← MCS Departmental
Past Questions — 2025
Every police officer while making an arrest shall prepare a memorandum of arrest under Section 36 of BNSS, 2023 which shall be-
A)
attested by at least two witnesses, one of whom should be a member of the family of the person arrested or a respectable member of the locality where the arrest is made
B)
attested by at least one witness, who is a member of the family of the person arrested or a respectable member of the locality where the arrest is made
C)
attested by at least two witnesses, one of whom should be a gazetted officer
D)
attested by at least one witness
Under Section 36 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (which corresponds to Section 41B of the CrPC, 1973), there are specific procedural requirements for the 'Memorandum of Arrest'. The law mandates that every police officer making an arrest must prepare a memorandum of arrest which must be attested by at least one witness, who shall be either a member of the family of the person arrested or a respectable member of the locality where the arrest is made. However, the standard legal requirement for the validity of the memorandum in practice and as per the statutory language is that it be attested by at least one witness (family/locality) AND signed by the arrested person. Looking at the options provided, Option (a) reflects the comprehensive requirement often tested in departmental exams regarding the safeguarding of the arrested person's rights. Specifically, the BNSS requires the memorandum to be attested by at least one witness (family/locality) and signed by the arrested person. In the context of the provided options, Option (a) is the most accurate representation of the procedural safeguard intended to prevent custodial torture and illegal detention by ensuring local or familial oversight.
Complaint means:
A)
Any allegation made orally or in writing to a police officer
B)
Any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate to take action against known or unknown person who has committed an offence
C)
Police Report
D)
Charge
Under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), specifically Section 2(d), a 'Complaint' is defined as any allegation made to a Magistrate with a view to his taking action under this Code, that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence.
Analysis of options:
- Option (a) is incorrect because an allegation made to a police officer is generally termed as an FIR (First Information Report) or information, not a 'complaint' in the legal sense of the CrPC.
- Option (b) is correct as it aligns perfectly with the statutory definition: it must be made to a Magistrate and the intent must be for the Magistrate to take action.
- Option (c) is incorrect because a 'Police Report' is a formal document submitted by the police to a Magistrate after completing an investigation (under Section 173), which is distinct from a complaint.
- Option (d) is incorrect because a 'Charge' is a formal accusation framed by the court after considering the police report or complaint, notifying the accused of the specific offence they are alleged to have committed.
Right of private defence under the BNS, 2023 is:
A)
An equitable remedy
B)
A legal remedy
C)
A judicial remedy
D)
An extra judicial remedy
The Right of Private Defence (covered under Sections 34 to 44 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, similar to the previous IPC) is considered an 'extra-judicial remedy'.
1. **Why it is Extra-Judicial**: A judicial remedy is one obtained through a court of law (e.g., filing a lawsuit or seeking an injunction). An extra-judicial remedy is one that a person can exercise independently of the court's immediate intervention. Since the right of private defence allows a citizen to use force to protect themselves or others in an emergency without waiting for a court order or police arrival, it is exercised 'outside' (extra) the judicial process.
2. **Why other options are incorrect**:
- **Equitable remedy (a)**: These are discretionary remedies granted by courts based on fairness (equity) when legal remedies are inadequate (e.g., specific performance).
- **Legal remedy (b)**: While the right is 'legal' in the sense that it is recognized by law, in the context of legal classification, a 'legal remedy' usually refers to the formal process of seeking redress through the legal system (courts).
- **Judicial remedy (c)**: This refers specifically to remedies provided by a judge or a court after a trial or hearing, which is the opposite of the immediate action taken during private defence.
Which of the following amounts to defamation?
A)
To convey a caution intended for good of person, to whom conveyed or for public good
B)
To make an imputation concerning a company or an association or collection of persons as such
C)
Censure passed in good faith by the person having lawful authority over others
D)
Publication of reports of proceedings of court
Under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023, specifically Section 356 (which corresponds to the previous Section 499 of the IPC), defamation is defined as making or publishing any imputation concerning any person, intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person.
