Polity Current Affairs Archives

AP BC Reservation in Local Bodies: Supreme Court Verdict and Mishra Commission Report

Why in news

The Supreme Court dismissed Andhra Pradesh’s appeal and upheld the High Court order that struck down 34% BC reservation in local bodies for breaching the 50% ceiling. Soon after, the AP Cabinet accepted the Rajeev Ranjan Mishra Dedicated Commission report, fixing BC reservation local body-wise, with an average of 28.18%.

Key points

Court rulings

AP High Court: struck down the orders that gave 34% to BCs in Panchayat Raj Institutions and 33.33% in urban local bodies. It directed the government and the State Election Commission to start the election process within six weeks.
Supreme Court: ruled that the High Court order was reasonable. The reservation went beyond the 50% limit set in Indra Sawhney (1992), and there was no empirical data to justify crossing it.
In a separate case, the Supreme Court ruled that the local body polls cannot be delayed because the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls is under way.

AP Cabinet decision

Accepted the report of the Dedicated Commission headed by Rajeev Ranjan Mishra.
Purpose of the commission: to collect empirical data on the backwardness of BCs in each local body, as required by the Supreme Court’s triple test, so that BC reservation can be fixed local body-wise without crossing the 50% limit.
Total SC + ST + BC reservation will not exceed 50% in any local body.
Order of calculation: ST quota first, then SC (both on Census 2011), then the BC share within the remaining room.
Data used for BCs: Unified Family Survey, Ward and Village Secretariats data, NFHS, records of the Panchayat Raj and Municipal departments, and the Census.
BC quota by post (state government figures):

Post	BC quota
Gram panchayat ward members	26.73%
Sarpanches	27.95%
MPTC members	25.55%
Mandal Parishad presidents	24.60%
ZPTC members	24.60%
Zilla Parishad chairpersons	23.08%
Urban ward members	32.78%
Municipal chairpersons	33.02%
Mayors	35.29%
Overall average	28.18%

The government expects BCs to get more than 38,000 posts. The ruling coalition promised more than 34% of its party tickets to BCs where the legal quota is lower.

Background / static link

Article 243D: reservation in Panchayats for SCs and STs (by population) and women (at least one-third). Article 243D(6) lets states reserve seats for backward classes.
Article 243T: the same for Municipalities; 243T(6) covers backward classes.
K. Krishna Murthy v. Union of India (2010): the Supreme Court ruled that political backwardness differs from social and educational backwardness. Local body reservation for BCs is allowed but must be justified and must generally stay within 50%.
Vikas Kishanrao Gawali v. State of Maharashtra (2021) – the triple test:
1. Set up a dedicated commission to carry out a contemporaneous, rigorous empirical inquiry into backwardness for local bodies.
2. Specify the reservation local body-wise based on the commission’s findings.
3. Total SC + ST + OBC reservation must not exceed 50%.
Suresh Mahajan v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2022): elections cannot be held up indefinitely; without a completed triple test, the seats go to the general category.
AP history (as stated by the state government): 20% BC quota in local bodies in 1987, raised to 34% in 1995.

Significance

Rule of law: confirms that the 50% ceiling and triple test bind every state, whatever the political promise.
Data-based reservation: reservation is now fixed for each local body based on its own population data, not one flat figure for the state.
Timely elections: the HC’s six-week direction and the SC’s refusal to allow delays protect the constitutional duty to hold local polls on time (Article 243E and 243U set a five-year term).
Model for other states: shows a legally safe path for OBC quotas in local bodies.

Concerns / challenges

Lower share than promised: the average of 28.18% is below the 34% that BCs had earlier, which may cause dissatisfaction.
Old SC/ST data: SC and ST quotas still use Census 2011 because newer caste census data is not yet available.
Areas with high SC/ST share: in tribal areas, little or no room is left for BCs under the 50% cap.
Data quality: state survey data can be challenged in court, as happened with the 34% orders.

Telangana angle

Telangana faced the same issue. The Telangana High Court stayed the state’s order that raised BC reservation in local bodies to 42% (taking the total to 67%). The Supreme Court then dismissed the state’s plea against that stay. Both states show that the triple test and the 50% cap cannot be bypassed by executive orders.

Read our earlier explainer: AP BC Reservation Commission 2026

Prelims facts

Head of AP’s Dedicated BC Commission: Rajeev Ranjan Mishra.
Average BC quota approved by the AP Cabinet: 28.18%. Highest is for Mayors (35.29%).
BC reservation in Panchayats: Article 243D(6). In Municipalities: Article 243T(6).
Triple test case: Vikas Kishanrao Gawali (2021).
50% ceiling: Indra Sawhney (1992).

Practice MCQs

Q1. Which of the following is NOT part of the Supreme Court’s “triple test” for OBC reservation in local bodies?

Setting up a dedicated commission for an empirical inquiry
Specifying the proportion of reservation local body-wise
Total SC, ST and OBC reservation not exceeding 50%
Excluding the creamy layer through an income limit of ₹8 lakh

Answer: (d). The triple test has only the first three conditions. The creamy layer rule applies to jobs and education, not this test.

Q2. Which constitutional provisions enable states to reserve seats for backward classes in Panchayats and Municipalities respectively?

Article 243D(6) and Article 243T(6)
Article 15(4) and Article 16(4)
Article 243K and Article 243ZA
Article 340 and Article 342A

Answer: (a). 243D(6) covers Panchayats and 243T(6) covers Municipalities. 243K and 243ZA deal with State Election Commissions.

Q3. Consider the following statements regarding the recent AP Cabinet decision on BC reservation in local bodies:

BC reservation was fixed at a uniform 34% across all local bodies.
SC and ST quotas were calculated first, based on Census 2011.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

1 only (b) 2 only (c) Both 1 and 2 (d) Neither 1 nor 2

Answer: (b). BC quotas vary by post (average 28.18%); ST and SC quotas were fixed first using Census 2011.

Mains practice question

“The triple test balances social justice with constitutional limits.” Discuss with reference to the recent BC reservation issues in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana local bodies. (250 words, 15 marks)

AP BC Reservation in Local Bodies: Supreme Court Verdict and Mishra Commission Report Read More »

Paschim Banga: West Bengal Renaming and Article 3 – 5 Important Facts

Leave a Comment / Daily Current Affairs, National Current Affairs, Polity Current Affairs / PSCchronicles team

Paschim Banga may soon become the official name of West Bengal. The state government plans to bring the renaming proposal to the Assembly in its next session. This note covers the Article 3 procedure for renaming a state, earlier West Bengal proposals, and the traps examiners set on this topic.

