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: Collect backwardness, inadequacy of representation, administrative efficiency
M. Nagaraj (2006): SC upheld constitutional amendments (77th, 81st, 82nd, 85th) enabling reservation in promotions for SCs/STs but imposed three conditions: (a) Collect quantifiable data showing backwardness of class, (b) Prove inadequacy of representation in particular post, (c) Maintain overall administrative efficiency. Balances social justice with merit; State must justify reservation in promotions with empirical data.
Answer: True
Aadhaar Judgment (2018): 4:1 majority upheld Aadhaar Act for: (a) Welfare schemes (to prevent leakage), (b) PAN-Aadhaar linking (to curb tax evasion), (c) IT Act compliance. Struck down: (a) Mandatory linking with bank accounts/mobile numbers (disproportionate invasion of privacy), (b) Aadhaar authentication for school admissions (violates children's privacy). Balances state interest in welfare delivery with right to privacy.
Answer: passive euthanasia
Common Cause (2018): 5-judge bench held: (a) Right to die with dignity is part of Article 21, (b) Passive euthanasia (withdrawing life support) permissible for terminally ill patients in persistent vegetative state, (c) Living will (advance medical directive) valid subject to strict safeguards: medical board certification, judicial oversight, etc. Active euthanasia/assisted suicide remains illegal. Balances autonomy with sanctity of life.
Answer: Article 19(1)(a) (Freedom of Speech)
Pre-RTI Act cases: (a) Bennett Coleman v. Union of India (1972): Right to information implicit in Article 19(1)(a), (b) Indian Express v. Union of India (1985): Right to know essential for democracy, (c) Dinesh Trivedi v. Union of India (1997): Citizens' right to know about government functioning. RTI Act, 2005 statutory recognition; Supreme Court in 2024 (Electoral Bonds case) reaffirmed right to information as part of Article 19(1)(a).
Answer: Secularism
SR Bommai (1994): Besides federalism, SC held secularism is part of basic structure. Secularism means: (a) State has no religion, (b) Equal respect for all religions, (c) No discrimination based on religion, (d) Religion and politics separated. State action promoting one religion violates secularism; can be ground for judicial review of Presidential proclamation under Article 356. Foundation of Indian secularism jurisprudence.
Answer: Creamy layer
Indra Sawhney (Mandal Case, 1992): 9-judge bench upheld 27% reservation for OBCs but: (a) Excluded 'creamy layer' (advanced sections) within OBCs, (b) Capped total reservation at 50% (with exceptions), (c) Held reservation not applicable to promotions (later amended by 77th/85th Amendments). Landmark judgment balancing social justice with merit; foundation of OBC reservation jurisprudence.
Answer: Judicial independence
NJAC Judgment (2015): 4:1 majority struck down 99th Amendment and NJAC Act. Held: (a) Collegium system (judges appointing judges) 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 judicial appointments reform continues.
Answer: locus standi
S.P. Gupta (First Judges Case, 1981): SC relaxed locus standi (personal injury requirement), allowing any citizen/public-spirited organization to file petition for enforcement of rights of persons unable to approach court due to poverty, ignorance, or social disadvantage. Transformed judicial role from dispute resolution to social justice delivery; foundation of PIL jurisprudence in India.
Answer: Federalism
SR Bommai (1994): 9-judge bench held: (a) Federalism is part of basic structure, (b) Presidential satisfaction under Article 356 subject to judicial review, (c) Floor test is primary method to test majority, (d) State Assembly dissolution not automatic; can be revived if proclamation invalidated. Curbed arbitrary use of Article 356; landmark judgment protecting State autonomy within federal framework.
Answer: Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles
Minerva Mills (1980): SC struck down parts of 42nd Amendment that gave primacy to DPSP over FRs and excluded judicial review of amendments. Held: (a) Balance between FRs (Part III) and DPSP (Part IV) is basic structure, (b) Judicial review is part of basic structure, (c) Limited amending power is basic structure. Reinforced Kesavananda doctrine; cornerstone of constitutional jurisprudence.
Answer: True
Puttaswamy case (2017): 9-judge bench unanimously held right to privacy is intrinsic to life and liberty under Article 21; also part of freedoms under Article 19 and equality under Article 14. Overruled M.P. Sharma (1954) and Kharak Singh (1962) which held privacy not a fundamental right. Foundation for subsequent judgments on Aadhaar, decriminalization of homosexuality, reproductive rights.
Answer: Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
Kesavananda Bharati (1973): 13-judge bench held Parliament can amend any part of Constitution but cannot alter its 'basic structure'. Basic features include: supremacy of Constitution, republican/democratic form, secularism, federalism, separation of powers, judicial review, rule of law, individual dignity. Landmark judgment balancing parliamentary sovereignty with constitutional supremacy; foundation of Indian constitutionalism.
Answer: True
In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017), a nine-judge bench unanimously held that Right to Privacy is: (1) An intrinsic part of Article 21 (life and personal liberty), (2) Part of freedoms under Part III (e.g., Article 19), (3) A natural right inherent in human dignity. This judgment has profound implications for data protection, surveillance, and personal autonomy.
Answer: Two or more State Legislatures pass resolutions requesting such law
Article 252 enables 'cooperative federalism': if two or more State Legislatures pass resolutions requesting Parliament to legislate on a State List subject, Parliament can make a law applicable to those States (and others that adopt it later). Examples: Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974; Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976.
Answer: Summon the House without ministerial advice
In Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker, Arunachal Pradesh (2016), the Supreme Court held that the Governor cannot summon, prorogue, or dissolve the State Assembly at their discretion when the Council of Ministers enjoys majority support. Such powers must be exercised on ministerial advice, except in rare situations of constitutional breakdown. This curbed arbitrary use of gubernatorial powers.
Answer: reasonable
In Rajendra Singh Rana v. Swami Prasad Maurya (2007), the Supreme Court held that while the Tenth Schedule doesn't specify a time limit, the Speaker must decide disqualification petitions within a 'reasonable timeframe' to prevent political uncertainty. Delayed decisions can be challenged for violating constitutional morality, though courts avoid dictating exact timelines to respect legislative autonomy.
Answer: 275
Article 275 empowers Parliament to make grants-in-aid to States that are in need of financial assistance, particularly for welfare of Scheduled Tribes or development of backward areas. These grants are charged on the Consolidated Fund of India (not voted). The Finance Commission recommends the principles for such grants under Article 280.
Answer: True
In Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018), a five-judge bench unanimously held that Section 377 IPC (criminalizing 'carnal intercourse against the order of nature') violated: Article 14 (equality), Article 15 (non-discrimination), Article 19 (freedom of expression), and Article 21 (privacy, dignity, autonomy). This landmark judgment affirmed LGBTQ+ rights as Fundamental Rights.
Answer: All of the above
Article 200 gives the Governor three options on State Bills: (1) Give assent (Bill becomes law), (2) Withhold assent (Bill fails), (3) Reserve for President's consideration (mandatory for certain Bills affecting High Court, compulsory for Bills derogating from High Court powers). The Governor can also return a Bill (not Money Bill) for reconsideration, but must assent if re-passed.
Answer: Imposition of President's Rule under Article 356
The landmark S.R. Bommai case (1994) established strict guidelines for imposing President's Rule under Article 356: (1) Floor test is the primary method to test majority, (2) Presidential proclamation is subject to judicial review, (3) State Assembly can only be dissolved after Parliament approves the proclamation, (4) Secularism is part of basic structure. This curbed arbitrary use of Article 356.