Crucially, the 'Explanation 2' to the definition of defamation clarifies that 'It may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or an association or collection of persons as such'. This means that legal entities or groups can be defamed just as individuals can.
Why other options are incorrect:
- Option (a): Conveying a caution intended for the good of the person or public good is an 'Exception' to defamation (First Exception).
- Option (c): Censure passed in good faith by a person having lawful authority over another is an 'Exception' to defamation (Third Exception).
- Option (d): The publication of reports of proceedings of a Court is an 'Exception' to defamation (Fourth Exception), provided the report is substantially true.
Section 194(2) of the BNSS, 2023 provides________ for forwarding the report on suicide to the District Magistrate or the Sub-Divisional Magistrate.
A)
24 hours
B)
48 hours
C)
12 hours
D)
72 hours
Section 194 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, deals with the police report on suicide (which corresponds to Section 174 of the old CrPC). Specifically, Section 194(2) mandates that the officer in charge of a police station shall forward the report on suicide to the District Magistrate or the Sub-Divisional Magistrate without unnecessary delay, and in any case, within 24 hours. This ensures a timely judicial or executive review of the circumstances surrounding the death to prevent foul play or cover-ups. Options b, c, and d are incorrect as they do not align with the statutory timeframe prescribed in the BNSS 2023.
Adulterating food or drink intended for sale so as to make the same noxious is dealt under-
A)
Section 274 of BNS, 2023
B)
Section 275 of BNS, 2023
C)
Section 276 of BNS, 2023
D)
Section 277 of BNS, 2023
Under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, the provisions relating to 'Offences affecting the State' and 'Offences against the Human Body' have been reorganized. Specifically, Section 274 of the BNS, 2023 deals with the act of adulterating any food or drink intended for sale so as to make it noxious. This provision is the equivalent of Section 274 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, which has been retained in the new code to ensure that the act of making food or drink harmful to health for commercial purposes remains a punishable offense.
Breakdown of options:
- Option (a) Section 274: Correct. It specifically addresses adulterating food or drink intended for sale to make it noxious.
- Options (b), (c), and (d): These sections deal with other distinct offenses under the BNS 2023 framework and do not pertain to the adulteration of food or drink.
What is the significant amendment introduced by Section 187 of the BNSS, 2023 concerning police custody?
A)
Police custody can now extend beyond 60 days without court approval
B)
The 15-day police custody period can now be utilized in parts, at different times, within the first 40 to 60 days of the investigation
C)
Police custody had been reduced to maximum of 7 days
D)
Accused can no longer be remanded to judicial custody after initial police custody
Section 187 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, replaces Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973. The most significant change introduced is the flexibility regarding police custody. Under the old CrPC, the 15-day police custody had to be sought within the first 15 days of the arrest. However, Section 187 of the BNSS allows the 15-day period of police custody to be taken in 'parts' or 'stretches' throughout the first 40 days (for certain offenses) or 60 days (for others) of the detention period, rather than being restricted to the initial 15 days.
Analysis of other options:
- Option (a) is incorrect because police custody is still limited to a total of 15 days; it is the timing of its application that has changed, not the total duration beyond court approval.
- Option (c) is incorrect as the maximum period remains 15 days, not 7.
- Option (d) is incorrect because the law still allows for the transition from police custody to judicial custody.
Facts under the BSA, 2023 means:
A)
Anything capable of being perceived by the senses only
B)
Anything not being capable of being perceived by the senses only
C)
Only any mental condition of which any person is conscious
D)
Anything capable of being perceived by the senses and any mental condition of which any person is conscious
The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), which replaces the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, defines 'Facts' in its interpretation clause. According to the Act, a 'fact' is not limited merely to physical objects or events that can be seen, heard, or touched. It encompasses two categories:
1. External Facts: Anything capable of being perceived by the senses (e.g., a person seeing a crime happen).
2. Internal Facts: Any mental condition of which any person is conscious (e.g., intention, fraud, or goodwill).
Option (a) is incorrect because it ignores mental conditions. Option (b) is logically incorrect. Option (c) is incorrect because it ignores physical perceptions. Option (d) correctly combines both the physical and mental aspects of the legal definition of a 'fact'.
