Consider the following statements with reference to Article 20 of the Indian Constitution:
1. Forcing someone to give thump impression is the violation of this article.
2. Either Court or department can take action against public servant on corruption charges.
3. This article is extended to both civil and criminal cases.
Which of the statement given above is incorrect?
- Statement 1 is not correct: Protection against self-incrimination does not extend to compulsion to give thumb impression, specimen signature, blood specimens.
- Statement 2 is not correct: Protection against double jeopardy is available only in proceedings before a court of law or a judicial tribunal. In other words, it is not available in proceedings before departmental or administrative authorities as they are not of judicial nature.
- Statement 3 is not correct: This article is imposed only on criminal laws and not on civil laws or tax laws.
Which of the following statement is incorrect regarding Article 33 of Indian Constitution?
- Article 33 empowers the Parliament to restrict or abrogate the fundamental rights of the members of armed forces, para-military forces, police forces, intelligence agencies, and analogous forces. So, first statement is correct.
- Any such law made by Parliament cannot be challenged in any court on the ground of contravention of any of the fundamental rights. Hence statement 2 is correct
- The expression ‘members of the armed forces’ also covers such employees of the armed forces as barbers, carpenters, mechanics, cooks, chowkidars, bootmakers, tailors who are non-combatants. Hence statement 3 is not correct.
Which of the following writs can be issued against the private individual as well as a public authority?
1. Habeas Corpus
The writ of Habeas Corpus can be issued against private individuals as well as a public authority. While other writs like Mandamus, Prohibition, and Certiorari can be issued only against public
Which of the following statements are correct?
1. "Untouchability" has been defined under Article 17.
2. Article 17 is only available against the state.
- Statement 1 is not correct: Untouchability has not been defined by the constitution, but various court judgments have expanded its meaning.
- Statement 2 is not correct: It is available against both the state and private individuals.
Which of the following would fall under the definition of State as defined in Article 12 of the Constitution?
1. NITI Aayog
2. Reserve Bank of India
3. Punjab National Bank
- According to the Supreme Court, even a private body or an agency working as an instrument of the State falls within the meaning of the ‘State’ under Article 12.
- RBI, UID Authority are statutory bodies.
- NITI Aayog performs important public functions like recommending the poverty line.
Which of the following statements are correct under Article 32 of the constitution?
1. The Supreme Court has original and exclusive jurisdiction in case of enforcement of fundamental rights.
2. It is a basic feature of the constitution and cannot be taken away even by a constitutional amendment.
- Statement 1 is not correct: In case of the enforcement of Fundamental Rights, the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is original but not exclusive. It is concurrent with the jurisdiction of the high court under Article 226.
- Statement 2 is correct: The Supreme Court has ruled that Article 32 is a basic feature of the Constitution.
Which of the following statements are correct with respect to the Freedom of Religion mentioned in the Indian Constitution?
1. It includes the freedom to not follow any religion.
2. It is not applicable to foreign nationals.
- Freedom of religion also includes the freedom of conscience. This means that a person may choose any religion or may choose not to follow any religion. Hence, statement 1 is correct.
- Freedom of Religion is available to not just Indian citizens but also to foreign nationals residing within Indian territory. Hence, statement 2 is not correct.
Which of the following statements are incorrect?
1. Due Process of Law is now explicitly mentioned in the Article 21.
2. In the Golaknath case of 1967, the Supreme Court held that the Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution including fundamental rights.
3. Article 31A was inserted through the 25th Constitutional Amendment Act.
- Statement 1 is incorrect: Due Process of Law is not explicitly mentioned in the Article 21.
- In the Golaknath case of 1967, the Supreme Court held that the Parliament cannot amend any part of the Constitution including fundamental rights.
- 31A was added through first constitutional amendment act 1951.
Which of the following statements regarding Right to Equality is incorrect?
Rule of Law implies an absence of any privileges to any individual or a community whereas the Equal Protection of Law indicates different treatment in different circumstances.
Which one of the following is not true about Fundamental Rights?
- Fundamental rights are meant for promoting the idea of political democracy.DPSP is for social and economic democracy.
Which of the following are not features of Fundamental Rights?
- Fundamental rights are not absolute but qualified in nature as the state can impose reasonable restrictions on them..
In which of the following case Supreme Court held that ‘the Indian Constitution is founded on the Bedrock of the Balance between the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles?
The conflict between FR and DPSP arises primarily because of justiciablity of one and the lack of the same. The Supreme Court’s jurisprudence has developed in the following ways:
- Champakam Dorairajan case: Fundamental Rights would prevail over the DPSP in case of conflict between the two. However, legislature can amend FR to give effect to DPSP
- Golaknath case: FR are sacrosanct in nature and cannot be amended for implementation of DPSP
- Keshavanda Bharati case: Article 31C providing blanket immunity for those laws giving effect to DPSP was deemed null and void.
- Minerva Mills case: Constitution is founded on the bedrock of balance between FR and DPSPThe present position is that FR enjoys supremacy over the DPSP. Yet, this does not mean that DPSP cannot be implemented
Which of the following rights is/are available to foreigners in India?
1 Right to Education.
2. Right to Freedom.
Select the correct statements using the codes given below:
|Available to citizens only||Available to citizens and foreigners|
|Prohibition of discrimination on various grounds|
|Equality before law and equal protection of laws|
|Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment|
|Protection in respect of conviction for offences|
|Protection of six rights regarding freedom of :|
|Protection of life and personal liberty|
Right to elementary education
Protection against arrest and detention in certain cases
|Protection of language, script, and culture of minorities|
|Right against exploitation|
|Right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions|
|Right to freedom of religion|
(Article 25– 28)
Which writ is issued by a High Court or the Supreme Court to compel an authority to perform a function that it was not performing?
Mandamus: ‘We Command’:
- This writ is issued by court to a public official, public body, corporation, inferior court, tribunal or Government asking them to perform their duties which they have failed or refused to perform.
Supreme court ruled that The Fundamental rights and Directive Principles are in fact supplementary to each other and together constitute an integrated scheme" This is known as?
- Champakam Dorairajan Case (1952): All Fundamental Rights are superior over DPSPs.
- Supreme Court in the Re Kerala Education Bill(1957) had propounded the Doctrine of Harmonious Construction to avoid a situation of conflict while enforcing DPSPs and the Fundamental Rights. As per this doctrine, the court held that there is no inherent conflict between FRs and DPSPs and the courts while interpreting a law should attempt to give effect to both as far as possible i. e. should try to harmonize the two as far as possible.
- The Supreme Court, after the judgment in the Kesavananda Bharati case, has adopted the view of the Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles being complementary to each other, each supplementing the other’s role in aiming at the same goal of establishing a welfare state by means of social revolution