UPSC Prelims 2026 Polity Revision — Day 1: Constitution, Articles & Bodies

Time needed: 3–4 hours  |  High-yield rating: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ (15–20 questions per paper historically)

Constitution — The Numbers

Prelims trap: 42nd added "Socialist" + "Secular"; 44th restored civil liberties curtailed by 42nd. They are often confused.

Parts of the Constitution

Fundamental Rights (Articles 12–35)

Prelims trap: Article 21A (Right to Education) is a FR — added by 86th Amendment, 2002. The RTE Act 2009 operationalised it.

Prelims trap: Right to Privacy — declared a FR under Article 21 by a 9-judge SC bench on 24 August 2017 (K.S. Puttaswamy case). Overruled two earlier judgments.

Directive Principles of State Policy (Articles 36–51)

• Not justiciable (Art. 37) but fundamental in governance
• Socialistic DPSPs: Equal pay for equal work (Art. 39d); free legal aid (Art. 39A); right to work, education, public assistance (Art. 41); living wage (Art. 43)
• Gandhian DPSPs: Village panchayats (Art. 40); cottage industries (Art. 43); prohibition of intoxicants (Art. 47); cow protection (Art. 48)
• Liberal-Intellectual DPSPs: Uniform Civil Code (Art. 44); separation of judiciary from executive (Art. 50); international peace (Art. 51)

Key DPSP articles for Prelims:

Prelims trap: Article 44 (UCC) is a DPSP — it is not mandatory; Parliament has not enacted UCC yet.

Prelims trap: Art. 39(b) and 39(c) were the constitutional basis for nationalisation of banks (1969) and coal mines. In Property Owners' Association v. State of Maharashtra (2024), a 9-judge SC bench held that not all privately owned property is a "material resource" under Art. 39(b) — overruling earlier broad interpretation.

Fundamental Duties (Article 51A)

• Added by 42nd Amendment, 1976 (Part IVA) — original 10 duties
• 11th duty added by 86th Amendment, 2002 — parents/guardians must provide education opportunities to children aged 6–14
• Total: 11 Fundamental Duties; Based on Swaran Singh Committee recommendations (1976)
• Not justiciable — but courts can take them into account while interpreting laws

Prelims trap: FDs are not justiciable (cannot be enforced by court) but are not completely ignored by courts — they serve as an interpretive aid. Only duty (k) corresponds to a FR (Art. 21A, RTE). Swaran Singh Committee recommended FDs; the Government added only 10 of their recommended duties.

Key Constitutional Amendments

Emergency Provisions

44th Amendment (1978) safeguards for National Emergency (Art. 352):

• Proclamation only on written advice of Cabinet (Council of Ministers headed by PM) — PM alone cannot recommend; prevents 1975-style unilateral proclamation
• Lok Sabha approval within 1 month (both Houses within 1 month); approved by special majority — majority of total membership AND 2/3rd of members present and voting
• Operative for 6 months; renewable in 6-month intervals with fresh Parliamentary approval each time
• Revocation: Lok Sabha can pass simple majority resolution disapproving continuation; President must revoke if notice signed by 1/10th of LS members is admitted

44th Amendment safeguards for President's Rule (Art. 356):

• Must be approved by both Houses within 2 months; initial validity 6 months; extendable every 6 months up to maximum 3 years
• Extension beyond 1 year only if: (1) National Emergency is in operation in the whole state OR (2) Election Commission certifies general elections to that state assembly cannot be held
• Subject to judicial review (S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, 1994) — floor test must be held in Vidhan Sabha; Governor's satisfaction not conclusive

Prelims trap: Financial Emergency (Art. 360) has never been proclaimed in India. The third National Emergency (1975) was proclaimed on grounds of "internal disturbance" — but the 44th Amendment (1978) replaced "internal disturbance" with "armed rebellion," so the 1975 ground no longer exists. During National Emergency, Art. 19 is automatically suspended (Art. 358 — for external aggression emergencies only); Art. 32 enforcement can be suspended by Presidential Order under Art. 359 (but never Arts. 20 and 21).