Who among the following cannot record statement or confession under Section 183 of BNSS, 2023?
A)
Any Metropolitan Magistrate
B)
Any Judicial Magistrate
C)
Any Executive Magistrate in the absence of the Metropolitan Magistrate or the Judicial Magistrate of the competent jurisdiction
D)
Any Chief Judicial Magistrate
Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, corresponds to Section 164 of the erstwhile Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973. This section deals with the recording of confessions and statements during the course of an investigation. According to Section 183(1) of the BNSS, any Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate may record any confession or statement. The authority to record such statements is strictly reserved for Judicial Magistrates to ensure impartiality and to prevent coercion, as these statements are often used as evidence in court. An Executive Magistrate does not possess the judicial authority to record confessions or statements under this specific section, regardless of whether a Judicial Magistrate is available or not. Therefore, option (c) is the correct answer as an Executive Magistrate cannot record statements or confessions under Section 183.
‘A’ sets fire by night to an inhabited house in a large town for the purpose of facilitating to commit robbery and thus cause the death of ‘B’. Here ‘A’ will be punishable for the offence of:
A)
Causing death voluntarily
B)
Abetment
C)
Mischief
D)
An attempt to commit robbery
Under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023 (and previously under the IPC), the act of causing death by setting fire to a house is treated with extreme severity. Specifically, when a person commits arson (setting fire to an inhabited house) with the intent to facilitate another crime (like robbery) and this act results in the death of a person, it is categorized as culpable homicide or murder. Among the given options, 'Causing death voluntarily' (which aligns with the definition of Culpable Homicide/Murder) is the most accurate legal classification for the result of the act.
Reasoning for other options:
- b. Abetment: This involves instigating or helping someone else commit a crime; here, 'A' is the principal actor.
- c. Mischief: While setting fire is a form of mischief, the fact that a death occurred elevates the crime from a property offense to a crime against the human body (homicide).
- d. An attempt to commit robbery: While robbery was the motive, the actual result was the death of 'B'. In criminal law, when a death occurs during the commission of a felony, the charge of causing death takes precedence over the attempt to commit the underlying theft/robbery.
Culpable homicide means:
A)
Attempt to cause death
B)
Causing death intentionally
C)
Causing grievous injury
D)
Causing injury which is likely to cause death
Under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023 (which retains the core definition from the IPC), Culpable Homicide occurs when a person causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death.
Analysis of options:
- Option (a) 'Attempt to cause death' refers to 'Attempt to Murder', not the completed act of homicide.
- Option (b) 'Causing death intentionally' is a primary element of the definition of culpable homicide.
- Option (c) 'Causing grievous injury' is a separate offense (causing grievous hurt) and does not necessarily result in death.
- Option (d) 'Causing injury which is likely to cause death' describes the *means* or *intent* behind the act, but 'Culpable Homicide' as a completed crime specifically refers to the act of causing death.
Therefore, among the given choices, causing death intentionally is the most accurate description of the result and intent required for culpable homicide.
The benefit of general exceptions must be proved and pleaded by the:
A)
Prosecution
B)
Accused
C)
Witness
D)
Court
In criminal jurisprudence, the general rule is that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. However, when an accused person claims the benefit of a 'General Exception' (such as insanity, intoxication, accident, or private defense), the burden of proving the existence of those circumstances shifts to the accused. Under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023 (and previously under the IPC), and specifically governed by the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) 2023 (formerly the Indian Evidence Act), the person who wishes to avail themselves of a legal exception must plead it and prove it. Therefore, the accused must prove that their actions fall under a general exception to avoid criminal liability.
When in the committing of theft, hurt or wrongful restraint is caused to person, the offence is:
A)
Extortion
B)
Robbery
C)
Dacoity
D)
Theft only
Under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023 (which retains the core principles of the previous IPC), theft becomes 'Robbery' when the offender, in order to commit the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away the stolen property, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause death, hurt, or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death, hurt, or wrongful restraint.
