UPSC Prelims 2020— Question 29

This question tests ministerial appointment and disqualification. The key concept is: A person who is not a state legislator can become a minister only subject to the constitutional six-month limit, but the Constitution requires the minister to satisfy the relevant eligibility conditions for membership; mere voter eligibility is not sufficient. Under election law, disqualification after conviction is governed by statutory provisions and is not automatically permanent in every five-year sentence case. Both statements are therefore rejected. The verified answer for the uploaded Set-B paper is option D. Option A — 1 only: This is not the correct option. The option does not match the verified combination or conclusion. The decisive point is the distinction explained above: A person who is not a state legislator can become a minister only subject to the constitutional six-month limit, but the Constitution requires the minister to satisfy the relevant eligibility conditions for membership; mere voter eligibility is not sufficient. Under election law, disqualification after conviction is governed by statutory provisions and is not automatically permanent in every five-year sentence case. Both statements are therefore rejected. Therefore this alternative should be eliminated even if part of its wording appears plausible in isolation. Option B — 2 only: This is not the correct option. The option does not match the verified combination or conclusion. The decisive point is the distinction explained above: A person who is not a state legislator can become a minister only subject to the constitutional six-month limit, but the Constitution requires the minister to satisfy the relevant eligibility conditions for membership; mere voter eligibility is not sufficient. Under election law, disqualification after conviction is governed by statutory provisions and is not automatically permanent in every five-year sentence case. Both statements are therefore rejected. Therefore this alternative should be eliminated even if part of its wording appears plausible in isolation. Option C — Both 1 and 2: This is not the correct option. The option does not match the verified combination or conclusion. The decisive point is the distinction explained above: A person who is not a state legislator can become a minister only subject to the constitutional six-month limit, but the Constitution requires the minister to satisfy the relevant eligibility conditions for membership; mere voter eligibility is not sufficient. Under election law, disqualification after conviction is governed by statutory provisions and is not automatically permanent in every five-year sentence case. Both statements are therefore rejected. Therefore this alternative should be eliminated even if part of its wording appears plausible in isolation. Option D — Neither 1 nor 2: This is the correct option. It matches the verified conclusion because A person who is not a state legislator can become a minister only subject to the constitutional six-month limit, but the Constitution requires the minister to satisfy the relevant eligibility conditions for membership; mere voter eligibility is not sufficient. Under election law, disqualification after conviction is governed by statutory provisions and is not automatically permanent in every five-year sentence case. Both statements are therefore rejected. The wording of the option is consistent with the governing concept tested by the question. For UPSC-style elimination, first identify the exact proposition being tested, then evaluate each statement independently before comparing the answer codes. Avoid treating a broad or absolute statement as correct merely because its general theme is familiar. The precise qualifiers in the question—such as 'all', 'only', 'cannot', 'largest', 'always' or a specific institutional role—often determine the answer. On that basis, option D is the verified answer.