Why in News?

West Bengal BJP president Samik Bhattacharya announced that the state government will soon table a Bill in the Legislative Assembly to rename West Bengal as Paschim Banga. He linked the new name to the state’s history and identity.

For prelims, the real issue is who has the power to rename a state. Under the Constitution, a state cannot change its own name. Only Parliament can do it, by law under Article 3.

Key Facts for Prelims: Paschim Banga Proposal

Proposed name: Paschim Banga (the Bengali form of “West Bengal”)
Who announced it: The state BJP president, on behalf of the state government
Earlier proposals: “Paschim Banga” (2011); three names, Bangla, Bengal and Bangal (2016); and a single name, “Bangla”, through a unanimous Assembly resolution (2018)
Outcome so far: The Centre approved none of the earlier proposals. One concern raised was the similarity of “Bangla” to Bangladesh.
Reason usually given: In the alphabetical list, “West Bengal” comes last among states, so its turn comes last at inter-state meetings

Paschim Banga and Article 3: How a State Is Renamed

Under Article 3, Parliament may by law:

form a new state by separating territory or uniting states
increase or diminish the area of a state
alter the boundaries of a state
alter the name of a state

Step-by-step procedure:

State resolution: The process usually starts with a resolution of the State Legislative Assembly, sent to the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA).
Consultation: MHA consults agencies such as the Intelligence Bureau, Railways, Department of Posts and Survey of India.
President’s recommendation: A Bill can be introduced in either House of Parliament only on the prior recommendation of the President.
Reference to the state: Before recommending it, the President refers the Bill to the State Legislature for its views within a specified period.
Views not binding: Parliament can go ahead even if the state disagrees or does not reply in time.
Passage: Both Houses pass the Bill by a simple majority and it becomes law with the President’s assent.

Static Link: Article 4 and the Schedules

Article 4 says laws made under Articles 2 and 3 may amend the First Schedule (names and territories of states) and the Fourth Schedule (Rajya Sabha seats).
Such laws are not deemed to be amendments under Article 368. So a simple majority is enough, not a special majority.
Babulal Parate case (1960): The Supreme Court held that if Parliament amends the Bill, it need not be referred to the state again.
For Union Territories, there is no requirement to refer the Bill to any legislature.
Renaming a city or village does not need a Parliament law. The state government does it by executive order after MHA’s no-objection.

Past Renaming of States and UTs

Old Name	New Name	Year
Madras State	Tamil Nadu	1969
Mysore	Karnataka	1973
Laccadive, Minicoy and Amindivi Islands	Lakshadweep	1973
Pondicherry	Puducherry	2006
Uttaranchal	Uttarakhand	2007
Orissa	Odisha	2011

Note: The Orissa-to-Odisha change also needed the 96th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2011, because the language name “Oriya” in the Eighth Schedule was changed to “Odia”. Changing a language name in the Eighth Schedule needs an Article 368 amendment.

Quick Revision Table: Paschim Banga and Renaming of States

Parameter	Fact
Proposed new name	Paschim Banga
Power to rename a state	Parliament, by law (Article 3)
Bill introduced on	Prior recommendation of the President
Role of State Legislature	Gives views; not binding
Majority required	Simple majority
Amendment under Article 368?	No (Article 4(2))
Schedule amended	First Schedule (Fourth Schedule if Rajya Sabha seats change)
Earlier single name proposed by the Assembly	Bangla
Most recent state renamed	Orissa to Odisha

Trap / Confusing Points

Common Confusion	Correct Position
A State Assembly can rename the state by passing its own Bill	No. Only Parliament can, under Article 3. The Assembly can only recommend or give its views.
Renaming a state needs a special majority under Article 368	No. Article 4(2) says it is not an amendment under Article 368, so a simple majority is enough.
The state’s views bind the President and Parliament	No. The views are only advisory.
The Bill can be introduced without the President’s recommendation	No. Prior recommendation of the President is mandatory.
Renaming a city also needs an Act of Parliament	No. It is an executive decision of the state with MHA’s no-objection.
Article 2 and Article 3 mean the same thing	No. Article 2 is for admitting new states from outside India (e.g., Sikkim). Article 3 is for reorganising existing states.

Practice MCQs on Paschim Banga and Article 3

1. Under which Article of the Constitution can Parliament alter the name of a State?
a. Article 2
b. Article 3
c. Article 4
d. Article 368
Ans: B
Explanation: Article 3 lets Parliament form new states and alter the areas, boundaries or names of existing states. Article 2 deals with admitting new states into the Union.

2. A Bill to change the name of a State can be introduced in Parliament only:
a. After a two-thirds resolution of the State Assembly
b. On the recommendation of the President
c. With the consent of the Governor
d. After approval of the Inter-State Council
Ans: B
Explanation: Article 3 requires the prior recommendation of the President. The President first refers the Bill to the State Legislature for its views.

3. A law under Article 3 renaming a State is passed by:
a. Special majority under Article 368
b. Special majority plus ratification by half the states
c. Simple majority of both Houses
d. A joint sitting only
Ans: C
Explanation: Article 4(2) says such laws are not constitutional amendments under Article 368. So a simple majority is enough.

4. Which renaming also needed a constitutional amendment to change a language name in the Eighth Schedule?
a. Madras to Tamil Nadu
b. Mysore to Karnataka
c. Orissa to Odisha
d. Uttaranchal to Uttarakhand
Ans: C
Explanation: The 96th Amendment Act, 2011 replaced “Oriya” with “Odia” in the Eighth Schedule.

5. The views of a State Legislature on a renaming Bill referred under Article 3 are:
a. Binding on Parliament
b. Binding on the President only
c. Not binding; Parliament may proceed
d. Needed only when the area is increased
Ans: C
Explanation: The state must be consulted, but its views are advisory. Parliament may pass the law even if the state objects.

Exam tip: Revise Articles 2, 3 and 4 and the First Schedule together. Prelims questions on the Paschim Banga proposal will test the procedure, not the announcement.

To learn current affairs from exam point of view, Click here.

To know more about the West Bengal renaming proposal, Click here.