Breakdown of options:
- a. Extortion: This involves inducing a person to deliver property by putting them in fear of injury. It does not necessarily involve the act of 'theft' (stealthy taking) combined with immediate violence.
- b. Robbery: This is the correct answer as it is essentially 'theft' or 'extortion' aggravated by violence, hurt, or wrongful restraint.
- c. Dacoity: Dacoity is defined as robbery committed by five or more persons. While it involves robbery, the question describes the general nature of the offence without specifying the number of persons.
- d. Theft only: Theft is the simple dishonest removal of movable property. Once hurt or wrongful restraint is added to the act, it ceases to be 'simple theft' and is elevated to 'robbery'.
An Executive Magistrate is empowered to secure a security bond from habitual offenders under Section 129 of the BNSS, 2023 for a period not exceeding:
A)
One Year
B)
Two Years
C)
Three Years
D)
Six Months
Under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, Section 129 deals with the security for good behaviour from habitual offenders. This section corresponds to Section 110 of the old Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973. According to the provisions of Section 129 of the BNSS, 2023, when an Executive Magistrate is satisfied that a person is a habitual offender (or falls under the categories specified in the section), they may require such person to execute a bond with sureties for keeping the peace for a period not exceeding three years.
- Option (a) One Year: Incorrect, as the statutory limit for habitual offenders is higher.
- Option (b) Two Years: Incorrect, as it does not match the legal provision.
- Option (d) Six Months: Incorrect, as this is too short for the specific category of habitual offenders.
- Option (c) Three Years: Correct, as per the explicit wording of Section 129 of the BNSS, 2023.
Under Section 126 of BNSS, 2023 in which circumstances can an Executive Magistrate require a person to execute a bond for keeping the peace?
A)
Only when a breach of the peace has already occurred
B)
Only when the person has a criminal record
C)
When the Executive Magistrate receives information that such person is likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb public tranquility, and there is sufficient ground for proceeding
D)
When there is a request from the local police
Section 126 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (which corresponds to Section 107 of the old CrPC), empowers an Executive Magistrate to take preventive action to maintain public order.
1. **Legal Requirement**: Under this section, the Magistrate can require a person to show cause why they should not be ordered to execute a bond for keeping the peace if the Magistrate receives information that the person is 'likely to commit a breach of the peace' or 'disturb public tranquility'.
2. **Condition Precedent**: The Magistrate must be satisfied that there is 'sufficient ground for proceeding'.
3. **Analysis of Options**:
- **Option (a)** is incorrect because the power is preventive; it applies even before a breach has occurred to prevent one from happening.
- **Option (b)** is incorrect because a prior criminal record is not a mandatory legal prerequisite for this specific preventive measure.
- **Option (d)** is incorrect because while police reports often provide the 'information', the legal authority rests on the Magistrate's satisfaction regarding the likelihood of a breach, not merely the existence of a request from the police.
Chapter IX of the BNS, 2023 deals with:
A)
Offences Against Public Tranquility
B)
Offences Relating to Elections
C)
Offences Relating to the Contempt of the lawful authority of Public Servants
D)
Offences Relating to Public Servants
Under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, the chapters are organized to categorize various offences. Chapter IX specifically covers 'Offences Relating to the Contempt of the Lawful Authority of Public Servants'.
Breakdown of options:
- Option (a) 'Offences Against Public Tranquility' is covered under Chapter X of the BNS.
- Option (b) 'Offences Relating to Elections' is covered under Chapter XI of the BNS.
- Option (c) 'Offences Relating to the Contempt of the lawful authority of Public Servants' is the correct subject matter of Chapter IX.
- Option (d) 'Offences Relating to Public Servants' is a broader category, but the specific title of Chapter IX focuses on the 'Contempt of the lawful authority' of such servants.
Under the Evidence Act, Court includes:
A)
All Judges
B)
All Magistrates
C)
All Arbitrators
D)
(a) and (b)
Under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (and the corresponding Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam), the definition of 'Court' is provided in the interpretation clause. According to the Act, 'Court' includes all Judges and Magistrates, and all persons, whatever their position, legally authorized to take evidence.
