Working of Institutions Question Paper

📝 80 Marks Question Paper

Working of Institutions | Class IX Civics

Home > Civics > Chapter 4 > Question Paper

📋 Question Paper Details

Subject: Social Science - Civics

Chapter: Working of Institutions

Total Marks: 80 Marks

Duration: 3 Hours

Class: IX

Section-wise Division: Multiple Format Questions

Section A: Very Short Answer Questions 10 Marks

Note: Answer the following questions in one or two sentences.

Question 1 1

What is meant by 'Office Memorandum'?

Show Answer

Answer:

An Office Memorandum is a formal written communication issued by an appropriate government authority that states the policy or decision of the government. It is an official order that communicates government policies to the public and concerned departments.

💡 Why This Matters:

Office Memorandums are important because they make government decisions official and binding. They are used to implement policies across all government departments, ensuring uniformity and clarity in execution.

Question 2 1

Name the commission that recommended 27% job reservations for backward classes.

Show Answer

Answer:

The Second Backward Classes Commission, popularly known as the Mandal Commission (headed by B.P. Mandal), recommended 27% job reservations for socially and educationally backward classes.

💡 Key Point:

The Mandal Commission was appointed in 1979 and submitted its report in 1980, making recommendations to identify and help backward classes in India through job reservations.

Question 3 1

What is Judicial Review?

Show Answer

Answer:

Judicial Review is the power of courts to examine and determine the constitutional validity of any law passed by the legislature or any action taken by the executive. Courts can declare laws or actions invalid if they violate the Constitution.

💡 Important:

This power allows the judiciary to act as a guardian of the Constitution and check the powers of both legislature and executive, ensuring they don't exceed constitutional limits.

Question 4 1

Which institution has the power to make laws in India?

Show Answer

Answer:

Parliament (the Legislature) has the power to make, change, or abolish laws in India. It consists of the Lok Sabha, Rajya Sabha, and the President.

💡 Why This Matters:

This power makes Parliament the supreme authority in the country. Only Parliament can create laws because it represents the will of the people through elected representatives.

Question 5 1

What is the term of Lok Sabha members?

Show Answer

Answer:

The term of Lok Sabha members is 5 years. The Lok Sabha can be dissolved before the completion of this term if the government loses majority support.

💡 Key Information:

Unlike Rajya Sabha which is permanent, Lok Sabha can be dissolved by the President on the advice of the Prime Minister, leading to fresh elections.

Question 6 1

Who appoints the Prime Minister of India?

Show Answer

Answer:

The President of India appoints the Prime Minister. The President appoints the leader of the majority party or coalition in the Lok Sabha as the Prime Minister.

💡 Important Note:

Although the President formally appoints the PM, the President has no discretion when a single party or coalition has a clear majority. The appointment is automatic and binding.

Question 7 1

Name two powers of the Prime Minister.

Show Answer

Answer:

Two powers of the Prime Minister are:

1. Chairs Cabinet Meetings: The PM presides over all Cabinet meetings and coordinates decisions.
2. Dismisses Ministers: The PM has the power to remove or dismiss ministers from their positions.

Question 8 1

What is the difference between Political Executive and Permanent Executive?

Show Answer

Answer:

Political Executive: Elected by people for a specific term; takes major policy decisions; answerable to Parliament.

Permanent Executive: Appointed through exams; provides expert advice; implements decisions; continues even when government changes.

Question 9 1

What is the Supreme Court's power to interpret the Constitution called?

Show Answer

Answer:

The Supreme Court's power to interpret the Constitution is called Judicial Review. This power allows the Court to declare any law or government action unconstitutional if it violates the Constitution.

Question 10 1

Name the highest court in India.

Show Answer

Answer:

The Supreme Court of India is the highest court in the country. Its decisions are binding on all lower courts and other institutions of the country.

Section B: Short Answer Questions 15 Marks

Note: Answer the following questions in 50-75 words each.

Question 1 3

Explain the three main institutions in a democracy and their functions.

Show Answer

Answer:

1. Legislature (Parliament): Makes laws and controls government through budget and other financial decisions.

2. Executive (PM & Cabinet): Implements laws and day-to-day governance; takes policy decisions and administers the government.

3. Judiciary (Supreme Court): Settles disputes and ensures laws and government actions follow the Constitution; protects citizen rights.

💡 Key Understanding:

These three institutions work together with checks and balances to ensure no single institution becomes too powerful. This is the foundation of democratic governance.

Question 2 3

What is the role of Lok Sabha? Why is it more powerful than Rajya Sabha?