Constitutional Bodies

CAG — Detailed Facts (Article 148–151)

• Article 148 — Appointed by President; removed only in the same manner as a Supreme Court judge (address by both Houses of Parliament, special majority)
• Article 149 — Duties and powers of CAG prescribed by Parliament (Comptroller and Auditor-General's (Duties, Powers and Conditions of Service) Act, 1971)
• Article 150 — Accounts of Union and States shall be kept in such form as President prescribes on advice of CAG
• Article 151 — Audit reports of Union submitted to President → laid before Parliament; State reports submitted to Governor → laid before State Legislature
• Tenure: 6 years or age 65 — whichever is earlier; no re-appointment
• Post-retirement bar: After retirement, CAG is not eligible for any office under the Central or State governments
• Financial independence: Administrative expenses of CAG's office (salaries, pensions) are charged to Consolidated Fund of India — not subject to vote of Parliament
• Audits: Consolidated Fund of India; Consolidated Fund of each State; Contingency Fund; Public Accounts

Prelims trap: CAG audits both the Union and state accounts — making it unique. The CAG does not control government expenditure (unlike the UK Comptroller), only audits after expenditure occurs.

Constitutional vs Statutory vs Non-Constitutional Bodies — Master Table

Key distinctions for Prelims:

Inter-State Council vs Zonal Councils

Prelims trap: Zonal Councils are statutory, not constitutional. Inter-State Council is constitutional (Art. 263). Secretarial functions of Zonal Councils transferred to Inter-State Council Secretariat (2011).

Panchayati Raj — 73rd Amendment (1992)

• Added Part IX (Articles 243–243O) and 11th Schedule to the Constitution
• Three-tier structure (Art. 243B): Gram Panchayat (village), Panchayat Samiti / Block Panchayat (intermediate), Zila Parishad (district) — intermediate tier optional for states with population below 20 lakh
• 11th Schedule — 29 subjects (Art. 243G): agriculture, land improvement, minor irrigation, animal husbandry, fisheries, social forestry, small-scale industries, roads, drinking water, education (primary & secondary), health & sanitation, women & child development, social welfare, public distribution system, etc.
• Reservation (Art. 243D):
  • Seats reserved for SC/ST in proportion to their population at each tier
  • Not less than 1/3 of seats reserved for women (including within SC/ST reserved seats)
  • Reservation for offices of Chairpersons similarly; reservation for OBCs left to states
• State Finance Commission (Art. 243I): Each state must constitute SFC every 5 years to review financial position of Panchayats
• State Election Commission (Art. 243K): Superintendence, direction, and control of preparation of electoral rolls and conduct of elections vested in State Election Commission
• District Planning Committee (Art. 243ZD): Must be constituted to consolidate plans for panchayats and municipalities

Prelims trap: 73rd Amendment is not applicable to scheduled areas (5th Schedule areas) and tribal areas (6th Schedule areas) — PESA Act 1996 extends Panchayati Raj to scheduled areas with modifications.

Schedules — Quick Reference

Prelims trap: 8th Schedule has 22 languages (not 18, not 24). Added languages: Sindhi (21st Amend.), Konkani, Manipuri, Nepali (71st Amend.), Bodo, Dogri, Maithili, Santhali (92nd Amend.).

President of India (Articles 52–62, 111, 123)

Prelims trap: The President cannot return a Money Bill for reconsideration. On a Constitutional Amendment Bill, the President has no veto (24th Amendment made assent mandatory).

Prelims trap: Ordinances cannot be issued on matters that would require a constitutional amendment.

Vice President of India (Articles 63–73)

Prelims trap: VP's electoral college includes nominated members of both Houses — this is the key difference from the President's electoral college (which excludes nominated members). State MLAs do NOT vote for VP.

Prelims trap: VP is removed by Rajya Sabha (not Lok Sabha); Lok Sabha only "agrees to" the resolution. No ground is specified — unlike President's impeachment.

Prime Minister & Council of Ministers (Articles 74–75)

Prelims trap: Collective responsibility means Cabinet falls together — one resignation of PM means entire Council must resign. But individual minister can be dropped by PM.

Lok Sabha vs Rajya Sabha — Key Differences

Special (exclusive) powers of Rajya Sabha:

• Article 249 — Rajya Sabha can authorise Parliament to legislate on a State List subject in national interest (resolution by 2/3rd of members present and voting; law operative for 1 year, renewable)
• Article 312 — Rajya Sabha alone can resolve to create new All-India Services (2/3rd majority of members present and voting)

Prelims trap: Joint sitting cannot be held for (1) Money Bills, (2) Constitutional Amendment Bills — only for ordinary bills (Art. 108).

Speaker of Lok Sabha (Articles 93–97)

Prelims trap: Speaker votes only by casting vote (in a tie); does not vote in the first instance — unlike an ordinary member. During removal proceedings, Speaker can speak and vote in first instance but cannot exercise casting vote.

Governor (Articles 153–162)

Prelims trap: Governor has no pocket veto unlike President — but can reserve bills for President indefinitely (Art. 200 does not specify a time limit for reservation). The SC has held that Governors cannot sit on bills indefinitely.

