Create a custom practice set
Pick category, difficulty, number of questions, and time limit. Start instantly with your own quiz.
Generate QuizGK Questions
Filter by category, type, and difficulty. Reading is open for everyone.
In State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh (January 2024), the Supreme Court upheld the power of States to create sub-classifications within SC reservation. This judgment overruled which earlier precedent?
- Indra Sawhney case (1992)
- E.V. Chinnaiah case (2004)
- M. Nagaraj case (2006)
- Jarnail Singh case (2018)
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.
Which of the following electoral reforms has been recommended by the Election Commission but NOT yet implemented by Parliament?
- Use of EVMs with VVPAT
- NOTA option in elections
- Simultaneous elections to Lok Sabha and State Assemblies
- Disclosure of criminal antecedents by candidates
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.
Which statement best captures the trajectory of constitutional developments in India during 2020-2026?
- Constitutional changes have been minimal and technical
- Developments reflect dynamic interaction between judicial interpretation, legislative amendments, and executive action, addressing contemporary challenges while testing constitutional boundaries
- All changes have been through formal constitutional amendments only
- Recent developments have reduced the scope of fundamental rights
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.
Under Article 279A, decisions of the GST Council are taken by a majority of not less than 3/4th of weighted votes. What is the vote weight distribution between Union and States?
- Union 50%, States 50%
- Union 1/3, States 2/3
- Union 2/3, States 1/3
- Union 25%, States 75%
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.
Which recent Supreme Court judgment emphasized that 'Constitutional Morality' must prevail over 'social morality' in matters affecting fundamental rights, particularly for marginalized communities?
- Kesavananda Bharati case (1973)
- Navtej Singh Johar case (2018)
- SR Bommai case (1994)
- Minerva Mills case (1980)
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.
In which recent case did the Supreme Court reaffirm that the 'basic structure doctrine' limits even constitutional amendments, striking down provisions that undermined judicial independence?
- Kesavananda Bharati case (1973)
- NJAC judgment (2015)
- Minerva Mills case (1980)
- Waman Rao case (1981)
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.
After the Puttaswamy (Aadhaar) judgment (2018), Aadhaar authentication is mandatory for which of the following?
- All bank accounts and mobile connections
- Only for welfare schemes funded from Consolidated Fund of India and PAN-Aadhaar linking for tax purposes
- Only for voting in elections
- Only for passport applications
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.
In Supriyo v. Union of India (October 2023), the Supreme Court declined to legalize same-sex marriage, holding that:
- Marriage is a fundamental right under Article 21
- Recognition of same-sex marriage is within the domain of Parliament, not judiciary
- Same-sex couples have no constitutional protection
- The Special Marriage Act is unconstitutional
Answer: Recognition of same-sex marriage is within the domain of Parliament, not judiciary
Supriyo v. Union of India (October 2023): 5-judge Constitution Bench (3:2 on key issues) held: (a) No fundamental right to marry under Constitution (though marriage is protected under personal laws), (b) Recognition of same-sex marriage involves complex policy considerations (adoption, succession, maintenance) best left to Parliament, (c) However, affirmed rights of queer couples: protection from discrimination, right to cohabit, access to services without discrimination. Directed government to form committee to examine rights/entitlements of queer couples. Balances judicial restraint with rights protection.
After the Supreme Court struck down the NJAC in 2015, which mechanism continues to govern appointments of judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts?
- Executive appointment with Parliamentary approval
- Collegium system (judges appointing judges)
- Independent Judicial Appointments Commission
- Direct election of judges
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.
The Constitution (105th Amendment) Act, 2021 restored the power of States to identify and maintain their own lists of Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBCs/OBCs) for reservation purposes. This amendment clarified the interpretation of which earlier amendment?
- 102nd Amendment
- 103rd Amendment
- 104th Amendment
- 93rd Amendment
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.
The abrogation of Article 370 in August 2019 was effected through a Presidential Order under Article 370(3) after concurrence from which authority?
- Jammu & Kashmir Constituent Assembly
- Jammu & Kashmir Legislative Assembly
- Parliament of India
- Governor of J&K (acting as representative of State)
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.