Show Answer

Answer:

Role of Lok Sabha: Lok Sabha is the House of People directly elected by citizens. It makes laws, controls government finances, and controls the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers.

Why More Powerful: • Controls all money bills (Rajya Sabha can only delay by 14 days) • Can remove Prime Minister through no-confidence motion • Has more members (543 vs 250) • Can override Rajya Sabha in joint sessions due to larger size

Question 3 3

Explain why Parliament's discussion influenced the Mandal Commission decision even though Parliament didn't directly take the decision.

Show Answer

Answer:

Parliamentary discussions created political pressure on the government. Many MPs and political parties demanded implementation of the Mandal Report over years. The ruling party promised it in their election manifesto. Without Parliament's support, the government couldn't have implemented the decision because the PM needed Lok Sabha's confidence to continue in power. Thus, Parliament's support was essential even though the formal decision came from the Cabinet.

💡 Understanding:

This shows that Parliament's power is not just in formal law-making but also in influencing and controlling executive decisions through debates and political pressure.

Question 4 3

Why is the Minister more powerful than a civil servant in a democracy?

Show Answer

Answer:

In democracy, the will of the people is supreme. The Minister is an elected representative (indirectly through Parliament) and is answerable to the people for decisions. Although civil servants may be more expert and educated, they are not elected. Since the Minister represents the people's will and is accountable to them, the Minister makes final decisions while civil servants advise and implement these decisions.

💡 Democratic Principle:

This ensures that political power remains with elected representatives accountable to the people, not with unelected experts. This is fundamental to democratic governance.

Question 5 3

Describe the composition of the Council of Ministers.

Show Answer

Answer:

The Council of Ministers usually has 60-80 ministers of different ranks:

1. Cabinet Ministers (~25): Top-level leaders heading major ministries who regularly attend Cabinet meetings.

2. Ministers of State with Independent Charge: Head smaller ministries; attend Cabinet meetings only when specially invited.

3. Ministers of State: Assist Cabinet Ministers; don't attend regular Cabinet meetings.

Section C: Short Answer Questions 20 Marks

Note: Answer the following questions in 100-150 words each.

Question 1 4

Explain the complete decision-making process for the Mandal Commission's Office Memorandum from its recommendation to final implementation.

Show Answer

Answer:

Decision-Making Process:

1979: Mandal Commission appointed to identify backward classes

1980: Commission recommends 27% job reservation

Years Later: Parliamentary debates and discussions create pressure

1989 Election: Janata Dal promises implementation in manifesto

Aug 6, 1990: Union Cabinet formally decides to implement

Aug 7, 1990: PM V.P. Singh announces decision in Parliament

Aug 13, 1990: Official Office Memorandum issued implementing the decision

1992: Supreme Court upholds decision but asks for modifications

Sept 1993: Modified order issued excluding well-to-do backward classes

💡 Understanding:

This process shows how major decisions involve multiple institutions—Parliament for discussion, Cabinet for decision, courts for review. It takes time but ensures fairness and accountability.

Question 2 4

What powers does the Supreme Court have as guardian of the Constitution? Explain with reference to the Mandal case.

Show Answer

Answer:

Powers of Supreme Court as Guardian:

1. Judicial Review: Can examine and declare laws/actions unconstitutional

2. Constitutional Interpretation: Interprets Constitution to determine validity of laws

3. Protects Fundamental Rights: Ensures government respects citizen rights

In Mandal Case: Supreme Court examined the reservation order and declared it valid (supporting government) but asked for modifications (checking government excess). It struck balance between equality and backwardness correction. This shows Supreme Court is independent and reviews all government actions.

Question 3 4

Compare the composition and powers of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha in a table format.

Show Answer

Answer:

Aspect	Lok Sabha	Rajya Sabha
Members	543	250
Selection	Direct election by people	Indirect - state legislature
Term	5 years (can be dissolved)	6 years (permanent)
Money Bills	Full power - passes all bills	Limited - can delay 14 days
PM Control	Can remove PM	Cannot remove PM
Power	More powerful	Less powerful

Question 4 4

Why is an independent judiciary essential for democracy? Give three reasons.

Show Answer

Answer:

Reason 1 - Checks Government Power: Independent judiciary can review and strike down unjust laws and government actions, preventing abuse of power.

Reason 2 - Protects Citizen Rights: Citizens can approach courts for justice without fear. Courts protect fundamental rights and ensure government respects them.