State Legislature — Vidhan Sabha vs Vidhan Parishad

Composition of Vidhan Parishad (Art. 171): 1/3 elected by Vidhan Sabha members; 1/3 by local bodies (municipalities, district boards etc.); 1/12 by graduates; 1/12 by teachers; 1/6 nominated by Governor.

Parliamentary Procedures — Devices & Bills

Parliamentary Devices

Prelims trap: Zero Hour is a parliamentary convention — it is not mentioned in the Constitution or the Rules of Procedure. Calling Attention Motion IS specified in the Rules. Both Zero Hour and Question Hour occur daily; Adjournment Motion is rare and can only be in Lok Sabha.

Prelims trap: Censure Motion can only be moved in Lok Sabha — it is NOT available in Rajya Sabha. The Rajya Sabha cannot pass a no-confidence motion or censure motion against the government. If a Censure Motion is passed, the government is not required to resign (unlike a No-Confidence Motion).

Money Bill vs Financial Bill vs Ordinary Bill

Joint Sitting (Article 108)

Prelims trap: Joint Sitting cannot be held for Money Bills and Constitutional Amendment Bills. Financial Bills (Art. 117) can go to joint sitting — this is a common confusion. The joint sitting is presided by the Lok Sabha Speaker, not the Vice President/RS Chairman.

Judiciary

• Supreme Court — Art. 124; originally 8 judges (CJI + 7); was CJI + 33 (34 total) until May 2026; raised to CJI + 37 (38 total) by Presidential Ordinance notified May 16, 2026 (Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Ordinance, 2026); largest bench: 13 judges (Kesavananda Bharati, 1973)
• Basic Structure Doctrine — Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, 1973; Parliament cannot destroy basic structure
• Article 32 — SC jurisdiction to enforce FRs (writs); enforcement can be suspended by Presidential Order under Article 359 during National Emergency — but enforcement of Articles 20 and 21 can NEVER be suspended (44th Amendment guarantee); Article 32 itself (the right) is not "suspended", only its enforcement is suspended by order
• Article 226 — HC jurisdiction for writs (wider than SC — can issue writs for any purpose, not just FRs)

Prelims trap: Article 32 is suspended under Article 359 (Presidential Order), NOT Article 352. Article 358 suspends Article 19 automatically during external emergency. Article 359 allows the President to suspend enforcement of other FRs by order. After the 44th Amendment, even under Article 359, the right to move any court for enforcement of Articles 20 and 21 CANNOT be suspended.

• Article 21 — No person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law

Writs — Detailed Comparison

Article 32 vs Article 226 — Key differences:

Prelims trap: Article 226 (HC) has wider scope than Article 32 (SC) — HC can issue writs for any purpose, not just FR violations. But Art. 32 is a FR itself and is stronger in terms of the right to approach.

Prelims trap: Prohibition and Certiorari are issued against judicial/quasi-judicial bodies; Mandamus can be issued against administrative bodies too but not against President or Governor in exercise of discretionary powers.

Landmark Supreme Court Cases

Elements of Basic Structure (not exhaustive — courts continue to develop): Supremacy of Constitution; Republican and democratic form of government; Secular character; Separation of powers; Federal character; Unity and integrity of India; Fundamental Rights; Judicial review; Free and fair elections; Limited power of Parliament to amend Constitution; Independence of judiciary; Rule of law.

Union Territories — Legislature Status

India has 8 Union Territories as of May 2026. Three have legislatures; five do not.

LG vs Administrator: The title "Lieutenant Governor" is used for Delhi, Puducherry, J&K, Andaman & Nicobar, and Ladakh. The title "Administrator" is used for Chandigarh, Dadra & NH and Daman & Diu, and Lakshadweep.

Delhi special provisions (Art. 239AA): Delhi's LG must act on aid and advice of Council of Ministers except on matters of Public Order, Police, and Land (State List entries 1, 2, 18) — these remain with the Centre/LG. The Supreme Court (2018 Constitution Bench; affirmed in Services Case 2023) held that the elected Delhi government has control over services (bureaucratic appointments), except in the three excluded subjects.

Prelims trap: J&K was downgraded from a state to a UT on 31 October 2019 — a unique instance in Indian constitutional history. Statehood has been promised but not restored as of May 2026. Ladakh has no legislature and no Council of Ministers.

Prelims trap: Among the 8 UTs, only 3 have legislatures — Delhi, Puducherry, and J&K. The remaining 5 have no legislature and are directly administered by the Centre through the LG/Administrator.

Election Commission of India (Article 324)

Prelims trap: The Model Code of Conduct is not a statutory document — it has no separate Act of Parliament behind it. It is a voluntary code evolved through consensus of political parties, enforced by ECI under Art. 324.

