Create a custom practice set
Pick category, difficulty, number of questions, and time limit. Start instantly with your own quiz.
Generate QuizPick category, difficulty, number of questions, and time limit. Start instantly with your own quiz.
Generate QuizNo weekly quiz is published yet. Check the weekly page for the latest updates.
View Weekly PageFree practice for SSC, UPSC, Banking & Railway exams. No login required.
Answer: Collegium system (judges appointing judges)
Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (2015): 4:1 majority struck down 99th Amendment and NJAC Act. Held: (a) Collegium system (CJI + 4 senior-most SC judges for SC appointments; CJ of HC + 2 senior-most judges for HC appointments) is part of basic structure, (b) Executive participation in appointments threatens judicial independence, (c) Primacy of judiciary in appointments essential for separation of powers. Controversial judgment; debate on reform continues. Government and Collegium sometimes have differences on appointments, causing vacancies.
Answer: information
ADR Case (February 2024): 5-judge Constitution Bench unanimously struck down Electoral Bonds Scheme (2018) and amended provisions of R.P. Act, IT Act. Held: (a) Anonymous political funding violates voters' right to know (implicit in Article 19(1)(a) - freedom of speech and expression), (b) Disproportionate impact on transparency and free/fair elections, (c) Potential for quid pro quo corruption, (d) Less restrictive alternatives available. Directed ECI to disclose bond donor-recipient details. Landmark transparency judgment reinforcing electoral democracy.
Answer: 102nd Amendment
102nd Amendment (2018): Inserted Article 338B (National Commission for Backward Classes) and Article 342A (President notifies SEBC list for Central purposes). Supreme Court in Maratha Reservation case (2021) interpreted Article 342A as taking away States' power to identify OBCs. 105th Amendment (2021) clarified: (a) President notifies Central List, (b) States can maintain their own State Lists for State-level reservations. Restored federal balance in OBC identification, crucial for State-level affirmative action.
Answer: Governor of J&K (acting as representative of State)
August 5, 2019: President issued Constitutional Order (C.O. 272) under Article 370(1) amending Article 367 to interpret 'Constituent Assembly of J&K' as 'Legislative Assembly of J&K'. Since J&K was under President's Rule, Governor's concurrence was taken as representative of State legislature. Then Presidential Order (C.O. 273) under Article 370(3) declared Article 370 inoperative. J&K Reorganisation Act, 2019 bifurcated State into two UTs. Supreme Court upheld abrogation in December 2023, directing restoration of Statehood and elections.
Answer: Constitutional Morality provides the normative framework of values; Ethical Governance translates these values into institutional practices and accountable administration
Constitutional Morality and Ethical Governance relationship: (a) Constitutional Morality: Normative framework - core values (liberty, equality, fraternity, rule of law, pluralism, dignity) that guide interpretation and application of Constitution, (b) Ethical Governance: Operational mechanism - institutional practices (RTI, Lokpal, social audit, conduct rules, PIL) that translate constitutional values into accountable, transparent, participatory administration, (c) Mutual reinforcement: Constitutional Morality inspires ethical reforms; ethical practices strengthen constitutional culture. Together, they advance transformative constitutionalism: using law and institutions to realize substantive justice, dignity, and social transformation for all Indians. Continuous refinement needed to address emerging challenges like digital governance, campaign finance, regulatory capture, and majoritarian pressures.
Answer: True
Constitutional Morality vs majoritarianism: (a) Democracy: Rule by majority through elected representatives, (b) Constitutional Morality: Limits majority power to protect minority rights, individual dignity, rule of law. Examples: (a) SC striking down Section 377 despite public opposition (Navtej Singh Johar), (b) Upholding reservation policies despite 'merit' arguments (Indra Sawhney), (c) Protecting religious minorities' rights (SR Bommai). Ensures democracy is substantive (protecting all citizens) not merely procedural (majority rule).
Answer: False
Constitutional provisions: (a) Article 148(4): CAG prohibited from further government employment post-tenure, (b) Article 319: Similar restriction for Election Commissioners, (c) BUT no explicit constitutional bar for retired civil servants/judges. Conduct Rules for civil servants require prior permission for post-retirement employment; judicial conventions discourage immediate appointments to avoid perception of bias. Debate continues on codifying cooling-off periods to preserve institutional integrity.
Answer: Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017)
Shayara Bano (Triple Talaq case, 2017): 3:2 majority held instant triple talaq (talaq-e-biddat) unconstitutional: (a) Violates Article 14 (arbitrary, manifestly unreasonable), (b) Not essential practice of Islam protected under Article 25, (c) Constitutional Morality (equality, dignity of Muslim women) overrides discriminatory religious custom. Parliament later enacted Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 criminalizing instant triple talaq. Landmark gender justice judgment.
Answer: True
Constitutional Morality and pluralism: (a) Preamble: Secular, democratic republic respecting all faiths, (b) Fundamental Rights: Articles 25-30 protect religious/cultural rights of minorities, (c) Directive Principles: Article 46 promotes interests of weaker sections, (d) Federalism: Accommodates regional diversity through State autonomy. Constitutional Morality requires State to: (a) Not impose majoritarian culture, (b) Protect minority identities, (c) Promote inclusive development. Foundation of India's 'unity in diversity' constitutional model.