Reason 3 - Ensures Rule of Law: No person or institution is above law. Independent courts ensure everyone, including government officials, follows the Constitution and laws.

💡 Why This Matters:

Without an independent judiciary, governments could suppress rights, make unfair laws, and oppress citizens. An independent judiciary ensures that democracy doesn't become dictatorship.

Question 5 4

Explain the system of checks and balances between the three institutions with examples.

Show Answer

Answer:

Parliament Checks Executive: Parliament can pass laws that PM must follow; controls government money; can remove PM through no-confidence motion (Example: If government loses majority support)

Executive Checks Legislature: PM can advise President to dissolve Parliament during political crisis; can use executive powers to implement laws

Judiciary Checks Both: Can declare laws unconstitutional; can stop government actions that violate rights; can order government to do something (Example: In Mandal case, Supreme Court asked government to modify the order)

Benefits: No single institution becomes too powerful; each institution balances others; power is distributed fairly; citizens' rights are protected.

Section D: Long Answer Questions 20 Marks

Note: Answer the following questions in 200-250 words each.

Question 1 5

Explain with full details: "Democracy is slow but better than quick dictatorship." Support your answer with the example of institutions and the Mandal Commission case.

Show Answer

Answer:

Democracy's Slowness is Beneficial:

Democratic systems involve institutions, rules, procedures, and multiple levels of consultation. This makes decision-making slow. However, this slowness ensures fair and better decisions. In a dictatorship, a single person makes decisions quickly without consulting anyone, which often leads to bad, unjust decisions.

Why Democratic Slowness is Good:
• Many people get to discuss and give opinions
• Bad ideas are filtered out through debate
• Decisions are checked at multiple levels
• Everyone knows who is responsible
• Prevents concentration of power
• Protects minority rights

Mandal Commission Example: The 27% job reservation decision took over a decade. First, the Commission studied the issue (1979-1980). Then Parliament debated it for years. Political parties included it in manifestos. Finally, Cabinet decided and Supreme Court reviewed it. This long process ensured the decision was fair, considered different viewpoints, and was acceptable to most people. If a dictator had decided this alone, it could have been more efficient but unfair.

Conclusion: Institutions make democracy slower, but they also make it fairer, more accountable, and protective of everyone's rights. This is why democracies are better than dictatorships despite being slower.

Question 2 5

Describe the journey of the Mandal Commission case through different institutions and analyze how each institution contributed to the final decision.

Show Answer

Answer:

Journey Through Institutions:

1. Commission Stage (1979-1980): The Commission identified backward classes and recommended solutions. This provided the foundation and research for the policy.

2. Parliament Stage (1980s): The report was discussed extensively in Parliament. Different parties debated the merits and drawbacks. MPs pressured the government for implementation. Parliament's support was essential for the government to move forward.

3. Executive Stage (August 1990): The Union Cabinet took the formal decision. The PM announced it in Parliament. Civil servants drafted the official order. The Executive gave the decision legal form through the Office Memorandum.

4. Judicial Stage (1992-1993): The Supreme Court examined the order's constitutionality. It declared the order valid (supporting the government's intent) but asked for modifications (checking government excess). This ensured fairness.

How Each Contributed:

• Commission: Provided expert analysis
• Parliament: Created political will and legitimacy
• Executive: Implemented decision with legal authority
• Judiciary: Ensured fairness and constitutional validity

Conclusion: This shows how institutions work together. No single institution had complete power. This distribution of power ensured the final decision was fair, legitimate, and constitutional.

Question 3 5

Compare and contrast the role and powers of political executive and permanent executive in a democracy. Why is this distinction important?

Show Answer

Answer:

Political Executive vs Permanent Executive:

Political Executive (Ministers):
• Elected indirectly through Parliament
• Limited term (5 years)
• Makes major policy decisions
• Answerable to Parliament and people
• Changes when government changes
• Example: Prime Minister, Cabinet Ministers

Permanent Executive (Civil Servants):
• Appointed through competitive exams
• Long-term employment (until retirement)
• Provides expert advice
• Implements ministerial decisions
• Continues even when government changes
• Example: Secretaries, Additional Secretaries, Officers

Similarities: Both are part of executive; both work together; both serve the public; both have defined roles and responsibilities.

Why This Distinction is Important:

1. Democratic Accountability: Ministers are accountable to people; civil servants are not. This ensures power remains with elected representatives.
2. Expertise and Continuity: Civil servants provide stable, expert administration even when ministers change.
3. Clear Decision-Making: Ministers decide (political will); civil servants execute (technical expertise).
4. Prevents Abuse: Civil servants can't make arbitrary decisions; they must follow ministerial directions and laws.
5. Ensures Fairness: Professional civil service means government services are non-partisan and fair.

