Question

According to the passage, the Court cannot decide what is “good” or “bad” governance, but it can:

• A. Disqualify Ministers from holding office
• B. Indicate constitutional ethos on governance and remind functionaries of their duty
• C. Frame rules on qualifications of Ministers
• D. Amend the Constitution to insert explicit standards of morality
• A. The rigidity of the constitutional text
• B. The good sense and integrity of those who administer the Constitution
• C. The presence of a strong opposition
• D. Judicial intervention in governance
• A. They should avoid appointing persons against whom criminal charges involving moral turpitude are framed
• B. They must appoint Ministers strictly from the ruling party only
• C. They should consult the Supreme Court before finalizing appointments
• D. They are bound to appoint only members of the Lok Sabha/Legislative Assembly
• A. Judicial review of all ministerial appointments
• B. Prophetic duty to remind key functionaries of their constitutional role
• C. Power to veto ministerial selections made by the Prime Minister
• D. Directing Parliament to amend the law on disqualification
• A. Council of Ministers
• B. Prime Minister and Council of Ministers
• C. Chief Minister and Council of Ministers
• D. Prime Minister and Chief Minister
• A. Against whom charges have been framed in a court of law
• B. Against whom charges involving moral turpitude have been framed in a court of law
• C. Against whom charges have been proved in a court of law
• D. Against whom a case is pending in a court of law

Answer 1

The Correct Option is B

The passage draws a clean line between two things, what the court cannot decide and what it can still do, so this question is really about locating that second half.

1. Disqualify Ministers: Not mentioned as a court power here, and it would conflict with the passage's own statement that selection is the executive's prerogative.
2. Indicate constitutional ethos and remind functionaries: This is the exact power the passage grants, stated directly in its opening lines.
3. Frame rules on qualifications: This would be a rule making power, which the passage assigns to the constitutional functionaries, not the court.
4. Amend the Constitution: Outside any court's power under the Constitution's own amendment process, and not something this passage claims either.

Locating the passage's stated exception to the court cannot decide leads straight to option (B).

Answer 2

Looking closely at the verbs used in each option is a quick way to separate the real power from the invented ones here.

1. Disqualify Ministers from holding office: Disqualify is a coercive, binding action. The passage's language stays advisory throughout, so a coercive verb like this does not belong.
2. Indicate constitutional ethos and remind functionaries: Indicate and remind are exactly the verbs the passage uses for the court's role, both non-binding and value pointing rather than command giving.
3. Frame rules on qualifications of Ministers: Frame rules implies a law making or standard setting power, which again does not match the passage's advisory tone toward the court.
4. Amend the Constitution to insert explicit standards: Amend is a legislative act altogether outside judicial power, and far stronger than anything the passage describes the court doing.

Matching the passage's own soft verbs, indicate and remind, to the options confirms the same answer as any other reading of the text.

So the correct answer is (B) Indicate constitutional ethos on governance and remind functionaries of their duty.

Answer 3

The key here is remembering this is Ambedkar's belief specifically, as reported inside the passage, not the passage's own general argument.

1. Rigidity of the constitutional text: Not something the passage links to Ambedkar's quoted view.
2. Good sense and integrity of those who administer the Constitution: This is exactly what the passage attributes to him, trusting the Prime Minister and Chief Minister's judgment.
3. Presence of a strong opposition: Absent from the passage entirely.
4. Judicial intervention in governance: Contradicted by the passage's insistence that courts stay out of ministerial selection.

Since only one option is tied to Ambedkar's quoted words in the text, option (B) is correct.

Answer 4

Another route to the answer is to look at what the passage says went wrong in practice, and work out what assumption that failure breaks.

1. The rigidity of the constitutional text: The passage never suggests the text was too flexible or too rigid, so this is not the assumption being tested by the failures it describes.
2. The good sense and integrity of those who administer the Constitution: The passage says some appointments turned out to be a story of great expectations, meaning unfit persons were sometimes inducted despite Ambedkar's trust that good sense would prevent this. That is a direct failure of the very assumption this option describes.
3. The presence of a strong opposition: No failure connected to an opposition's presence or absence appears anywhere in the passage.
4. Judicial intervention in governance: The passage does not treat a lack of judicial intervention as the cause of the described failures, it instead reaffirms that courts should not intervene in this choice.

The one assumption whose breakdown the passage actually describes is the trust placed in the administering functionaries' good sense, confirming that this is what Ambedkar believed the Constitution's working depended on.

So the correct answer is (B) The good sense and integrity of those who administer the Constitution.

Answer 5

The passage respects the Prime Minister's and Chief Minister's prerogative broadly, but still names one narrow limit, and that limit is what this question is really asking about.

1. Avoid persons with moral turpitude charges framed against them: Directly stated in the passage as the one thing they are well advised to consider.
2. Appoint only from the ruling party: Never discussed in the passage.
3. Consult the Supreme Court first: Contradicted by the passage's own statement that the court will not direct how this power is used.
4. Appoint only sitting legislators: A different constitutional rule entirely, not covered here.