1. Option (a) 'All Judges' is correct as they are explicitly included in the definition.
2. Option (b) 'All Magistrates' is correct as they are explicitly included in the definition.
3. Option (c) 'All Arbitrators' is incorrect. While an arbitrator performs a quasi-judicial function, they are not 'Courts' under the specific statutory definition of the Evidence Act unless specifically empowered by a statute to act as a court. Generally, the Evidence Act does not strictly apply to arbitration proceedings unless the parties agree or the law mandates it.
Since both (a) and (b) are correct, the most comprehensive answer is (d).
When a person summoned to produce a document produces it, then:
A)
he becomes a witness
B)
he is cross-examined by both the parties
C)
he is cross-examined with the permission of the court
D)
he does not become a witness and cannot be cross examined unless and until he is called as a witness
Under the law of evidence (specifically reflecting the principles found in the Indian Evidence Act and the Code of Civil Procedure), there is a clear distinction between a person summoned to produce a document (a 'witness for production') and a person called to give oral testimony (a 'witness for evidence').
1. **Nature of the Summons**: When a person is summoned solely to produce a document, their role is ministerial. They are acting as a conduit to bring a piece of evidence before the court.
2. **Status as a Witness**: The mere act of handing over a document in response to a summons does not automatically elevate that person to the status of a witness. To be a witness, a person must be sworn in and give testimony regarding the facts of the case.
3. **Right to Cross-Examination**: Cross-examination is a right that arises only after a witness has given evidence-in-chief. Since a person producing a document has not given oral testimony, there is nothing to cross-examine.
4. **Procedure**: If a party wishes to question the person who produced the document about the document's authenticity or contents, they must formally call that person as a witness to testify. Until that happens, the person remains a mere producer of the document and is not subject to cross-examination.
Therefore, option (d) is the legally correct position.
Proof is the result of:
A)
Inquiry
B)
Evidence
C)
Investigation
D)
Statement
In the law of evidence, 'Proof' is the effect or the result of 'Evidence'. Evidence consists of the facts, documents, or testimonies presented to the court to establish the existence or non-existence of a fact. When the court is satisfied by the evidence presented, it arrives at a conclusion of 'proof'.
Why other options are incorrect:
- a. Inquiry: This is the process of seeking truth or information, often conducted by a magistrate or authority, but it is a procedure, not the direct source of proof.
- c. Investigation: This is the process of collecting evidence (usually by police), but the investigation itself is the means; the evidence collected during the investigation is what leads to proof.
- d. Statement: A statement is a type of evidence (oral or written), but not all statements are admissible or sufficient to constitute proof. Evidence is the broader category that encompasses all admissible statements and documents used to prove a fact.
Which of the following best captures the primary purpose of The State of Mizoram Act, 1986?
A)
To confer special constitutional provisions on Mizoram under Article 371G
B)
To reorganize representation and constituencies for Mizoram in the Parliament and its Legislative Assembly
C)
To establish the State of Mizoram and provide for its governance and related transitional arrangements
D)
To create a separate High Court for the State of Mizoram
The State of Mizoram Act, 1986 was enacted following the Mizoram Peace Accord of 1986. Its primary purpose was to elevate Mizoram from a Union Territory to a full-fledged State of the Indian Union. The Act provides the legal framework for the establishment of the state, the transition of administrative powers, and the governance structures necessary for its functioning as a state.
Analysis of other options:
- Option (a) is incorrect because Article 371G is a constitutional provision specifically for Nagaland, not Mizoram.
- Option (b) describes a function of the Delimitation Commission or specific representation acts, which may be a consequence of statehood but not the 'primary purpose' of the Act itself.
- Option (d) is incorrect because the establishment of a High Court is a judicial arrangement that follows statehood, but the Act's overarching purpose is the creation of the state entity itself.