Conclusion: This system ensures that democracy doesn't just mean elections; it means accountable governance backed by professional administration.

Question 4 5

"In democracy, the people are supreme." How do the three institutions of the Indian government ensure that people's will is respected and implemented?

Show Answer

Answer:

How Institutions Ensure People's Will is Supreme:

1. Parliament - Direct People's Voice: Lok Sabha is directly elected by people. Only Parliament can make laws. This ensures government can't bypass people's representatives. Parliamentary debates reflect people's varied opinions. Government can't survive without Parliament's support, forcing it to consider people's interests.

2. Executive - Implementing People's Choice: PM and ministers are chosen from Parliament, which represents people. They must follow laws made by Parliament (people's representatives). If government becomes unpopular, Parliament can remove PM. Government's survival depends on maintaining people's (and Parliament's) confidence.

3. Judiciary - Protecting People's Rights: Courts ensure government respects Constitution (made in people's name). Citizens can challenge government in courts. Judges protect Fundamental Rights. Courts prevent both majority and government from oppressing minorities. This ensures all people's interests are protected.

Mechanism of People's Supremacy:

• Elections: Regular elections ensure government remains accountable
• Constitution: People made the Constitution; all institutions follow it
• Checks and Balances: If one institution ignores people, others check it
• Multiple Channels: People can influence through elections, Parliament, courts

In Mandal Case: People demanded job reservations (through Parliament); government implemented (executive); courts protected fairness (judiciary). All institutions served people's will with accountability.

Conclusion: Institutions don't just represent people; they ensure government remains accountable to people. This is what makes India a true democracy where people are indeed supreme.

Section E: Case Study-Based Questions 15 Marks

Note: Read the following case study and answer the questions that follow.

📖 Case Study: The Mandal Commission & Institutional Decision-Making

Background: In 1979, the Government of India appointed the Second Backward Classes Commission (Mandal Commission) headed by B.P. Mandal. The Commission was asked to identify socially and educationally backward classes and recommend measures for their advancement.

The Recommendation: In 1980, the Commission submitted its report recommending that 27% of government jobs be reserved for the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC). This was in addition to the existing 22.5% reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

Parliamentary Discussion: The report was discussed extensively in Parliament for several years. Many parliamentarians and political parties demanded implementation. In the 1989 election manifesto, the Janata Dal promised to implement these recommendations if voted to power.

Executive Action: After the Janata Dal formed the government, the President announced the implementation intention. On August 6, 1990, the Union Cabinet formally decided to implement the recommendations. The next day, PM V.P. Singh announced this in Parliament. On August 13, 1990, the Department of Personnel and Training issued the formal Office Memorandum.

Public Reaction: The decision led to massive public debate. Some supported it as correcting historical injustices; others opposed it as unfair to non-reserved groups. The issue led to widespread protests and counter-protests.

Judicial Review: Opponents filed cases in court. The Supreme Court, in the 'Indira Sawhney vs Union of India' case, examined the order's constitutional validity. In 1992, the Court declared the order valid but asked the government to exclude well-to-do persons among backward classes. In September 1993, the government issued a modified order.

Question 1 3

The case study shows the journey of a decision through different institutions. Identify all the institutions involved and explain the role of each in the decision-making process.

Show Answer

Answer:

1. Commission (1979-1980): Expert body that researched and recommended the policy based on study.

2. Parliament (1980s): Discussed the report, created political pressure, showed public support. Without Parliament's backing, PM couldn't proceed.

3. President (August 1990): Formally announced government's intention, providing constitutional backing.

4. Cabinet (August 6, 1990): Took formal political decision to implement recommendations.

5. Executive/Civil Service (August 13, 1990): Drafted and issued the official order implementing the Cabinet's decision.

6. Supreme Court (1992-1993): Reviewed the order's constitutionality and asked for modifications to ensure fairness.

💡 Understanding:

This shows that major decisions don't happen in a vacuum. They involve multiple institutions, each playing a specific role. No single institution had complete power. This distribution ensured fairness and accountability.

Question 2 3

Analyze: How did Parliament's role influence the executive's decision to implement the Mandal Commission's recommendations?

Show Answer

Answer:

Parliamentary Influence:
1. Years of Discussion: Parliamentary debates over years created public awareness and political support for implementation.