Paschim Banga: West Bengal Renaming and Article 3 – 5 Important Facts Read More »

MPLADS: Telangana MPs Use Only 23.8% of Funds – 7 Facts for TGPSC & UPSC

Leave a Comment / Daily Current Affairs, Polity Current Affairs, Telangana Current Affairs / PSCchronicles team

MPLADS – the Members of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme – is in the news because Telangana’s 23 MPs utilised only 23.8% of their allocated funds over two years. This note explains MPLADS rules, jurisdiction and the recent data for prelims.

Why in News?

Telangana’s 23 MPs (17 Lok Sabha + 7 Rajya Sabha, with vacancies) spent only Rs 94 crore of the Rs 394.8 crore available under MPLADS over two years – a utilisation of about 23.8%.

MPLADS: Key Facts for Prelims

Central Sector Scheme, 100% funded by the Union Government; launched in December 1993 (P.V. Narasimha Rao government).
Nodal ministry: Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation (MoSPI) since October 1994 (initially Rural Development).
Rs 5 crore per MP per year, released in two instalments of Rs 2.5 crore; funds are non-lapsable and carry forward.
Role of MP is recommendatory; the District Authority (Collector/DM) sanctions, executes and monitors works.
Works must create durable community assets (drinking water, education, health, roads, sanitation); at least 15% for SC areas and 7.5% for ST areas.
Scheme was suspended in April 2020 (COVID-19) and restored in November 2021; revised guidelines from 2023 moved to an e-SAKSHI digital platform.

Geographical jurisdiction (frequently asked)

Lok Sabha MPs: works only within their own constituency.
Rajya Sabha MPs: anywhere within the state that elected them.
Nominated MPs (both Houses): anywhere in India.
MPs may recommend works up to Rs 25 lakh per year outside their constituency/state for natural calamities (Rs 1 crore for severe calamities anywhere in India).

Related constitutional facts

Telangana sends 17 Lok Sabha and 7 Rajya Sabha members; Andhra Pradesh sends 25 and 11.
State-level equivalents: MLA Local Area Development schemes (Telangana: Rs 5 crore per MLA/MLC under Assembly Constituency Development Programme).

Quick Revision Table: it

Point	Detail
Launched	December 1993
Type	Central Sector Scheme (100% central)
Nodal ministry	MoSPI (since 1994)
Entitlement	Rs 5 crore/MP/year, two instalments
Fund nature	Non-lapsable
Executing authority	District Collector / DM
Telangana utilisation	Rs 94 cr of Rs 394.8 cr (23.8%)

Trap / Confusing Points: MPLADS

Confusion	Correct Position
it is a Centrally Sponsored Scheme	No – Central Sector Scheme, fully central
MPs directly execute works	No – MPs only recommend; District Authority executes
Unspent funds lapse each year	No – non-lapsable
Nodal ministry is Rural Development	No – MoSPI since 1994

5 Practice MCQs on MPLADS

1. The nodal ministry for it is:
a. Ministry of Rural Development
b. Ministry of Finance
c. Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation
d. Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs
Ans: C
Explanation: MoSPI has administered MPLADS since October 1994.

2. Under it, a Rajya Sabha MP can recommend works:
a. Only in his/her district
b. Anywhere in the state from which elected
c. Anywhere in India
d. Only in the state capital
Ans: B
Explanation: Rajya Sabha MPs may choose works anywhere in their electing state; nominated MPs anywhere in India.

3. The annual MPLADS entitlement per MP is:
a. Rs 2 crore
b. Rs 2.5 crore
c. Rs 5 crore
d. Rs 10 crore
Ans: C
Explanation: Rs 5 crore per year, released in two instalments of Rs 2.5 crore.

4. Under it, the authority responsible for sanctioning and executing works is:
a. The MP
b. The District Authority (Collector/DM)
c. The State Finance Department
d. NITI Aayog
Ans: B
Explanation: The MP’s role is purely recommendatory; the District Authority executes.

5. MPLADS was launched in:
a. 1991
b. 1993
c. 1996
d. 2001
Ans: B
Explanation: Launched in December 1993 during the P.V. Narasimha Rao government.

Exam tip: Revise it together with the static links above; UPSC and APPSC prelims often frame questions from these interconnections.

To learn current affairs from exam point of view, Click here.

MPLADS: Telangana MPs Use Only 23.8% of Funds – 7 Facts for TGPSC & UPSC Read More »

Manipur NRC Demand: Assembly Resolution with 1961 Base Year – UPSC Notes

Leave a Comment / Daily Current Affairs, National Current Affairs, Polity Current Affairs / PSCchronicles team

The Manipur NRC demand has resurfaced with the state Assembly passing its third resolution asking the Centre to implement and update the National Register of Citizens in Manipur with 1961 as the base year. This note explains the Manipur NRC issue and the NRC–NPR distinction for prelims.

Why in News?

The Manipur Assembly adopted a resolution urging the Centre to implement the NRC with 1961 as the base year and to prioritise it before the national Census.

1961 is the cut-off year Manipur already uses to identify native residents under its Inner Line Permit (ILP) regime.

Manipur NRC: Key Facts for Prelims

NRC = official register of legal Indian citizens, meant to identify and remove illegal immigrants.
First nationwide NRC was prepared after the 1951 Census; it was never updated at the national level.
Assam is the only state that updated its NRC – final list published in 2019 under Supreme Court supervision, using 24 March 1971 as the cut-off (Assam Accord, 1985).
Legal basis: Section 14A of the Citizenship Act, 1955 (inserted 2004) and the Citizenship (Registration of Citizens and Issue of National Identity Cards) Rules, 2003.
Manipur got the Inner Line Permit system in December 2019 under the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation, 1873 (like Arunachal, Nagaland, Mizoram).

NPR vs NRC (interconnected concept)

NPR (National Population Register) records every usual resident who has lived in an area for six months or more or intends to – including foreign nationals.
NRC records only Indian citizens.
NPR is prepared under the 2003 Rules through the house-listing phase of the Census; it is the first step envisaged towards a national NRC.
Census is conducted under the Census Act, 1948; the Registrar General and Census Commissioner (MHA) handles both Census and NPR.