Answer: Combination of Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles, and Fundamental Duties
Fraternity and dignity operationalization: (a) Fundamental Rights (Part III): Protect individual dignity against state/private violation (Articles 14-32), (b) Directive Principles (Part IV): Guide state policy to create conditions for dignified life (Articles 38-51), (c) Fundamental Duties (Article 51A): Remind citizens of responsibilities towards others and nation. Constitutional Morality requires harmonious interpretation of all three to realize fraternity: respecting diversity while maintaining unity.
Answer: True
Transformative Constitutionalism (South African origin; applied in India): Constitution not just limits state power but actively transforms society to realize justice, equality, dignity. Constitutional Morality enables this: (a) Courts interpret provisions to advance marginalized groups (e.g., Vishaka guidelines on sexual harassment), (b) State obligated to take affirmative action (Articles 15(4), 16(4)), (c) Rights interpreted expansively (Article 21 includes health, education, environment). Balances judicial activism with democratic legitimacy.
Answer: Article 102(1)(a)
Article 102(1)(a) (Parliament) and Article 191(1)(a) (State Legislatures): Disqualify members holding 'office of profit' under Union/State government unless exempted by law. Rationale: Prevent conflict between legislative duty and executive employment; ensure independence of legislators. Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959 lists exempted offices. Similar principles apply to Ministers, civil servants through conduct rules.
Answer: Navtej Singh Johar case (2018)
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018): SC struck down Section 377 IPC (criminalizing consensual same-sex relations) holding: (a) Constitutional Morality requires respect for individual autonomy, dignity, privacy regardless of sexual orientation, (b) Social morality/majoritarian views cannot override fundamental rights, (c) Constitution protects minorities (including sexual minorities) from discrimination. Landmark judgment affirming inclusive constitutional values.
Answer: False
While Constitutional Morality is a guiding principle in judicial interpretation (Navtej Singh Johar, Puttaswamy), the Supreme Court has NOT explicitly declared it part of 'Basic Structure' (Kesavananda Bharati doctrine). Basic Structure includes: supremacy of Constitution, republican/democratic form, secularism, federalism, judicial review, rule of law. Constitutional Morality operationalizes these values but remains a judicial interpretive tool, not a formally enumerated basic feature.
Answer: True
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018): SC held Constitutional Morality (constitutional values) prevails over social morality (majoritarian views) when they conflict. Example: Decriminalizing homosexuality despite social opposition because Article 14, 15, 19, 21 protect individual dignity and autonomy. Similarly, Shayara Bano (triple talaq), Puttaswamy (privacy) affirm constitutional values over traditional practices violating fundamental rights.
Answer: India selectively borrowed features, adapting them to Indian context of diversity, post-colonial nation-building, and social transformation
Indian Constitution's comparative approach: (a) Selective borrowing: Took best practices from multiple democracies (UK parliamentary system, US Fundamental Rights, Irish DPSP, Canadian federalism, etc.), (b) Contextual adaptation: Modified borrowed features for Indian realities - e.g., parliamentary system with written Constitution, Fundamental Rights with reasonable restrictions, federalism with strong Centre, (c) Transformative vision: Used constitutional design to address colonial legacy, social inequalities, linguistic diversity, economic underdevelopment. Result: Unique constitutional model blending global wisdom with indigenous needs; living document evolving through amendments, judicial interpretation, and democratic practice.
Answer: False
Preamble comparison: (a) India: Preamble is part of Constitution (Kesavananda Bharati case) but not enforceable by itself; used for interpreting ambiguous provisions, (b) USA: Preamble ('We the People...') is introductory statement, not source of power or rights; courts don't enforce Preamble directly. Both Preambles express constitutional philosophy: India - Justice, Liberty, Equality, Fraternity; USA - Form more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility. Guiding values, not enforceable provisions.
Answer: India: Collegium system (judges appoint judges); USA: President appoints with Senate confirmation
Judicial appointment comparison: (a) India: Collegium system (evolved through Three Judges Cases): CJI-led collegium of senior SC judges recommends appointments; President normally appoints. 99th Amendment (NJAC) struck down in 2015, reaffirming collegium, (b) USA: President nominates SC/HC judges; Senate confirms by simple majority. Political considerations play role in US appointments; Indian collegium aims to insulate from politics but faces transparency criticisms. Both systems balance judicial independence with accountability.
Answer: India maintains principled distance and can intervene in religions for reform; USA maintains strict separation of Church and State
Secularism comparison: (a) USA: 'Wall of separation' (First Amendment) - State cannot establish religion or interfere in religious affairs; strict neutrality, (b) India: 'Principled distance' - State has no religion but can intervene to reform religions (e.g., abolish untouchability, regulate temple entry, ban triple talaq) to promote equality, social justice. Indian secularism is transformative; American secularism is non-interference. Both protect religious freedom but with different approaches to State-religion relationship.
Answer: India requires Parliamentary approval and has non-suspendable rights
Emergency provisions comparison: (a) Weimar Germany: President could declare Emergency with minimal checks; contributed to rise of authoritarianism, (b) India: Safeguards added: (i) Written Cabinet advice mandatory (44th Amendment), (ii) Parliamentary approval within 1 month by special majority, (iii) Judicial review (SR Bommai case), (iv) Articles 20-21 non-suspendable, (v) Lok Sabha can revoke by simple majority. Indian design prevents misuse while enabling crisis response.