UPSC Prelims Practice Questions — Delhi needs better slum rehabilitation policy

Q1. Consider the following statements: Which of the following is correct in respect of the above statements?

  1. In the Olga Tellis case (1985), the Supreme Court did not prevent the removal of pavement dwellers from public footpaths in Bombay.
  2. In the same case, the Supreme Court held that the right to livelihood is an integral part of the right to life under Article 21.
  • A. Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct and Statement-II explains Statement-I
  • B. Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct, but Statement-II does not explain Statement-I
  • C. Statement-I is correct, but Statement-II is incorrect
  • D. Statement-I is incorrect, but Statement-II is correct

Q2. Consider the following assertion: Slum rehabilitation policy in Indian cities should follow an 'in-situ first, relocation last' rule. Which of the following statements support/supports the above assertion?

  1. Where a household lives shapes its access to work, and the Supreme Court has linked the right to life under Article 21 with the right to livelihood.
  2. Resettlement on the urban periphery disrupts access to jobs, schooling and care networks, and women and informal workers are affected the most.
  3. Eligibility for rehabilitation of jhuggi-jhopri clusters in Delhi is determined by a residence cut-off date.
  • A. 2 and 3 only
  • B. 1, 2 and 3
  • C. 1 only
  • D. 1 and 2 only

Q3. With reference to the 'In-situ Slum Redevelopment' component of Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (Urban), consider the following statements: Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

  1. The land occupied by the slum is treated as a resource, and private participation is used to help finance the rehousing of eligible slum dwellers on that land.
  2. Central assistance under this component reaches beneficiaries as an interest subsidy on home loans taken individually by slum dwellers.
  • A. 1 only
  • B. 2 only
  • C. Both 1 and 2
  • D. Neither 1 nor 2

Q4. With reference to the constitutional arrangement for the National Capital Territory of Delhi under Article 239AA, consider the following statements: Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

  1. The Legislative Assembly of Delhi can make laws on matters in the Concurrent List as they apply to the National Capital Territory.
  2. Once the Delhi Assembly has enacted a law on a State List matter, Parliament can no longer legislate on that matter for Delhi.
  3. On police, public order and land, executive control in Delhi rests with the Union rather than with the elected Delhi Government.
  • A. 2 and 3 only
  • B. 1, 2 and 3
  • C. 1 and 3 only
  • D. 1 only

Q5. The Delhi Assembly passed a law moving the eligibility cut-off for jhuggi-jhopri clusters from 1 January 2006 to 1 January 2025. Consider the following statements about the likely consequences of such a change: Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

  1. It reduces the State's rehabilitation liability, because fewer households now fall within the cut-off date.
  2. Households that began living in a cluster after the new cut-off date remain outside the eligibility net.
  3. Families who were already eligible under the earlier cut-off lose their eligibility, since only one date can apply.
  • A. 2 only
  • B. 1 and 3 only
  • C. 1 and 2 only
  • D. 2 and 3 only

Q6. Consider the following facts about Delhi's 2015 slum rehabilitation policy: to be eligible, a jhuggi dweller's name had to appear in the voter lists of 2002, 2007 and 2010 at the same address, and the family needed a ration card and an income certificate. The eligibility cut-off for Delhi's clusters had also been revised several times over the years. Which of the following inferences can be drawn from the above?

  1. Every household living in a jhuggi-jhopri cluster in 2015 lacked the documents needed to qualify.
  2. A family that had lived in Delhi for decades but moved between clusters could fail the test despite long residence in the city.
  3. Repeated revision of the cut-off shows that the State had abandoned the cut-off date as a tool for determining eligibility.
  4. The documentary requirements favoured long-settled, documented households over recent or mobile migrants.
  • A. 1, 2 and 4 only
  • B. 2 and 4 only
  • C. 2, 3 and 4 only
  • D. 1 and 3 only