Quick Revision Table: Manipur NRC

Point	Detail
Demand	Update NRC in Manipur, base year 1961
Resolution count	Third such Assembly resolution
Sequence sought	NRC before Census
Only state with updated NRC	Assam (2019, cut-off 24 March 1971)
Legal basis	Section 14A, Citizenship Act 1955 + 2003 Rules
NPR covers	All usual residents incl. foreigners
NRC covers	Only Indian citizens

Trap / Confusing Points: Manipur NRC

Confusion	Correct Position
NRC has been prepared for all of India recently	No – only 1951 nationwide; Assam updated in 2019
Assam’s NRC cut-off is 1961	No – 24 March 1971; 1961 is Manipur’s ILP base year
NPR and NRC are the same	NPR lists usual residents; NRC lists citizens
Manipur has no Inner Line Permit	ILP extended to Manipur in December 2019

5 Practice MCQs on Manipur NRC

1. The first National Register of Citizens in India was prepared after which Census?
a. 1941
b. 1951
c. 1961
d. 1971
Ans: B
Explanation: The 1951 NRC was the only nationwide register ever prepared.

2. Which state has updated its NRC under Supreme Court supervision?
a. Manipur
b. Tripura
c. Assam
d. Nagaland
Ans: C
Explanation: Assam’s final NRC was published in August 2019.

3. The cut-off date for citizenship under the Assam Accord is:
a. 15 August 1947
b. 1 January 1966
c. 24 March 1971
d. 25 March 1971
Ans: C
Explanation: Persons entering Assam after 24 March 1971 are treated as illegal migrants.

4. The National Population Register includes:
a. Only Indian citizens
b. Only voters
c. All usual residents including foreigners
d. Only persons with Aadhaar
Ans: C
Explanation: NPR records usual residents irrespective of citizenship.

5. The Inner Line Permit system draws its authority from:
a. Citizenship Act, 1955
b. Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation, 1873
c. Foreigners Act, 1946
d. Sixth Schedule of the Constitution
Ans: B
Explanation: ILP is issued under the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation, 1873.

Exam tip: Revise Manipur NRC together with the static links above; UPSC and APPSC prelims often frame questions from these interconnections.

To learn current affairs from exam point of view, Click here.

To know more about the Manipur NRC resolution, Click here.

Manipur NRC Demand: Assembly Resolution with 1961 Base Year – UPSC Notes Read More »

OBC Creamy Layer Criteria: SC Special Bench on CSE 2025 Plea (5 Key Facts)

Leave a Comment / Daily Current Affairs, Polity Current Affairs / PSCchronicles team

The OBC creamy layer is back in the news as the Supreme Court has agreed to constitute a special bench to hear the Centre’s plea on how creamy layer criteria apply to the Civil Services Examination (CSE) 2025. This article covers the OBC creamy layer concept, its judicial origin and the committees behind it, purely from the prelims point of view.

Why in News?

The Supreme Court will set up a special bench to examine the Centre’s plea on whether its earlier judgment on OBC creamy layer criteria applies to the already-concluded CSE 2025 results.

In that earlier judgment, the Court held that parental income alone cannot be the sole criterion for identifying the creamy layer; the job status/category of parents must also be considered, and the ruling applies retrospectively to CSE 2025.

OBC creamy layer: Key Facts for Prelims

Creamy layer = economically and socially advanced members of a backward class who are excluded from reservation benefits in government jobs and educational institutions.
Applies only to OBC reservation; SC and ST categories are outside the creamy layer concept.
Term first proposed by the Sattanathan Commission (1971) in Tamil Nadu.
Became constitutional law through Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) (Mandal case, 9-judge bench).
Ram Nandan Committee (1993) was appointed by the Union Government to identify the creamy layer among OBCs after the Indra Sawhney verdict.
Current income ceiling for creamy layer exclusion is Rs 8 lakh per annum (revised in 2017); salary and agricultural income are not counted for the income test.
Children of Group A / Class I officers (and certain Group B cases) are treated as creamy layer irrespective of income.

Interconnected static points

Article 15(4) and Article 16(4) – enabling provisions for reservation for backward classes.
Article 340 – President can appoint a commission to investigate the conditions of backward classes (Kaka Kalelkar 1953, Mandal 1979).
102nd Amendment (2018) gave constitutional status to the National Commission for Backward Classes (Article 338B).
105th Amendment (2021) restored the power of states to identify their own OBC lists (after the Maratha reservation case).
Indra Sawhney fixed the 50% ceiling on reservation and rejected reservation in promotions for OBCs.
Related PSC Chronicles note: Centre opposes creamy layer for SC/ST reservations.

Quick Revision Table: OBC creamy layer

Point	Detail
Concept	Exclusion of advanced OBC members from reservation
Applies to	OBC only (not SC/ST)
First proposed	Sattanathan Commission (1971)
Judicial basis	Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992)
Identification committee	Ram Nandan Committee (1993)
Income ceiling	Rs 8 lakh per annum
Recent SC view	Parental income alone not enough; job status also counts

Trap / Confusing Points: OBC creamy layer

Confusion	Correct Position
Creamy layer applies to SC/ST too	No – concept applies only to OBC quota
Sattanathan Commission = Mandal Commission	Different: Sattanathan (1971, Tamil Nadu) coined the term; Mandal (1979) recommended OBC reservation
Ram Nandan Committee decided the 50% cap	No – 50% cap came from Indra Sawhney; Ram Nandan identified creamy layer criteria
Salary income counts for the Rs 8 lakh test	No – salary and agricultural income are excluded

5 Practice MCQs on OBC creamy layer

1. The term ‘creamy layer’ was first proposed by which commission?
a. Mandal Commission
b. Kaka Kalelkar Commission
c. Sattanathan Commission
d. Ram Nandan Committee
Ans: C
Explanation: The Sattanathan Commission (1971) in Tamil Nadu first proposed excluding the creamy layer from backward class benefits.

2. In which case did the Supreme Court make creamy layer exclusion mandatory for OBC reservation?
a. Kesavananda Bharati case
b. Indra Sawhney case
c. M. Nagaraj case
d. Jarnail Singh case
Ans: B
Explanation: Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) upheld OBC reservation with creamy layer exclusion and a 50% cap.

3. The Ram Nandan Committee (1993) was constituted to:
a. Recommend reservation in promotions
b. Identify creamy layer among OBCs
c. Fix the 50% ceiling
d. Prepare the central OBC list
Ans: B
Explanation: It laid down the criteria for identifying the creamy layer among OBCs after the Indra Sawhney judgment.