Which statement best captures the relationship between Constitutional Morality and Ethical Governance in Indian democracy?
- Ethical governance is optional; Constitutional Morality is legally binding
- Constitutional Morality provides the normative framework of values; Ethical Governance translates these values into institutional practices and accountable administration
- Both are purely moral concepts with no legal enforceability
- Constitutional Morality applies only to judiciary; Ethical Governance only to executive
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.
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) promotes ethical governance by enabling courts to address systemic violations of rights affecting marginalized groups. Which case pioneered PIL in India?
- Kesavananda Bharati case (1973)
- S.P. Gupta case (1981)
- Vishaka case (1997)
- Bandhua Mukti Morcha case (1984)
Answer: S.P. Gupta case (1981)
S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (First Judges Case, 1981): SC relaxed locus standi rule, allowing any public-spirited person to file petition for enforcement of rights of persons unable to approach court due to poverty, ignorance, or social disadvantage. PIL transformed judicial role: (a) From dispute resolution to social justice delivery, (b) Enabled courts to address prison conditions, environmental degradation, bonded labour, etc. Constitutional Morality requires judiciary to be accessible to all, especially the marginalized.
In which case did the Supreme Court invoke Constitutional Morality to strike down a discriminatory personal law practice, holding that constitutional values of equality and dignity override religious customs?
- Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017)
- John Vallamattom v. Union of India (2003)
- Danial Latifi v. Union of India (2001)
- Ahmedabad Women Action Group v. Union of India (1997)
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.
Which constitutional provision implicitly requires civil servants to maintain political neutrality by placing them under the control of the elected executive?
- Article 309
- Article 311
- Article 312
- Article 320
Answer: Article 309
Article 309: Parliament/State Legislature may regulate recruitment and conditions of service of persons serving Union/States. Subject to this, President/Governor make rules. Civil services (IAS, IPS, etc.) serve under elected governments; expected to implement policies impartially regardless of political affiliation. All India Services Rules, Conduct Rules enforce neutrality. Balance: Professional advice to political masters while maintaining constitutional loyalty over partisan loyalty.
The Preamble's ideal of 'Fraternity' assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity of the nation is operationalized through which constitutional mechanism?
- Only Fundamental Rights
- Only Directive Principles
- Combination of Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles, and Fundamental Duties
- Only judicial review
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.
Which constitutional provision implicitly requires public officials to avoid conflict of interest by prohibiting them from holding 'office of profit' under government?
- Article 102(1)(a)
- Article 74(1)
- Article 123
- Article 356
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.
In which case did the Supreme Court emphasize that Constitutional Morality requires protection of minority rights against majoritarian impulses?
- Kesavananda Bharati case (1973)
- Navtej Singh Johar case (2018)
- SR Bommai case (1994)
- Minerva Mills case (1980)
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.
Which body is responsible for enforcing the Code of Conduct for Union Ministers in India?
- Supreme Court
- Prime Minister's Office
- Central Vigilance Commission
- Parliamentary Committee on Ethics
Answer: Prime Minister's Office
Code of Conduct for Union Ministers (1964, revised): Sets ethical standards: (a) No use of official position for personal gain, (b) Avoid conflict of interest, (c) Declare assets, (d) Post-retirement employment restrictions. Enforced by PMO; violations can lead to resignation/removal. Similar codes exist for State Ministers, civil servants. However, enforcement depends on political will; debate continues on independent ethics oversight mechanism.
The concept of 'Constitutional Morality' in Indian jurisprudence emphasizes adherence to:
- Only the literal text of the Constitution
- Core constitutional values like liberty, equality, fraternity, and rule of law
- Majority opinion in Parliament
- Traditional social customs
Answer: Core constitutional values like liberty, equality, fraternity, and rule of law
Constitutional Morality (articulated in Navtej Singh Johar, 2018 and other cases): Means fidelity to constitutional values beyond mere legal compliance. Includes: (a) Respect for pluralism and diversity, (b) Protection of minority rights against majoritarian impulses, (c) Commitment to rule of law over rule of men, (d) Balance between individual liberty and social responsibility. Guides interpretation of constitutional provisions in evolving societal context.