2. Political Pressure: Many MPs and parties demanded implementation, pressurizing government.

3. Electoral Mandate: When Janata Dal promised implementation in 1989 manifesto and won elections, they got a political mandate from people (through Parliament's process).

4. Support Requirement: The PM could not have implemented this without Parliament's confidence. If Parliament opposed, PM would have had to resign.

Conclusion: Executive's decision was not arbitrary but was based on parliamentary support and public opinion reflected through Parliament. This shows Parliament controls executive even without directly taking decisions.

Question 3 3

The Supreme Court declared the order "valid" but asked for modifications. What does this show about the independence and role of the judiciary?

Show Answer

Answer:

Independence of Judiciary:
1. Not Blindly Supporting Government: The Court didn't automatically agree with government. It examined the order and asked for modifications, showing independence from executive.

2. Not Opposing Government: The Court didn't completely reject the order either. It upheld the government's goal of helping backward classes while improving fairness.

3. Balanced Approach: The Court balanced competing rights (backward classes vs non-reserved candidates) showing it's truly independent.

Role Demonstrated:
• Guardian of Constitution (ensured order followed constitutional principles)
• Protector of Rights (asked for fairness modifications)
• Check on Power (asked government to exclude well-off backward class members)
• Final Arbiter (decision ended the dispute)

Question 4 3

Explain why this case is a good example of "democracy being slower but better than dictatorship."

Show Answer

Answer:

Democratic Slowness (1979-1993): Over 14 years, the decision went through Commission study, Parliamentary debates, Cabinet decision, Supreme Court review, and modifications. This took time but ensured fairness.

If Dictatorship: A dictator could have made this decision in days—just order 27% reservation. But such quick decision might be:
• Unfair (not considering all viewpoints)
• Incomplete (might miss important issues)
• Unacceptable (no one's input)
• Easily reversed (no institutional backing)

Democratic Benefits (What Actually Happened):
1. Consultation: Many people were involved—experts, politicians, judges
2. Improved Quality: Supreme Court's modification made the policy fairer
3. Public Acceptance: Though debated, final order had institutional legitimacy
4. Stability: Decision lasted and became permanent policy
5. Rule of Law: No one, not even PM, could act arbitrarily

Conclusion: Democracy's slowness is actually its strength because it ensures fair, sustainable decisions that respect everyone's rights.

Question 5 3

If the Supreme Court had completely rejected the order, would it have shown that the Court is truly independent? Justify your answer.

Show Answer

Answer:

The Court's Balanced Verdict Shows True Independence:

Why Complete Rejection Would NOT Show Independence:
If Court had simply rejected the order, it might mean:
• Court is biased against government's intent
• Court is protecting privileged non-reserved groups
• Court is imposing its own will, not applying law

Why Balanced Verdict Shows True Independence:
1. Impartial Judgment: Court examined merits of both sides and found government's intention valid but method needed improvement

2. Not Pro-Government or Anti-Government: The Court upheld the core policy (supporting reservation) but asked modifications (checking excess)

3. Applied Constitution, Not Personal Views: Court based verdict on Constitutional principles of equality and social justice, not on any particular viewpoint

4. Protective of All Rights: Decision protected backward class rights AND non-reserved candidate fairness

5. Rule of Law, Not Rule of People: Court followed Constitutional law, not majority or government pressure

Conclusion: True judicial independence means applying law fairly to all parties, not automatically supporting or opposing government. The Court's balanced verdict is a perfect example of real independence.

📚 Quick Revision Notes

🏛️ Parliament (Legislature)

• Makes all laws
• Controls government money
• Can remove PM
• Lok Sabha > Rajya Sabha

⚙️ Executive

• Implements laws
• Ministers > Civil servants
• Needs Parliament support
• PM most powerful

⚖️ Judiciary

• Supreme Court highest
• Judicial Review power
• Independent from others
• Protects rights

🎯 Last-Minute Revision Points

Key Concepts to Remember:
✓ Three institutions: Legislature, Executive, Judiciary
✓ Checks and balances system
✓ Parliament is supreme (can remove PM)
✓ PM is most powerful executive
✓ Judiciary is independent (Judicial Review)
✓ Mandal Case shows institutional working
✓ Democracy is slow but fair
✓ Minister > Civil Servant (political vs permanent)
✓ People are supreme (all power from them)
✓ No institution is above Constitution

📝 Complete 80 Marks Question Paper

Working of Institutions | Class IX Social Science - Civics

All questions have detailed answer keys with explanations | Print-friendly | Mobile-optimized

© 2024 Educational Content. Designed for comprehensive exam preparation.