4. Which Article empowers the President to appoint a commission to investigate the conditions of backward classes?
a. Article 338
b. Article 340
c. Article 15
d. Article 46
Ans: B
Explanation: Article 340 was used to appoint the Kaka Kalelkar and Mandal Commissions.

5. Which constitutional amendment restored the power of states to maintain their own OBC lists?
a. 102nd Amendment
b. 103rd Amendment
c. 104th Amendment
d. 105th Amendment
Ans: D
Explanation: The 105th Amendment (2021) restored state power after the Maratha reservation judgment read the 102nd Amendment as centralising OBC identification.

Exam tip: Revise OBC creamy layer together with the static links above; UPSC and APPSC prelims often frame questions from these interconnections.

To learn current affairs from exam point of view, Click here.

To know more about the OBC creamy layer special bench, Click here.

OBC Creamy Layer Criteria: SC Special Bench on CSE 2025 Plea (5 Key Facts) Read More »

Article 142 Complete Justice: SC Quashes NEET Protest FIRs | UPSC 2026

Leave a Comment / Daily Current Affairs, Polity Current Affairs / PSCchronicles team

Article 142 Complete Justice — The Supreme Court of India has agreed to invoke its extraordinary plenary powers under Article 142 to quash FIRs filed against students who participated in nationwide NEET protests. This brings into focus the doctrine of “complete justice” and the apex court’s inherent constitutional powers. Here is everything you need to know for UPSC 2026.

Why in News: Article 142 Complete Justice

The Supreme Court of India agreed to invoke its extraordinary plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to quash First Information Reports (FIRs) filed against students who participated in nationwide protests against the NEET examination.

Key Facts for Prelims: Article 142 Complete Justice

Article 142 empowers the Supreme Court to pass any decree or order necessary for doing “complete justice” in any pending matter.
Complete Justice: Grants wide discretionary plenary power to reach beyond technicalities of strict statutory law when it causes injustice.
Enforceability: Orders under Article 142 are enforceable across India under parliamentary law or presidential order.
Constitutional Status: Serves as an inherent power for the apex court as the guardian of the Constitution.
Only the Supreme Court can invoke Article 142 — High Courts do not have this power.
Article 142 is a plenary power, meaning it is full and complete in itself.

Static Exam Link

Prelims: Article 142, plenary powers, enforceability of SC orders
Mains GS-II: Role of judiciary in protecting fundamental rights, judicial activism, scope and limits of Article 142

Quick Revision Table: Article 142 Complete Justice

Aspect	Detail
Article	Article 142 of the Constitution
Power granted	Pass any decree/order for “complete justice”
Nature of power	Plenary (full and complete)
Available to	Supreme Court only (not High Courts)
Enforceability	Across all of India
Purpose	Go beyond strict statutory law to prevent injustice
Current use	Quashing FIRs against NEET protest students

Trap / Confusing Points: Article 142 Complete Justice

Trap: High Courts can also invoke Article 142 — Wrong! Article 142 is an exclusive power of the Supreme Court only. High Courts have their own powers under Article 226 and 227, but not Article 142.
Trap: Article 142 can override fundamental rights — Wrong! The Supreme Court has held that Article 142 cannot be used to override substantive statutory provisions or fundamental rights. It supplements, not overrides.
Trap: Article 142 orders need parliamentary approval — Wrong! Article 142 orders are self-executing and enforceable across India. They do not require separate parliamentary approval.

Practice MCQs: Article 142 Complete Justice

Q1. Article 142 of the Indian Constitution empowers which court to do “complete justice”?

a) High Courts
b) District Courts
c) Supreme Court
d) All courts in India

Answer: c) Supreme Court
Article 142 is an exclusive power of the Supreme Court to pass any decree or order necessary for doing “complete justice” in any pending matter.

Q2. The power under Article 142 is described as:

a) Advisory power
b) Appellate power
c) Plenary power
d) Supervisory power

Answer: c) Plenary power
Article 142 grants wide discretionary plenary power — meaning full and complete power — to reach beyond technicalities of strict statutory law.

Q3. Orders passed under Article 142 are enforceable:

a) Only in the State where the case originated
b) Only in Union Territories
c) Across the entire territory of India
d) Only after parliamentary approval

Answer: c) Across the entire territory of India
Orders under Article 142 are enforceable throughout India under parliamentary law or presidential order.

Q4. Which of the following is NOT a correct statement about Article 142?

a) It empowers the Supreme Court to do complete justice
b) It is a plenary power of the Supreme Court
c) High Courts can also invoke Article 142 in exceptional cases
d) Orders are enforceable across India

Answer: c) High Courts can also invoke Article 142 in exceptional cases
Article 142 is exclusively available to the Supreme Court. High Courts cannot invoke this provision under any circumstances.

Q5. In the recent NEET protest case, the Supreme Court invoked Article 142 to:

a) Cancel the NEET examination
b) Quash FIRs filed against protesting students
c) Direct re-examination of all NEET candidates
d) Transfer the case to a High Court

Answer: b) Quash FIRs filed against protesting students
The Supreme Court agreed to invoke Article 142 to quash FIRs filed against students who participated in nationwide NEET protests.

📌 Daily UPSC Current Affairs — 21 August 2026

👉 Read more: Daily Current Affairs | Polity Current Affairs

🔔 Stay Updated! Bookmark PSC Chronicles for daily UPSC current affairs and exam-focused analysis.

Article 142 Complete Justice: SC Quashes NEET Protest FIRs | UPSC 2026 Read More »

Charges Against Justice Varma Proved: Impeachment of Judges Under Article 124 Explained

Leave a Comment / Daily Current Affairs, Polity Current Affairs / PSCchronicles team

Impeachment of Judges Article 124 — A three-member inquiry committee has found charges “proved” against former Delhi High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma. This brings into focus the constitutional mechanism for removal of judges under Article 124(4) and the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. Here is a comprehensive UPSC-focused analysis.

Why in News: Impeachment of Judges Article 124

A three-member inquiry committee constituted by the Lok Sabha Speaker, Om Birla, has found the charges “proved” against former Delhi High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma over the discovery of burnt currency at his residence. The committee’s report, tabled in both Houses of Parliament, said the judge had failed to provide a satisfactory explanation regarding the presence, source, or ownership of the cash.