Prelims trap: Under the CEC and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, Election Commissioners can be removed on the recommendation of the CEC — they do NOT enjoy the same security of tenure as the CEC. The CEC retains the same removal protection as a SC judge.

Prelims trap: Anti-defection decisions by the Speaker/Chairman (10th Schedule) are subject to judicial review — they are not final and immune. The SC in Kihoto Hollohan (1992) struck down the "finality" clause (Para 7) but upheld the rest of the 10th Schedule.

Important Constitutional Articles — Quick Reference

Prelims trap: Art. 143 advisory opinion of the SC is not binding — it is only advisory. The President need not act on it, and courts need not follow it.

Prelims trap: Art. 226 (HC writs) cannot be suspended during Emergency — unlike Art. 32 enforcement which can be suspended by Presidential Order under Art. 359.

Pardoning Powers — President (Art. 72) vs Governor (Art. 161)

Types of Clemency (Apply to Both President and Governor)

Prelims trap: Only the President can pardon death sentences and court martial sentences — the Governor has no such power. This is the single most important difference between Art. 72 and Art. 161.

Prelims trap: Remission vs Commutation — Remission reduces the quantum (period/amount) without changing the character of the punishment (still rigorous imprisonment). Commutation changes the nature of punishment to a lighter form (e.g., death → imprisonment). This pair is a classic prelims trap.

Prelims trap: Reprieve is temporary — it is a stay of execution of sentence, giving time to the convict to seek further relief. Respite is based on special circumstances (like pregnancy) and results in a lesser sentence. These two are frequently confused.

7th Schedule — Union, State & Concurrent Lists (Article 246)

The 7th Schedule divides legislative powers between Parliament and State Legislatures into three lists.

Original counts (1950): Union List — 97; State List — 66; Concurrent List — 47. 42nd Amendment, 1976: Transferred 5 subjects from State List to Concurrent List — education, forests, protection of wild animals and birds, administration of justice (constitution of subordinate courts), weights and measures.

Article 246: Parliament has exclusive power over Union List; both over Concurrent List; States over State List. In Concurrent conflict, Parliament's law prevails (Art. 254) unless the State law received Presidential assent and it was so reserved — then State law prevails in that State (Art. 254(2)).

Article 248 — Residuary Powers: Parliament has exclusive power to make laws on any matter not enumerated in List II or List III. Entry 97 of the Union List is the residuary entry. Parliament has used this to regulate information technology, space programmes, cyber crimes, and e-commerce.

Prelims trap: Residuary powers vest with Parliament (not the States) — unlike the US where residual powers vest with the States. This reflects India's quasi-federal (centralising tendency) character.

Prelims trap: After the 42nd Amendment, the State List had only 66 − 5 = 61 entries; Concurrent List has 47 + 5 = 52 entries. UPSC MCQs have tested the current (post-amendment) counts. Forests, education, and population control are Concurrent — not State-exclusive.

Article 249 — Parliament legislates on State List in national interest: Rajya Sabha resolves by 2/3rd majority (members present and voting) → Parliament can legislate on State List subject for 1 year (renewable). Article 250 — during National Emergency, Parliament can legislate on State List. Article 252 — two or more states can request Parliament to legislate for them on State List subjects (e.g., Inter-State Water Disputes Act).

Parliamentary Financial Committees

Three principal financial standing committees examine the Budget and government expenditure:

Key differences PAC vs Estimates Committee:

• PAC uses CAG reports as its primary input (post-expenditure audit); Estimates Committee works on Budget estimates before expenditure.
• Estimates Committee is Lok Sabha only — Rajya Sabha has no representation.
• PAC chairman is conventionally from the Opposition (since 1967 convention) — unlike Estimates Committee chairman which is from ruling party.
• Both are constituted annually; ministers cannot be members of either.

Prelims trap: Estimates Committee has 30 members — all from Lok Sabha only. PAC has members from both Houses. This is a direct UPSC MCQ trap — UPSC asked in 2015: "Which committees consist of members only from Lok Sabha?" Answer: Estimates Committee.

Prelims trap: PAC chairman is from Opposition (convention since 1967) — this is not a constitutional or statutory provision, only a parliamentary convention.

Tribunals — Articles 323A and 323B

L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) — 7-judge Constitution Bench:

• SC held that clauses in Art. 323A(2)(d) and 323B(3)(d) excluding the jurisdiction of High Courts and Supreme Court under Articles 226/227 and 32 are unconstitutional — they strike at the Basic Structure (power of judicial review).
• Tribunals can exercise judicial review of administrative action but NOT of legislative action (that remains exclusively with HC/SC).
• Appeals from Tribunals shall lie to the Division Bench of the respective High Court (NOT directly to the Supreme Court).
• Tribunals are supplementary to the HC, not substitutes.

