GK Questions

Golak Nath (1967) Fundamental Rights and amendment power: (a) Context: Challenge to constitutional amendments affecting property rights (Articles 19(1)(f), 31); issue whether Parliament can amend Fundamental Rights, (b) Supreme Court holding (6:5): (i) Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights under Article 368; Fundamental Rights are 'transcendental and immutable', (ii) Article 368 only prescribes procedure for amendment, not substantive power to amend Fundamental Rights, (iii) Applied prospective overruling: Judgment applies only to future amendments, not past amendments affecting property rights, (c) Later modification: (i) Kesavananda Bharati (1973): Modified Golak Nath; held Parliament can amend any provision including Fundamental Rights, but cannot alter 'basic structure' of Constitution, (ii) Balance: Fundamental Rights can be abridged but not destroyed if part of basic structure, (iii) Rationale: Enables constitutional adaptation while preserving core identity, (d) Applications: (i) Property rights: Golak Nath protected property rights; subsequent amendments (44th Amendment) removed property as Fundamental Right but retained constitutional protection, (ii) Basic structure: Kesavananda enabled balanced approach — amendments possible but core values protected, (e) Rationale for evolution: (i) Constitutional flexibility: Golak Nath's absolute bar on FR amendments too rigid; Kesavananda enabled adaptation while preserving core, (ii) Democratic legitimacy: Parliament needs flexibility to address contemporary challenges, but core values must be protected, (iii) Rights protection: Basic structure doctrine ensures Fundamental Rights forming part of core remain protected, (f) Illustrates constitutional evolution: Golak Nath represented strong rights protection; Kesavananda calibrated approach enables constitutional adaptation while preserving core identity; balance between flexibility, permanence essential to living constitutionalism.

polity hard fill_blank

In Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India (2006), the Supreme Court struck down Bihar Assembly dissolution under Article 356, holding that the Governor's report recommending President's Rule was based on unverified media reports and political considerations, not ______ assessment of constitutional breakdown.

subjective
objective
confidential
partisan

polity hard fill_blank

In Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Section 124A IPC (sedition) but limited its application to acts inciting ______ or public disorder, not mere criticism of government.

violence
protest
dissent
debate

polity medium fill_blank

In Unnikrishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993), the Supreme Court held that right to education up to age 14 is a fundamental right implicit in Article 21, which later led to the insertion of Article ______ through the 86th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2002 making education for children aged 6-14 a Fundamental Right.

21A
21B
45
46

polity medium fill_blank

In Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979), the Supreme Court recognized right to speedy trial as part of right to life and personal liberty under Article ______, leading to release of thousands of undertrial prisoners detained longer than maximum sentence.

14
19
21
32

polity hard fill_blank

In Common Cause v. Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court recognized passive euthanasia and living wills (advance medical directives) as part of right to die with dignity under Article ______, subject to stringent safeguards to prevent misuse.

14
19
21
25

polity hard fill_blank

In Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992), the Supreme Court upheld 27% reservation for OBCs but introduced the '______ layer' concept to exclude advanced sections within OBCs from reservation benefits, ensuring affirmative action reaches the neediest.

upper
creamy
elite
forward

polity hard fill_blank

In I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007), the Supreme Court held that laws placed in the Ninth Schedule after April 24, 1973 (date of Kesavananda judgment) are subject to ______ review, and can be struck down if they violate fundamental rights forming part of basic structure.

procedural
basic structure
administrative
financial

polity hard fill_blank

In Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017), the Supreme Court struck down instant triple talaq (talaq-e-biddat) as violating Article ______ (right to equality), holding that constitutional values of gender equality override discriminatory religious customs.

14
15
19
21

polity medium fill_blank

Basic structure values recognize human dignity as foundational to Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty), requiring state action to respect individual autonomy, privacy, and worth — a principle affirmed in cases like ______ (2017) recognizing privacy as intrinsic to dignity and liberty.

Kesavananda Bharati
Puttaswamy
Minerva Mills
SR Bommai

Quick Quiz Actions

Create a custom practice set

Weekly challenge coming soon

In SR Bommai v. Union of India (1994), the Supreme Court held that ______ test is the primary method to test whether a State government enjoys majority support in the Assembly, and Governor cannot dismiss Ministry without testing majority on Assembly floor.

In Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017), the Supreme Court struck down instant triple talaq as violating Article 14 (right to equality) because it was ______ and manifestly unreasonable, not an essential practice of Islam protected under Article 25.

In Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court held that discrimination based on sexual orientation violates Article ______, interpreting 'sex' to include sexual orientation, gender identity.

In Common Cause v. Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court recognized passive euthanasia and living wills subject to safeguards including medical board certification, judicial oversight, and ______ committee review to prevent misuse.

In Chameli Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1996), the Supreme Court recognized right to shelter as part of right to life under Article 21, holding that shelter includes not just roof over head but adequate living space, safe structure, clean surroundings, and access to ______.

In Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi (1981), the Supreme Court held that right to life under Article 21 means right to live with human dignity, including adequate nutrition, clothing, shelter, and facilities for reading, writing, and expressing oneself.

In Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Dilipkumar (1983), the Supreme Court held that right to livelihood is part of Article 21, but State can regulate livelihood in public interest with due procedure, illustrating balance between individual rights and ______ welfare.

In Parmanand Katara v. Union of India (1989), the Supreme Court held that every doctor (government or private) has duty to provide ______ medical care to accident victims, and right to life under Article 21 includes right to emergency treatment.

In Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984), the Supreme Court recognized that bonded labour violates right to life and personal liberty under Article ______, and directed rehabilitation, release of bonded labourers as part of State's positive obligation.

In Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration (2009), the Supreme Court recognized reproductive choices as part of personal liberty, privacy, and dignity under Article ______, affirming women's right to make decisions about pregnancy, childbirth, and family planning.

In Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967), the Supreme Court held that Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights under Article 368, but this view was later modified by Kesavananda Bharati (1973) which held that Fundamental Rights can be amended but not ______ if part of basic structure.

In Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Section 124A IPC (sedition) but limited its application to acts inciting ______ or public disorder, not mere criticism of government.

In Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979), the Supreme Court recognized right to speedy trial as part of right to life and personal liberty under Article ______, leading to release of thousands of undertrial prisoners detained longer than maximum sentence.

In Common Cause v. Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court recognized passive euthanasia and living wills (advance medical directives) as part of right to die with dignity under Article ______, subject to stringent safeguards to prevent misuse.

In Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992), the Supreme Court upheld 27% reservation for OBCs but introduced the '______ layer' concept to exclude advanced sections within OBCs from reservation benefits, ensuring affirmative action reaches the neediest.

In I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007), the Supreme Court held that laws placed in the Ninth Schedule after April 24, 1973 (date of Kesavananda judgment) are subject to ______ review, and can be struck down if they violate fundamental rights forming part of basic structure.

In Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017), the Supreme Court struck down instant triple talaq (talaq-e-biddat) as violating Article ______ (right to equality), holding that constitutional values of gender equality override discriminatory religious customs.

Basic structure values recognize human dignity as foundational to Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty), requiring state action to respect individual autonomy, privacy, and worth — a principle affirmed in cases like ______ (2017) recognizing privacy as intrinsic to dignity and liberty.