Key Facts for Prelims: Impeachment of Judges Article 124

The removal/impeachment procedure is governed by Article 124(4) and 124(5) of the Constitution and the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
Grounds for removal: A Supreme Court judge can be removed only on two grounds — Proved misbehaviour and Incapacity.
Removal motion must be signed by: Lok Sabha — at least 100 members; Rajya Sabha — at least 50 members.
The Speaker of Lok Sabha or Chairman of Rajya Sabha may admit or refuse to admit the motion.
Three-member Inquiry Committee consists of: One Supreme Court judge, One Chief Justice of a High Court, and One distinguished jurist.
Special majority required: Majority of total membership of the House + at least 2/3 of members present and voting — in both Houses in the same session.
If charges are not proved, the removal process does not proceed on that motion.

Static Exam Link

Prelims: Article 124(4), Judges (Inquiry) Act 1968, removal procedure, special majority
Mains GS-II: Independence of judiciary, accountability of judges, judicial reform

Quick Revision Table: Impeachment of Judges Article 124

Step	Detail
Step 1: Motion introduced	Signed by 100 LS members or 50 RS members
Admission	Speaker (LS) or Chairman (RS) may admit or refuse
Step 2: Inquiry Committee	3 members — SC judge + HC Chief Justice + distinguished jurist
Step 3: Investigation	Committee examines if misbehaviour/incapacity is proved
Step 4: Voting	Both Houses pass with special majority in same session
Grounds	Only two — Proved misbehaviour and Incapacity
Governing law	Article 124(4)-(5) + Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968

Trap / Confusing Points: Impeachment of Judges Article 124

Trap: A judge can be removed by simple majority — Wrong! Removal requires a special majority: majority of total membership + 2/3 of members present and voting, in both Houses.
Trap: Removal motion needs 100 members in both Houses — Wrong! It requires 100 members in Lok Sabha but only 50 members in Rajya Sabha.
Trap: The inquiry committee has 5 members — Wrong! The inquiry committee has only 3 members: one SC judge, one HC Chief Justice, and one distinguished jurist.
Trap: Judges can be removed for incompetence — Wrong! The only two grounds are “proved misbehaviour” and “incapacity,” not incompetence.

Practice MCQs: Impeachment of Judges Article 124

Q1. Under Article 124(4), a Supreme Court judge can be removed on which grounds?

a) Proved misbehaviour and incompetence
b) Proved misbehaviour and incapacity
c) Corruption and incapacity
d) Misbehaviour, incapacity, and corruption

Answer: b) Proved misbehaviour and incapacity
Article 124(4) specifies only two grounds for removal — proved misbehaviour and incapacity.

Q2. A removal motion against a judge in the Rajya Sabha requires the signatures of at least:

a) 25 members
b) 50 members
c) 100 members
d) 75 members

Answer: b) 50 members
In the Rajya Sabha, a removal motion must be signed by at least 50 members. In the Lok Sabha, it requires at least 100 members.

Q3. The three-member inquiry committee for judge removal consists of:

a) Three Supreme Court judges
b) Two SC judges and one jurist
c) One SC judge, one HC Chief Justice, and one distinguished jurist
d) One SC judge and two HC Chief Justices

Answer: c) One SC judge, one HC Chief Justice, and one distinguished jurist
Under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, the committee comprises one SC judge, one HC Chief Justice, and one distinguished jurist.

Q4. The special majority required for passing a removal motion against a judge is:

a) Simple majority of members present and voting
b) 2/3 of total membership
c) Majority of total membership + 2/3 of members present and voting
d) 3/4 of members present and voting

Answer: c) Majority of total membership + 2/3 of members present and voting
Each House must pass the address with this special majority in the same session.

Q5. The Judges (Inquiry) Act governing the removal procedure of judges was enacted in:

a) 1950
b) 1956
c) 1968
d) 1976

Answer: c) 1968
The Judges (Inquiry) Act was enacted in 1968 to regulate the procedure for investigation and proof of misbehaviour or incapacity of judges.

📌 Daily UPSC Current Affairs — 21 August 2026

👉 Read more: Daily Current Affairs | Polity Current Affairs

🔔 Stay Updated! Bookmark PSC Chronicles for daily UPSC current affairs and exam-focused analysis.

Charges Against Justice Varma Proved: Impeachment of Judges Under Article 124 Explained Read More »

31-Member Joint Parliamentary Committee to Review FCRA Bill 2026: JPC & FCRA Explained

Leave a Comment / Daily Current Affairs, Polity Current Affairs / PSCchronicles team

Joint Parliamentary Committee FCRA Bill — The Lok Sabha has passed a motion referring the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2026, to a 31-member Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC). This involves key concepts about JPC composition, functioning, and the FCRA framework. Here is a complete UPSC-focused breakdown.

Why in News: Joint Parliamentary Committee FCRA Bill

The Lok Sabha passed a motion referring the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2026, to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC). The JPC will have 21 members from the Lok Sabha nominated by Speaker Om Birla and 10 from the Rajya Sabha nominated by Chairman C.P. Radhakrishnan.

Key Facts for Prelims: Joint Parliamentary Committee FCRA Bill

A Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) is a temporary, ad-hoc investigative body drawn from both houses of Parliament to scrutinize specific bills or issues.
Nature: It is an ad hoc (temporary) committee that dissolves automatically after completing its task and submitting its report.
Composition: Members from both houses, usually in a ratio of 2:1 between Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha (this JPC: 21 LS + 10 RS = 31 members).
Leadership: The Chairperson is appointed by the Speaker of Lok Sabha and is always a member of the lower house.
The FCRA (Foreign Contribution Regulation Act) is an internal security law managed by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA).
FCRA controls how Indian NGOs, associations, and individuals accept and use donations from foreign sources.
FCRA’s main goal is to ensure foreign money does not harm national security.

Static Exam Link

Prelims: JPC composition, FCRA provisions, types of Parliamentary Committees
Mains GS-II: Role of Parliamentary Committees in legislative scrutiny, regulation of foreign funding in India

Quick Revision Table: Joint Parliamentary Committee FCRA Bill

Aspect	Detail
What is JPC?	Temporary ad-hoc body from both Houses for specific scrutiny
Composition ratio	2:1 (Lok Sabha : Rajya Sabha)
This JPC	21 from LS + 10 from RS = 31 members
Chairperson appointed by	Speaker of Lok Sabha
Chairperson from	Always a Lok Sabha member
FCRA managed by	Ministry of Home Affairs
FCRA purpose	Regulate foreign contributions to prevent harm to national security

Trap / Confusing Points: Joint Parliamentary Committee FCRA Bill

Trap: JPC is a Standing Committee — Wrong! JPC is an ad hoc (temporary) committee, not a standing committee. It dissolves after submitting its report.
Trap: JPC Chairperson can be from Rajya Sabha — Wrong! The Chairperson is always appointed by the Speaker and is always from the Lok Sabha.
Trap: FCRA is managed by Ministry of External Affairs — Wrong! FCRA is managed by the Ministry of Home Affairs, as it is an internal security law.