Since the passage names exactly one restriction and it matches option (A), that is the correct choice.

Answer 6

The passage takes care to protect the Prime Minister's and Chief Minister's discretion, calling it their constitutional prerogative, so any option that would remove that discretion altogether is probably wrong, except for the one exception the passage itself names.

1. Avoid persons with moral turpitude charges framed against them: This does not remove their discretion, it simply asks them to use that discretion wisely on one narrow point, exactly the exception the passage carves out for itself.
2. Appoint only from the ruling party: This would strip away discretion entirely by locking their choice to one group, something the passage's respect for prerogative rules out, and something it never actually states.
3. Consult the Supreme Court before finalizing appointments: This would hand part of the discretion to the judiciary, directly against the passage's statement that the court will not direct this choice.
4. Appoint only members of the Lok Sabha/Legislative Assembly: This is a separate rule from a different part of constitutional law and is not the limit this passage discusses at all.

Only one option fits inside the narrow exception the passage carves out of an otherwise protected discretion.

So the correct answer is (A) They should avoid appointing persons against whom criminal charges involving moral turpitude are framed.

Answer 7

The passage's own chosen phrase for the court's role makes this a matching question more than an inference one.

1. Judicial review of all ministerial appointments: Rejected in the passage's own words, since the court says it will not direct how this power is used.
2. Prophetic duty to remind key functionaries: Lifted almost directly from the passage's own description of its role.
3. Power to veto ministerial selections: No veto power is claimed anywhere in the text.
4. Directing Parliament to amend disqualification law: Not something the passage mentions the court doing.

The passage's own label for its role points straight to option (B).

Answer 8

Ranking these four options from the strongest court power to the weakest helps place the passage's actual claim correctly.

1. Judicial review of all ministerial appointments: A strong, ongoing supervisory power over every appointment. The passage explicitly places itself below this level of intervention.
2. Prophetic duty to remind key functionaries of their constitutional role: A weak, advisory power, speaking to values and duty without controlling any outcome. This is exactly where the passage places itself, using the word remind and denying any directive power.
3. Power to veto ministerial selections: A strong, decisive power that would let the court block a choice outright, stronger than anything the passage claims.
4. Directing Parliament to amend the law on disqualification: A power over legislation itself, well beyond the passage's scope, which stays focused on the Prime Minister and Chief Minister, not Parliament.

The passage sits at the weak, advisory end of this scale, which is exactly the prophetic duty to remind description.

So the correct answer is (B) Prophetic duty to remind key functionaries of their constitutional role.

Answer 9

The passage gives its own definition here, so the safest approach is to quote it back and see which option matches exactly.

1. Council of Ministers: Not the phrase the passage uses.
2. Prime Minister and Council of Ministers: Half right, half added, so it does not match.
3. Chief Minister and Council of Ministers: Same problem in reverse.
4. Prime Minister and Chief Minister: This is the passage's exact phrase, the two great constitutional functionaries.

Only the option with no extra group added matches the passage's own definition, confirming option (D).

Answer 10

A quick structural check narrows this down before even matching names: the passage calls these functionaries the two great constitutional functionaries, so the correct option must name exactly two individuals, not a mix of an individual and a group.

1. Council of Ministers: This names one group, not two individuals, so it fails the count check on its own.
2. Prime Minister and Council of Ministers: This pairs one individual with a group, which reads as more than two distinct office holders and does not fit the passage's phrasing.
3. Chief Minister and Council of Ministers: The same structural mismatch, one individual plus a group rather than two individuals.
4. Prime Minister and Chief Minister: Exactly two individual office holders, matching the passage's own count and its actual naming of these two roles elsewhere in the text.

Once the count check rules out every option with a group in it, the one remaining option also happens to be the exact pair the passage names.

So the correct answer is (D) Prime Minister and Chief Minister.

Answer 11

Getting this right depends on matching two conditions exactly, not just one, since the passage's bar has two parts.

1. Any charges framed: Missing the moral turpitude condition, too broad.
2. Charges involving moral turpitude framed: Both conditions present, matching the passage exactly.
3. Charges proved: Sets the bar at conviction, later than what the passage says.
4. A case pending: Too vague, does not confirm charges or their nature.

Only the option carrying both the framed stage and the moral turpitude qualifier matches the passage, so option (B) is correct.

Answer 12

Thinking through the stages a criminal case passes through, accusation, charges framed, trial, and finally proof or conviction, helps place the passage's bar at the right point.

1. Charges have been framed, any offence: This gets the stage right, framing, but skips the type of offence, making it too broad on the offence side.
2. Charges involving moral turpitude have been framed: This lands on the exact stage, framing, and the exact offence category, moral turpitude, matching the passage on both counts.
3. Charges have been proved: This points to a stage much later in the timeline than framing, after trial and proof, which is later than the passage's actual bar.
4. A case is pending: This points to a stage that could be before charges are even framed, earlier than the passage's actual bar.

Placing each option on the timeline of a criminal case shows only one sits exactly where the passage draws its line.

So the correct answer is (B) Against whom charges involving moral turpitude have been framed in a court of law.