; useful for case‑law and reform questions in polity, and for evaluating tensions between the rights of the accused and institutional integrity.

📚 Reading List :
  • Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 82: Electoral Reforms > 22Ibid. > p. 588
  • Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 3: THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE CONSTITUTION > THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE CONSTITUTION > p. 25
🔗 Anchor: "According to the Representation of the People Act, 1951, does a conviction with ..."
📌 Adjacent topic to master
S2
👉 Permanent debarment for specified heinous crimes
💡 The insight

Certain heinous offences have been recommended to carry permanent debarment from contesting political office.

Useful for policy and legislative-reform questions: distinguishes ordinary statutory disqualification from proposals for lifetime bans, and aids in evaluating normative reforms versus existing law.

📚 Reading List :
  • Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 89: National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution > 12. On Electoral Processes > p. 621
🔗 Anchor: "According to the Representation of the People Act, 1951, does a conviction with ..."
🌑 The Hidden Trap

Who decides the disqualification? For RPA grounds (Office of Profit, Insolvency, Conviction), the President/Governor decides on the binding advice of the Election Commission. For Defection (10th Schedule), the Presiding Officer decides (subject to judicial review). UPSC loves swapping these two authorities.

⚡ Elimination Cheat Code

The 'Reformation' Heuristic. In Statement 2, the word 'Permanently' is suspicious. Indian legal philosophy focuses on reformation; even life convicts get released. A permanent statutory ban is an extreme stance usually reserved for specific heinous acts, not general criminal offences. If you see 'Permanently' in a general Polity law statement, be 90% skeptical.

🔗 Mains Connection

GS-2 (Representation of People Act): This links directly to the 'Decriminalization of Politics' debate. The Supreme Court's Lily Thomas judgment (striking down the 3-month appeal window) and the debate on 'Lifetime Bans' for convicted politicians are high-yield Mains themes.

✓ Thank you! We'll review this.

SIMILAR QUESTIONS

IAS · 2008 · Q99 Relevance score: 4.08

Consider the following statements: The Constitution of India provides that 1. the Legislative Assembly of each State shall consist of not more than 450 members chosen by direct election from territorial constituencies in the State. 2. a person shall not be qualified to be chosen to fill a seat in the Legislative Assembly of a State if he/she is less than 25 years of age. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

CAPF · 2012 · Q12 Relevance score: 3.41

Consider the following statements about Indian elections : 1. The Constitution provides that elections to the House of the People and the Legislative Assemblies of States are to be held on the basis of universal adult suffrage. 2. The Constitution stipulates that there will be separate electoral rolls for Parliamentary and State Assembly elections. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

IAS · 1999 · Q14 Relevance score: 2.77

Consider the following statements about the recent amendments to the Election Law by the Representation of the People (Amendment) Act, 1996 : I. Any conviction for the offence of insulting the Indian National flag or the Constitution of India shall entail disqualification for contesting elections to Parliament and State Legislatures for six years from the date of conviction. II. There is an increase in the security deposit which a candidate has to make to contest the election to the Lok Sabha. III. A candidate cannot now stand for election from more than one Parliamentary constituency. IV. No election will now be countermanded on the death of a contesting candidate. Which of the above statements are correct ?

IAS · 2025 · Q54 Relevance score: 2.61

Consider the following statements : I. The Constitution of India explicitly mentions that in certain spheres the Governor of a State acts in his/her own discretion. II. The President of India can, of his/her own, reserve a bill passed by a State Legislature for his/her consideration without it being forwarded by the Governor of the State concerned. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?