Practice MCQs: Joint Parliamentary Committee FCRA Bill

Q1. A Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) is:

a) A permanent standing committee of Parliament
b) An ad hoc temporary committee that dissolves after its task
c) A committee of only Lok Sabha members
d) A constitutional body under Article 118

Answer: b) An ad hoc temporary committee that dissolves after its task
A JPC is a temporary body that is constituted for a specific purpose and dissolves automatically after completing its designated task and submitting its report.

Q2. The Chairperson of a Joint Parliamentary Committee is appointed by:

a) President of India
b) Prime Minister
c) Speaker of Lok Sabha
d) Chairman of Rajya Sabha

Answer: c) Speaker of Lok Sabha
The Chairperson is appointed by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and is always a member of the lower house.

Q3. The FCRA (Foreign Contribution Regulation Act) is administered by which Ministry?

a) Ministry of External Affairs
b) Ministry of Finance
c) Ministry of Home Affairs
d) Ministry of Law and Justice

Answer: c) Ministry of Home Affairs
FCRA is an internal security law managed by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA).

Q4. The usual composition ratio of JPC members from Lok Sabha to Rajya Sabha is:

a) 1:1
b) 2:1
c) 3:1
d) Equal representation

Answer: b) 2:1
JPC includes members from both houses, usually maintaining a ratio of 2:1 between Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha to reflect the size of each house.

Q5. The primary objective of FCRA is to:

a) Promote foreign investment in India
b) Regulate foreign trade agreements
c) Ensure foreign contributions do not harm national security
d) Manage diplomatic relations with foreign nations

Answer: c) Ensure foreign contributions do not harm national security
FCRA’s main goal is to make sure foreign money does not harm India’s national security.

📌 Daily UPSC Current Affairs — 21 August 2026

👉 Read more: Daily Current Affairs | Polity Current Affairs

🔔 Stay Updated! Bookmark PSC Chronicles for daily UPSC current affairs and exam-focused analysis.

31-Member Joint Parliamentary Committee to Review FCRA Bill 2026: JPC & FCRA Explained Read More »

Seven-Judge Constitution Bench on Legislative Privileges: Articles 105 & 194 Explained

Leave a Comment / Daily Current Affairs, Polity Current Affairs / PSCchronicles team

Legislative Privileges Constitution Bench — The Supreme Court has announced that a seven-judge Constitution Bench will commence hearing from October 6 on whether legislative privileges can override citizens’ fundamental right to freedom of speech. This case involves critical constitutional provisions under Articles 105, 194, and 145(3). Here is a detailed UPSC-focused analysis.

Why in News: Legislative Privileges Constitution Bench

The Supreme Court has said a seven-judge Constitution Bench would commence hearing from October 6 a series of long-pending petitions questioning whether legislative privileges can override citizens’ fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression.

Key Facts for Prelims: Legislative Privileges Constitution Bench

Legislative privileges are special rights and immunities enjoyed by houses of Parliament, state legislatures, and their members, enabling them to function effectively without interference.
Article 105: Deals with the powers, privileges, and immunities of Parliament, its members, and its committees.
Article 194: Grants equivalent privileges to state legislatures and their members.
Articles 122 & 212: Bar courts from inquiring into parliamentary or legislative proceedings on the ground of any alleged irregularity of procedure.
Constitution Bench: A special ad-hoc panel of the Supreme Court consisting of five or more judges, set up to decide cases involving substantial questions of constitutional law.
Article 145(3): Mandates that a minimum of five judges must hear cases involving a substantial question of constitutional interpretation.
Article 143: Empowers the President to refer questions of law or fact of public importance to the Supreme Court, heard by a Constitution Bench.

Static Exam Link

Prelims: Articles 105, 194, 122, 212, 145(3), 143
Mains GS-II: Parliamentary privileges vs. fundamental rights, separation of powers, judicial review of legislative proceedings

Quick Revision Table: Legislative Privileges Constitution Bench

Provision	Subject Matter
Article 105	Privileges of Parliament and its members
Article 194	Privileges of State Legislatures and their members
Article 122	Courts cannot inquire into Parliament proceedings
Article 212	Courts cannot inquire into State Legislature proceedings
Article 145(3)	Minimum 5 judges for constitutional interpretation cases
Article 143	Presidential reference to Supreme Court
Current case	Whether privileges override freedom of speech (Article 19)

Trap / Confusing Points: Legislative Privileges Constitution Bench

Trap: Article 105 applies to State Legislatures — Wrong! Article 105 applies only to Parliament. Article 194 is the equivalent provision for State Legislatures.
Trap: A Constitution Bench always has 7 judges — Wrong! A Constitution Bench requires a minimum of 5 judges (Article 145(3)). It can have 7, 9, or more judges depending on the importance of the case.
Trap: Article 122 prevents all judicial review of Parliament — Wrong! Article 122 bars inquiry into procedural irregularity in parliamentary proceedings, but courts can still examine the constitutionality of laws passed by Parliament.

Practice MCQs: Legislative Privileges Constitution Bench

Q1. Which Article deals with the powers, privileges, and immunities of Parliament?

a) Article 100
b) Article 105
c) Article 194
d) Article 122

Answer: b) Article 105
Article 105 specifically deals with the powers, privileges, and immunities of Parliament, its members, and its committees.

Q2. Under Article 145(3), the minimum number of judges required to constitute a Constitution Bench is:

a) 3
b) 5
c) 7
d) 9

Answer: b) 5
Article 145(3) mandates a minimum of five judges for cases involving a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution.

Q3. Which pair of Articles bars courts from inquiring into legislative proceedings?

a) Articles 105 and 194
b) Articles 122 and 212
c) Articles 143 and 145
d) Articles 124 and 217

Answer: b) Articles 122 and 212
Article 122 bars inquiry into Parliament proceedings and Article 212 bars inquiry into State Legislature proceedings on grounds of procedural irregularity.

