BPSC 70th CCE Prelims General Studies · Question 31 of 143

Correct — D, 91st Amendment. The Constitution (Ninety-first Amendment) Act, 2003 inserted Article 75(1A), which says that the total number of Ministers, including the Prime Minister, in the Council of Ministers shall not exceed fifteen per cent of the total number of members of the House of the People. The same Act inserted the mirror provision for the States — Article 164(1A) — capping a State Council of Ministers at 15 per cent of the strength of that State's Legislative Assembly, with a first proviso fixing a floor of twelve Ministers so that a very small Assembly is not left with a three-member cabinet. On a 543-member Lok Sabha the Union ceiling is 81 (15 per cent of 543 is 81.45, and the fraction is dropped); on Bihar's 243-member Vidhan Sabha the State ceiling is 36. The cap was only half of what the 91st Amendment did, and the other half explains why it exists: the same Act added Articles 75(1B) and 164(1B), which bar a legislator disqualified for defection under the Tenth Schedule from being appointed a Minister for the remainder of his term, and Article 361B, which bars him from any remunerative political post; and it deleted paragraph 3 of the Tenth Schedule, the clause that had let one-third of a legislature party 'split' away without being disqualified. Oversized ministries were the currency used to buy defectors, so Parliament shut off the reward and the loophole in one Act. It was enacted in 2003 and brought into force on 1 January 2004.

• (a)95th Amendment — The Constitution (Ninety-fifth Amendment) Act, 2009 amended Article 334 to extend the reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the Lok Sabha and the State Legislative Assemblies by a further ten years — to seventy years from the commencement of the Constitution, i.e. to 25 January 2020. It concerns reserved seats, not the size of the ministry.
• (b)92nd Amendment — The Constitution (Ninety-second Amendment) Act, 2003 amended the Eighth Schedule to add Bodo, Dogri, Maithili and Santhali, taking the scheduled languages from 18 to 22. This is the sharpest trap in the set — it is the very next number and the very same year as the 91st, and Maithili makes it memorable to a Bihar candidate, but it is a language amendment.
• (c)93rd Amendment — The Constitution (Ninety-third Amendment) Act, 2005 inserted Article 15(5), enabling the State to make special provision for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes, SCs and STs in admission to educational institutions, including private institutions whether aided or unaided, other than minority institutions protected by Article 30(1). It was tested in Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India (2008) and has nothing to do with ministry size.

Until 2004 the Constitution set no upper limit on how many Ministers a Prime Minister or Chief Minister could appoint. Because a ministerial berth carries salary, staff, a bungalow and patronage, an unlimited Council of Ministers became the standard instrument for keeping a shaky coalition together — the 'jumbo ministry'. Reform bodies had objected for years: the Dinesh Goswami Committee on Electoral Reforms (1990) and the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (2002) both urged a constitutional ceiling. The 91st Amendment finally wrote one in, and wrote it into both the Union chapter (Article 75) and the State chapter (Article 164) at the same time, so the discipline applies identically in Patna and in Delhi.

All four options are real amendments and three of the four cluster in 2003–2009, so the question cannot be solved by eliminating fictions. The reliable route is to attach each number to its single defining reform: 91st = size of the Council of Ministers plus the tightening of the Tenth Schedule; 92nd = four more languages in the Eighth Schedule; 93rd = Article 15(5) reservation in educational institutions; 95th = ten more years of SC/ST reserved seats. A second anchor helps if the number will not come: the anti-defection package of 2003 is the one amendment in the list that touches the Council of Ministers at all, and the cap on ministry size travelled with it. Candidates who half-remember '2003' will hover between the 91st and the 92nd — the discriminator is that the 92nd is a language amendment, and the Eighth Schedule count 18 to 22 is the fact that fixes it.

• Article 75(1A), inserted by the 91st Amendment Act, 2003: Union Council of Ministers including the Prime Minister must not exceed 15 per cent of the total members of the Lok Sabha — 81 on the present strength of 543
• Article 164(1A) applies the same 15 per cent cap to a State, measured against its Legislative Assembly, but its first proviso sets a floor of twelve Ministers; for Bihar's 243-member Assembly the cap is 36
• The 91st Amendment also inserted Articles 75(1B) and 164(1B) — a member disqualified for defection cannot be appointed a Minister for the rest of his term — and Article 361B, barring him from remunerative political posts
• It deleted paragraph 3 of the Tenth Schedule, ending the 'one-third split' exemption; after 2003 only a merger of two-thirds of a legislature party escapes disqualification
• The Amendment was enacted in 2003 and came into force on 1 January 2004; States above the cap were given six months to bring their ministries into conformity

• Confusing the 91st with the 92nd — both are 2003 amendments with consecutive numbers, but the 92nd only added four languages to the Eighth Schedule
• Assuming the 15 per cent cap has no lower bound: Article 164(1A) guarantees a State at least twelve Ministers, which is why Sikkim, Goa and Mizoram can exceed 15 per cent of their small Assemblies
• Applying the cap to the Lok Sabha's sanctioned maximum of 550 rather than to its actual membership — the Article says 'total number of members of the House of the People'

BPSC asks this as a bare number-matching recall — 'which amendment did X' with four plausible numbers and no statements to reason through — so the marks go to whoever has memorised the amendment list. UPSC has asked exactly the same fact twice, in 2007 and 2009, but tends increasingly to wrap it in a statement set, testing whether you also know the State cap, the twelve-Minister floor and the linked Tenth Schedule change rather than just the number.

• practice — not a real PYQ

  Which Article of the Constitution caps the total number of Ministers, including the Chief Minister, in a State at 15 per cent of the strength of the Legislative Assembly ?

  • (a)Article 163(2)
  • (b)Article 164(1A)
  • (c)Article 167
  • (d)Article 174(1)

  Answer(b) Article 164(1A) — inserted by the 91st Amendment Act, 2003, with a proviso that the number shall not be less than twelve.

• practice — not a real PYQ

  The 'split' provision that exempted one-third of the members of a legislature party from disqualification on the ground of defection was deleted by which Constitutional Amendment ?

  • (a)52nd Amendment
  • (b)91st Amendment
  • (c)97th Amendment
  • (d)99th Amendment

  Answer(b) 91st Amendment — it deleted paragraph 3 of the Tenth Schedule, leaving only a two-thirds merger as a valid defence.