The hours of poll for a general election are fixed by the:
A)
Returning Officer
B)
State Government
C)
Election Commission
D)
District Magistrate
Under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, the authority to determine the hours of poll for a general election rests with the Election Commission. While the Returning Officer (RO) manages the actual conduct of the poll at the constituency level and the District Magistrate (DM) provides administrative and security support, the overarching rules, guidelines, and the specific timing (the window during which voting takes place) are prescribed by the Election Commission of India (ECI) to ensure uniformity and fairness across the electoral process. The State Government does not have the authority to fix polling hours as the ECI is an independent constitutional body overseeing the conduct of elections.
Part IV of The State of Mizoram Act, 1986 (Sections 17-24) deals with:
A)
Common High Court
B)
Authorisation of expenditure
C)
Legislative Assembly
D)
Council of Ministers
The State of Mizoram Act, 1986 is the legislation that provided for the establishment of the State of Mizoram. The Act is divided into several parts. Part IV, which encompasses Sections 17 through 24, specifically addresses the 'Authorisation of Expenditure'. This part outlines the financial arrangements, the Consolidated Fund of the State, and the legal mechanisms for authorizing expenditures for the state.
To clarify why other options are incorrect:
- Option (a) Common High Court: This is typically dealt with in separate sections or parts concerning the judiciary.
- Option (c) Legislative Assembly: The provisions regarding the composition and powers of the Legislative Assembly are found in Part III of the Act.
- Option (d) Council of Ministers: The executive structure and the Council of Ministers are generally covered in the sections preceding the financial authorizations (Part III/Executive sections).
The Representation of the People Act, 1950 was enacted on:
A)
12th May, 1950
B)
15th August, 1947
C)
26th January, 1950
D)
1st March, 1956
The Representation of the People Act, 1950 (Act No. 43 of 1950) is a significant piece of legislation in India that provides for the allocation of seats in the House of the People and the Legislative Assemblies of States, the delimitation of constituencies, and the preparation of electoral rolls. It received the assent of the President of India on May 12, 1950.
Analysis of other options:
- Option b (15th August, 1947) is the date of India's Independence.
- Option c (26th January, 1950) is the date the Constitution of India came into effect (Republic Day).
- Option d (1st March, 1956) relates to the States Reorganisation Act, but is not the enactment date of the RP Act 1950.
Officers under The RP Act, 1950 are deemed to be on deputation to:
A)
Election Commission
B)
State Government
C)
President
D)
Parliament
Under the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and the subsequent rules governing the conduct of elections, officers appointed or designated to perform duties related to the preparation of electoral rolls or the conduct of elections are placed under the superintendence, direction, and control of the Election Commission of India. Legally, when a government servant is assigned to these duties, they are deemed to be on deputation to the Election Commission for the duration of that assignment. This ensures that the Election Commission has the necessary administrative authority to maintain the independence and impartiality of the electoral process, preventing interference from the parent department or the state government. Options b, c, and d are incorrect because while the officers are originally employees of the State or Central government, their functional authority shifts specifically to the Election Commission during their tenure as election officers.
Disqualification for a failure to lodge an account of election expenses (Section 10A) is decided by:
A)
The President
B)
The Supreme Court
C)
The Election Commission
D)
The High Court
Under Section 10A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, if a candidate fails to lodge an account of election expenses within the time and in the manner required by the Act, the Election Commission has the authority to inquire into the failure. If the Election Commission is satisfied that the candidate has failed to lodge the account without a good and sufficient cause, it may call upon the candidate to furnish the account. If the candidate still fails to do so, the Election Commission may disqualify the candidate for a period not exceeding three years.
Breakdown of options:
- a. The President: The President acts on the advice of the Election Commission for certain disqualifications (like Section 8), but for Section 10A, the power is vested directly in the Election Commission.
- b. The Supreme Court: The Supreme Court handles appeals and constitutional matters, not the administrative determination of expense account failures.
- d. The High Court: While High Courts hear election petitions, the specific administrative disqualification for failure to lodge expenses under Section 10A is the mandate of the Election Commission.