Q4. Article 143 of the Constitution empowers which authority to make references to the Supreme Court?

a) Prime Minister
b) Speaker of Lok Sabha
c) President of India
d) Chief Justice of India

Answer: c) President of India
Article 143 empowers the President to refer questions of law or fact of public importance to the Supreme Court for its advisory opinion.

Q5. Article 194 grants legislative privileges to:

a) Parliament only
b) State Legislatures and their members
c) Both Parliament and State Legislatures
d) Local self-government bodies

Answer: b) State Legislatures and their members
Article 194 is the equivalent of Article 105 but applies to State Legislatures and their members.

📌 Daily UPSC Current Affairs — 21 August 2026

👉 Read more: Daily Current Affairs | Polity Current Affairs

🔔 Stay Updated! Bookmark PSC Chronicles for daily UPSC current affairs and exam-focused analysis.

Seven-Judge Constitution Bench on Legislative Privileges: Articles 105 & 194 Explained Read More »

Centre Opposes Creamy Layer for SC/ST Reservations: Indra Sawhney Case & OBC Reservations Explained

Leave a Comment / Daily Current Affairs, Polity Current Affairs / PSCchronicles team

Creamy Layer SC ST Reservation — The Centre has filed an affidavit before the Supreme Court opposing the introduction of the “creamy layer” concept for SC/ST reservations. This landmark development touches on the Indra Sawhney Case, OBC reservations, and the constitutional framework of affirmative action in India. Here is a complete UPSC-focused analysis.

Why in News: Creamy Layer SC ST Reservation

In an affidavit filed before the Supreme Court, the Centre has pushed back against the demand to introduce the “creamy layer” concept for reservations for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs). It argued that the historical disadvantages faced by these communities cannot be equated with mere economic backwardness and that altering reservation policies falls within the domain of Parliament, not the courts.

Key Facts for Prelims: Creamy Layer SC ST Reservation

The “Creamy Layer” refers to socially, educationally, and economically advanced members of OBCs who are excluded from reservation benefits.
Indra Sawhney Case (1992): The Supreme Court upheld 27% reservation for OBCs but introduced the “creamy layer” concept to exclude affluent individuals.
Ram Nandan Committee (1993): Appointed to identify and specify the criteria for determining the creamy layer.
The Centre’s current position: Creamy layer should not be extended to SC/ST reservations.
The Centre argues that SC/ST disadvantages are historical and social, not merely economic — hence creamy layer logic does not apply.
The Centre maintains that altering reservation policies is Parliament’s domain, not the judiciary’s.

Static Exam Link

Prelims: Indra Sawhney Case, Articles 15(4), 16(4), creamy layer criteria
Mains GS-II: Issues relating to reservation policy, social justice, and judicial activism vs. parliamentary sovereignty

Quick Revision Table: Creamy Layer SC ST Reservation

Aspect	Detail
What is Creamy Layer?	Affluent members of OBCs excluded from reservation benefits
Origin	Indra Sawhney Case (1992)
Applicable to	Currently only OBCs, not SC/STs
Centre’s stand on SC/ST	Opposes extension of creamy layer to SC/STs
Centre’s argument	SC/ST disadvantages are historical/social, not merely economic
Ram Nandan Committee	1993 — set criteria for identifying creamy layer
Domain of policy change	Parliament, not courts (Centre’s argument)

Trap / Confusing Points: Creamy Layer SC ST Reservation

Trap: Creamy layer applies to all reservation categories — Wrong! Creamy layer currently applies only to OBCs, not to SCs and STs.
Trap: Indra Sawhney Case struck down OBC reservations — Wrong! The case upheld 27% OBC reservation but introduced the creamy layer exclusion and capped total reservations at 50%.
Trap: The Supreme Court can directly alter reservation percentages — Wrong! The Centre argues that altering reservation policies falls within Parliament’s domain under the legislative power.

Practice MCQs: Creamy Layer SC ST Reservation

Q1. The concept of “Creamy Layer” in Indian reservation policy was introduced by which landmark case?

a) Kesavananda Bharati Case
b) Indra Sawhney Case (1992)
c) Minerva Mills Case
d) M. Nagaraj Case (2006)

Answer: b) Indra Sawhney Case (1992)
The nine-judge bench in the Indra Sawhney Case upheld OBC reservations but introduced the creamy layer concept to exclude affluent OBC members.

Q2. The Ram Nandan Committee (1993) was appointed to:

a) Identify OBC communities for the central list
b) Specify criteria for determining the creamy layer
c) Review SC/ST reservation percentages
d) Recommend sub-categorization of OBCs

Answer: b) Specify criteria for determining the creamy layer
The Ram Nandan Committee was specifically appointed to identify and specify the criteria for the creamy layer among OBCs.

Q3. Which of the following statements is correct regarding the Centre’s stand on creamy layer for SC/STs?

a) Centre supports applying creamy layer to SC/STs
b) Centre argues SC/ST disadvantages are purely economic
c) Centre argues altering reservation policies is Parliament’s domain
d) Centre wants courts to decide reservation percentages

Answer: c) Centre argues altering reservation policies is Parliament’s domain
The Centre’s affidavit argues that historical disadvantages of SC/STs cannot be equated with economic backwardness and policy changes are for Parliament.

Q4. The Indra Sawhney Case capped total reservations at what percentage?

a) 27%
b) 49.5%
c) 50%
d) 60%

Answer: c) 50%
The Supreme Court in the Indra Sawhney Case held that total reservations should not exceed 50% except in extraordinary circumstances.

Q5. The “Creamy Layer” concept currently applies to:

a) Only Scheduled Castes
b) Only Scheduled Tribes
c) Only Other Backward Classes
d) All three categories — SC, ST, and OBC

Answer: c) Only Other Backward Classes
As of now, the creamy layer concept applies only to OBCs. The Centre has opposed extending it to SC/STs.

📌 Daily UPSC Current Affairs — 21 August 2026

👉 Read more: Daily Current Affairs | Polity Current Affairs

🔔 Stay Updated! Bookmark PSC Chronicles for daily UPSC current affairs and exam-focused analysis.

Centre Opposes Creamy Layer for SC/ST Reservations: Indra Sawhney Case & OBC Reservations Explained Read More »