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 PageFilter by category, type, and difficulty. Reading is open for everyone.
Answer: Enhancing representation and affirmative action for marginalized groups
Recent amendments trajectory: (a) 103rd (2019): EWS reservation - economic criteria for forward castes, (b) 104th (2019): Extended SC/ST legislative reservation, omitted Anglo-Indian nomination, (c) 105th (2021): Restored States' power to identify OBCs for State-level reservations, (d) 106th (2023): 33% women's reservation in legislatures. Pattern: Expanding inclusive representation while balancing competing claims (merit vs reservation, gender vs caste, economic vs social criteria). Reflects Constitution's adaptive capacity to address evolving social justice demands within democratic framework.
Answer: Creating a permanent Inter-State Water Disputes Tribunal with fixed timelines
Inter-State Water Disputes (Amendment) Act, 2019: Key reforms: (a) Single permanent tribunal replaces multiple ad-hoc tribunals, (b) Fixed timelines: Inquiry completion within 4.5 years, award within 1 year of inquiry report, (c) Award final and binding, with implementation monitoring mechanism, (d) Dispute Resolution Committee for pre-litigation resolution. Addresses delays in existing system (e.g., Cauvery dispute took decades). Challenges: Technical complexity of water sharing, political sensitivities, enforcement of awards. Illustrates ongoing evolution of federal dispute resolution mechanisms.
Answer: True
Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020): SC held: (a) Freedom of speech (Article 19(1)(a)) and profession (Article 19(1)(g)) extend to internet medium, (b) Internet shutdown orders must be published for transparency and judicial review, (c) Restrictions must satisfy proportionality test: legitimate aim, rational connection, least restrictive alternative, balancing of interests, (d) Indefinite shutdowns impermissible; periodic review required. Applied to J&K case; guides future shutdown decisions. Establishes digital rights as part of fundamental rights framework; important for e-governance, digital economy, free speech in digital age.
Answer: Both (b) and (c)
Constitutional Morality applications: (a) Navtej Singh Johar (2018): Struck down Section 377 IPC (consensual same-sex relations) - Constitutional Morality (dignity, autonomy) overrides social morality, (b) Joseph Shine (2018): Struck down adultery law (Section 497 IPC) - Gender equality, individual autonomy under Constitutional Morality override patriarchal social norms. Both judgments affirm: Constitutional values protect individual rights against majoritarian impulses; courts interpret Constitution as transformative document advancing substantive equality and dignity.
Answer: True
Emerging climate litigation in India: (a) Cases filed invoking Article 21 (right to life includes healthy environment), Article 14 (arbitrary climate inaction), Article 19 (right to information on climate policies), (b) Examples: Challenges to coal mining approvals, vehicular emission norms, coastal regulation violations, (c) Courts' approach: Generally defer to executive policy domain but require compliance with environmental laws, public consultation, scientific basis. Illustrates evolving role of judiciary in addressing global challenges through constitutional interpretation; balance between judicial activism and separation of powers remains delicate.
Answer: Reimbursement delays to schools, documentation hurdles for parents, and quality concerns
RTE Act implementation gaps: (a) Reimbursement delays: States often delay payments to private schools for EWS seats, leading to schools resisting admissions, (b) Documentation: Poor families struggle to provide income/residence certificates, (c) Quality concerns: EWS children face social discrimination, inadequate academic support, (d) Monitoring: Weak enforcement of non-discrimination provisions. Illustrates gap between rights on paper and realization on ground; requires coordinated action: awareness campaigns, streamlined processes, teacher training, social inclusion measures.
Answer: True
Post-NJAC debate (2015-present): (a) Criticisms of collegium: Lack of transparency, no formal criteria for selection, perceived insularity, delays causing vacancies, (b) Proposed reforms: (i) Secretariat to assist collegium with data, (ii) Published criteria for selection, (iii) Fixed timelines for decisions, (iv) Limited executive input without veto power, (c) Counter-arguments: Any executive role risks political interference, judicial independence paramount for constitutional review. Illustrates ongoing tension between accountability and independence in judicial appointments; no consensus yet on reform model.
Answer: E.V. Chinnaiah case (2004)
Davinder Singh case (2024): 7-judge Constitution Bench (6:1) overruled E.V. Chinnaiah (2004) which held States cannot sub-classify SCs as it would violate Article 14. New holding: (a) States can create sub-classifications within SC/ST reservations to ensure equitable distribution among more/less backward communities, (b) Classification must be based on quantifiable data showing backwardness, (c) Does not violate Article 14 if rational and based on intelligible differentia. Enables States to address intra-group inequalities; significant for affirmative action policy evolution.
Answer: True
Recent Governor controversies (2022-2024): (a) Withholding assent to State Bills indefinitely without constitutional justification, (b) Delaying summoning of Assembly sessions, (c) Reserving Bills for President in politically sensitive matters. Supreme Court has reiterated in various cases: (a) Governor generally bound by Cabinet advice (Article 163), (b) Discretion limited to specific situations (hung assembly, President's Rule recommendation), (c) Withholding assent must be for constitutional reasons, not political disagreement. Highlights ongoing tension in Centre-State executive relations; Sarkaria Commission recommendations on Governor's role remain relevant.
Answer: Simultaneous elections to Lok Sabha and State Assemblies
ECI has recommended 'One Nation, One Election' (simultaneous elections) to reduce costs, policy paralysis, and populist measures. However, implementation requires: (a) Constitutional amendments (Articles 83, 172, 356), (b) Political consensus across parties, (c) Possible ratification by States if affecting federal provisions. Law Commission (2018) and ECI reports support feasibility study, but no legislation yet. Other options (EVMs, NOTA, candidate disclosure) already implemented via judicial directions/legislative amendments.
