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 Keisham Meghachandra Singh v. Hon'ble Speaker Manipur Legislative Assembly (2020), the Supreme Court emphasized that disqualification petitions under the Tenth Schedule must be decided by the Speaker within a ______ time, failing which courts may intervene.
- fixed statutory
- reasonable
- immediate
- 6-month
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.
Recent controversies regarding Governors withholding assent to State Bills or delaying Assembly sessions have led the Supreme Court to reiterate that Governors must act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, except in limited discretionary situations.
- True
- False
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.
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.
Article ______ of the Constitution contains the Directive Principle for securing a Uniform Civil Code for citizens throughout the territory of India.
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 46
Answer: 44
Article 44 (Directive Principles): 'The State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India.' Aims to replace personal laws based on religion with common civil law on marriage, divorce, inheritance, adoption. Debate: (a) Supporters: Promotes gender justice, national integration, (b) Critics: Threatens religious freedom, cultural diversity. Supreme Court has repeatedly urged implementation (Shah Bano, Sarla Mudgal cases), but political consensus lacking. Recent discussions in Parliament; no legislation yet.
The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 establishes a Data Protection Board of India and imposes obligations on data fiduciaries to process personal data only for lawful purposes with consent.
- True
- False
Answer: True
Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023: Key features: (a) Applies to processing of digital personal data within India, and outside India if for offering goods/services to Indian individuals, (b) Data fiduciaries must obtain consent, specify purpose, ensure data security, (c) Individuals have rights: access, correction, erasure, grievance redressal, (d) Data Protection Board of India for adjudication, (e) Exemptions for State functions (security, public order, research). Balances privacy rights with legitimate state/business needs; implementation rules pending.
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.
The Indian Penal Code (1860), Code of Criminal Procedure (1973), and Indian Evidence Act (1872) were replaced by three new laws effective from July 1, 2024: Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and ______.
- Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam
- Bharatiya Nyaya Adhiniyam
- Bharatiya Vidhi Sanhita
- Bharatiya Sakshya Sanhita
Answer: Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam
New criminal laws (effective July 1, 2024): (a) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) replaces IPC: Adds new offences (mob lynching, terrorist acts), modifies definitions (sedition, murder), (b) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) replaces CrPC: Introduces zero FIR, electronic evidence, time-bound investigation, (c) Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) replaces Evidence Act: Recognizes electronic records as primary evidence, expands admissibility. Aims to decolonize criminal justice, incorporate technology, expedite trials. Implementation challenges: training, infrastructure, transitional issues.
In May 2022, the Supreme Court put on hold the operation of Section 124A IPC (sedition) and directed the Central Government to review the provision, noting its potential misuse against free speech.
- True
- False
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.
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.
The freeze on delimitation of Parliamentary constituencies based on 1971 census was extended till the first census after ______ by the 84th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2001.
- 2001
- 2011
- 2026
- 2031
Answer: 2026
Delimitation freeze: (a) 42nd Amendment (1976): Froze Lok Sabha/Assembly seats based on 1971 census till 2001 to encourage population control, (b) 84th Amendment (2001): Extended freeze till first census after 2026, (c) 87th Amendment (2003): Allowed delimitation based on 2001 census for Assembly constituencies only (not Lok Sabha). Rationale: Prevent penalization of States that controlled population growth; ensure political representation not distorted by demographic changes. Next delimitation expected post-2026 census.
In January 2024, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court upheld the power of States to create sub-classifications within Scheduled Castes reservation to provide preferential treatment to more backward SC communities.
- True
- False
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.
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.
In January 2023, a 4:1 majority of the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the 2016 demonetization decision, holding that the procedure under Section 26(2) of the RBI Act was followed, though dissent noted lack of ______ consultation.
- Parliamentary
- cabinet
- expert
- public
Answer: expert
Demonetization case (January 2023): SC upheld 2016 demonetization (₹500/₹1000 notes) by 4:1 majority. Majority held: (a) Procedure under Section 26(2) RBI Act followed (RBI Board recommendation, Central Government notification), (b) Policy decision within executive domain, (c) No violation of Article 14/19/300A. Dissent (Justice Nagarathna): Noted lack of adequate expert consultation, disproportionate impact on informal sector, procedural flaws. Illustrates judicial deference to executive economic policy while highlighting accountability concerns.
After the Puttaswamy judgment (2017) recognizing right to privacy as a fundamental right, the Supreme Court has used this principle to strike down or modify laws affecting digital privacy, reproductive rights, and sexual orientation.
- True
- False
Answer: True
Puttaswamy v. Union of India (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. Post-Puttaswamy applications: (a) Aadhaar case (2018): Struck down mandatory linking of Aadhaar with bank accounts/mobile numbers, (b) Navtej Singh Johar (2018): Decriminalized consensual homosexuality, (c) Joseph Shine (2018): Struck down adultery law, (d) Puttaswamy (Aadhaar review, 2023): Reaffirmed privacy safeguards. Privacy now central to fundamental rights jurisprudence.
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.
In Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India (February 2024), the Supreme Court struck down the Electoral Bonds Scheme holding it violated the voters' right to ______, implicit in Article 19(1)(a).
- privacy
- information
- equality
- association
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.
The Constitution (106th Amendment) Act, 2023 provides for 33% reservation for women in Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies, to be implemented immediately after enactment.
- True
- False
Answer: False
106th Amendment (Nari Shakti Vandan Adhiniyam, September 2023): Inserts Article 330A (Lok Sabha) and 332A (State Assemblies) for 33% reservation for women. Implementation: (a) After delimitation exercise based on first census post-enactment, (b) Reserved seats to be rotated after each delimitation, (c) 1/3 of SC/ST reserved seats also reserved for women. Not immediate; requires census and delimitation. Aims to enhance women's political participation; long-standing demand of women's movements.
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 Constitution (104th Amendment) Act, 2019 extended reservation for SCs/STs in Lok Sabha and State Assemblies till 2030, but omitted reservation for the ______ community in legislatures.
- Scheduled Castes
- Scheduled Tribes
- Anglo-Indian
- Other Backward Classes
Answer: Anglo-Indian
104th Amendment (2019): (a) Extended SC/ST reservation in Lok Sabha (Article 330) and State Assemblies (Article 332) till 2030 (originally 10 years, extended repeatedly), (b) Omitted Article 331 (President's power to nominate 2 Anglo-Indian members to Lok Sabha) and Article 333 (Governor's power to nominate 1 Anglo-Indian member to State Assembly). Rationale: Anglo-Indian community's distinct identity has diminished; reservation based on social/educational backwardness principle. Controversial but constitutionally valid.
The Constitution (103rd Amendment) Act, 2019 provides 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in education and public employment, excluding those already covered under SC/ST/OBC reservations.
- True
- False
Answer: True
103rd Amendment (2019): Inserted Article 15(6) and 16(6) enabling 10% reservation for EWS among forward castes (not covered under Articles 15(4), 15(5), 16(4)). Criteria: Family income < ₹8 lakh/year, plus other economic/educational indicators. Supreme Court upheld amendment in Janhit Abhiyan case (2022) by 3:2 majority, holding: (a) EWS classification based on economic criteria is valid, (b) 50% ceiling (Indra Sawhney) not inflexible, (c) Exclusion of SC/ST/OBC from EWS quota permissible as they already have separate reservations.