Prelims trap: NGT (National Green Tribunal) is established under Art. 323B — not under Art. 323A. CAT is under Art. 323A. UPSC has tested this distinction. After L. Chandra Kumar, no tribunal can bar HC/SC jurisdiction.

Prelims trap: Art. 323B says tribunals can be created by Parliament or State Legislature — Art. 323A says only Parliament can create administrative tribunals.

NJAC — 4th Judges Case (2015) & Collegium System

Evolution of Judicial Appointments:

The 99th Constitutional Amendment (2014) inserted Articles 124A, 124B, and 124C to establish the NJAC (National Judicial Appointments Commission). The NJAC would have comprised:

• CJI (chairperson) + 2 senior-most SC judges + Union Law Minister + 2 eminent persons (nominated by committee of PM, CJI, and Leader of Opposition)

Why struck down (4:1 majority, 2015): Giving the Law Minister (executive) a seat on the appointment panel + "eminent persons" veto power threatened independence of judiciary — a Basic Structure element. Justice J.B. Chelameswar alone dissented (upheld NJAC).

Post-2015: Collegium system (CJI + 4 senior-most SC judges) continues. The government periodically raises concerns about transparency, but no fresh constitutional amendment has been passed.

Prelims trap: NJAC was inserted by the 99th Amendment (not 100th); Articles 124A, 124B, 124C were inserted (and are now void — they have no legal effect after the 2015 judgment). The collegium system rests on judicial interpretation of Art. 124(2) — not on any explicit constitutional text.

Anti-Defection Law — 10th Schedule (52nd Amendment, 1985)

Key Provisions:

91st Amendment (2003) — Key changes:

• Deleted the old Para 3 (the "split" provision — 1/3 split was exempt from disqualification)
• Now: only a genuine merger (2/3 agreeing) is an exception — a mere split within the legislature party is NOT protected
• Added: a defecting member who is disqualified cannot be appointed as minister until re-elected

Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker, Arunachal Pradesh (2016) — SC held:

• If a notice for removal of the Speaker has been admitted and is pending, the Speaker cannot adjudicate disqualification petitions under the 10th Schedule
• This created a loophole: defecting MLAs could forestall disqualification by issuing a removal notice against the Speaker
• A 7-judge Constitution Bench is to re-examine Nabam Rebia (referred by the 5-judge bench in May 2023 in Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra); final judgment awaited

Prelims trap: After the 91st Amendment, only mergers are exempt from anti-defection — splits are NOT. A merger requires: (1) at least 2/3rd of the legislature party agrees AND (2) the original party itself merges with another party. Legislators cannot engineer a "legislature party merger" without the original political party also merging (Subhash Desai case, 2023).

Prelims trap: Anti-defection decisions are subject to judicial review — the Speaker's decision is NOT final and beyond challenge. SC in Kihoto Hollohan (1992) struck down the "finality" clause (Para 7) of the original 10th Schedule.

Prelims trap: The 10th Schedule does NOT apply to Rajya Sabha members who are elected as Deputy Chairman — only to Speakers and Chairmen who may resign from party affiliation.

Centre-State Relations — Key Articles

Sarkaria Commission (1983–87) vs Punchhi Commission (2007–10):

Prelims trap: Sarkaria Commission is on Centre-State relations (1983) — NOT on Panchayati Raj. The Inter-State Council (Art. 263) was established in 1990 based on Sarkaria Commission recommendation — not in 1951. The Punchhi Commission (2007) is a follow-up; confusing the two chairs (Sarkaria vs Punchhi) is a standard MCQ trap.

2025–26 Current Affairs: Polity

Prelims trap: The 129th and 130th Amendment Bills are bills, NOT yet enacted amendments — they do not add to the count of 106 enacted amendments.

Prelims trap: In the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, Waqf Boards remain statutory bodies — they are not constitutional bodies and are not created by the Waqf Act itself but were first constituted under the Wakf Act 1954 (now the Waqf Act 1995).

Prelims trap: The CEC and Other ECs Act, 2023 — the Chief Justice of India was proposed by the SC (Anoop Baranwal judgment) but the Parliament legislatively replaced the CJI with a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the PM on the Selection Committee. The CEC's removal protection (equivalent to SC judge) was retained; EC's removal can be on recommendation of CEC.

Prelims trap: In the Electoral Bonds case, the SC struck it down under Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech/expression/right to information) — not under Article 14 (equality) or Article 19(1)(c) (freedom of association).