Answer: Developments reflect dynamic interaction between judicial interpretation, legislative amendments, and executive action, addressing contemporary challenges while testing constitutional boundaries
Recent constitutional developments (2020-2026): (a) Judicial interpretation: Puttaswamy (privacy), Navtej Singh Johar (LGBTQ+ rights), ADR (electoral bonds), Supriyo (same-sex marriage) - courts balancing rights with state interests, (b) Legislative amendments: 103rd-106th Amendments (reservation, women's representation), new criminal laws, data protection law - Parliament adapting framework to contemporary needs, (c) Executive action: Article 370 abrogation, demonetization, digital governance initiatives - testing limits of executive power, (d) Federal dynamics: GST Council functioning, Governor-State tensions, State OBC lists - evolving Centre-State relations. Overall trajectory: Constitution as living document, dynamically interpreted and amended to address digital age, identity politics, federal cooperation, rights expansion, while basic structure doctrine preserves core constitutional identity. Continuous dialogue among branches of government, civil society, and citizens shapes constitutional evolution.
Answer: True
Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020): SC held: (a) Freedom of speech and expression (Article 19(1)(a)) and right to practice profession (Article 19(1)(g)) extend to internet medium, (b) Government orders suspending internet must be published, subject to judicial review, (c) Restrictions must satisfy proportionality test: legitimate aim, rational connection, least restrictive alternative, balancing of interests. Applied to J&K internet shutdown case. Establishes digital rights as part of fundamental rights; important for e-governance, digital economy, free speech in digital age.
Answer: Union 1/3, States 2/3
Article 279A(9): GST Council decisions by 3/4th majority of weighted votes: (a) Union Government: 1/3 vote weight, (b) All State Governments collectively: 2/3 vote weight. Ensures neither Union nor States can dominate; requires consensus on GST rates, exemptions, thresholds. Exemplifies cooperative fiscal federalism: shared sovereignty in indirect taxation for 'One Nation, One Tax'. Practical challenges: Union-State disagreements on rates, compensation issues, need for continuous dialogue.
Answer: reasonable
Keisham Meghachandra Singh case (2020): SC held: (a) Speaker must decide Tenth Schedule disqualification petitions within reasonable time (suggested 3 months), (b) Unreasonable delay undermines anti-defection law's deterrent effect, (c) Courts can intervene if delay causes irreversible harm (e.g., defector appointed Minister), (d) However, no fixed statutory timeframe in Tenth Schedule; Parliament urged to amend. Highlights implementation gap in anti-defection law; pending reforms to address Speaker bias and delayed decisions.
Answer: True
Recent Governor controversies (2022-2024): Several States reported Governors: (a) Withholding assent to Bills indefinitely, (b) Delaying summoning of Assembly, (c) Reserving Bills for President without clear justification. Supreme Court in various cases (e.g., Kerala Governor case, Tamil Nadu Governor case) reiterated: (a) Governor generally bound by Cabinet advice (Article 163), (b) Discretion limited to specific situations (appointing CM in hung assembly, recommending President's Rule), (c) Withholding assent must be for constitutional reasons, not political disagreement. Highlights tension in federal executive relations.
Answer: Navtej Singh Johar case (2018)
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018): 5-judge bench unanimously struck down Section 377 IPC (criminalizing consensual same-sex relations). Held: (a) Constitutional Morality (constitutional values of liberty, equality, dignity) prevails over social morality (majoritarian views), (b) Sexual orientation intrinsic to personality; discrimination unconstitutional, (c) State cannot criminalize private consensual conduct between adults. Landmark judgment affirming inclusive constitutional values and protecting LGBTQ+ rights against majoritarian impulses.
Answer: NJAC judgment (2015)
Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (NJAC case, 2015): Reaffirmed Kesavananda Bharati (1973) basic structure doctrine. Held: (a) Judicial independence is part of basic structure, (b) 99th Amendment (NJAC) giving executive role in judicial appointments threatens independence, (c) Primacy of judiciary in appointments essential for separation of powers. Struck down NJAC, reinstated collegium system. Landmark application of basic structure to protect institutional integrity against constitutional amendment.
Answer: True
S.G. Vombatkere v. Union of India (May 2022): SC put on hold operation of Section 124A IPC (sedition) pending government review. Observations: (a) Provision widely used to curb dissent, criticize government, (b) Kedar Nath Singh (1962) limited sedition to incitement of violence/public disorder, but practice often broader, (c) Government agreed to re-examine provision. New criminal laws (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) replaced IPC from July 2024; sedition provision modified but concerns remain. Illustrates tension between national security and free speech.
Answer: Only for welfare schemes funded from Consolidated Fund of India and PAN-Aadhaar linking for tax purposes
Post-Puttaswamy Aadhaar framework (2018 judgment + subsequent clarifications): Mandatory for: (a) Welfare schemes funded from Consolidated Fund of India (to prevent leakage), (b) PAN-Aadhaar linking for income tax purposes (to curb tax evasion), (c) Certain statutory requirements (e.g., Companies Act for directors). NOT mandatory for: (a) Bank accounts/mobile numbers (struck down), (b) School admissions (privacy concerns), (c) NEET/JEE exams (alternative ID allowed). Balances state interest in efficient welfare delivery with right to privacy.
Answer: True
State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh (January 2024): 7-judge Constitution Bench (6:1) overruled E.V. Chinnaiah (2004) and held: (a) States have power to create sub-classifications within SC/ST reservations to ensure equitable distribution of benefits among more and less backward communities, (b) Such classification must be based on quantifiable data showing backwardness, (c) Does not violate Article 14 if rational and based on intelligible differentia. Enables States to address intra-group inequalities within reserved categories; significant for affirmative action policy.