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.
Which statement best describes the role of landmark Supreme Court cases in Indian constitutionalism?
- Cases merely apply existing law without evolving principles
- Cases dynamically interpret Constitution to address new challenges while preserving basic structure
- Cases override parliamentary sovereignty in all matters
- Cases focus only on criminal law, not constitutional principles
Answer: Cases dynamically interpret Constitution to address new challenges while preserving basic structure
Landmark SC cases serve critical functions: (a) Interpret constitutional provisions in light of evolving societal needs (e.g., privacy, environment, LGBTQ+ rights), (b) Evolve doctrines like basic structure, PIL, absolute liability to strengthen constitutional governance, (c) Balance rights with state interests, federalism with national unity, judicial review with democratic accountability, (d) Preserve core constitutional values while enabling adaptive governance. Dynamic interpretation ensures Constitution remains living document for 21st century India.
In Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India (2024), the Supreme Court struck down the Electoral Bonds Scheme holding it violated which fundamental right?
- Right to Equality (Article 14)
- Right to Freedom of Speech (Article 19)
- Right to Information (implicit in Article 19)
- Right to Constitutional Remedies (Article 32)
Answer: Right to Information (implicit in Article 19)
ADR Case (2024): 5-judge bench unanimously struck down Electoral Bonds Scheme (2018): (a) Anonymous political funding violates voters' right to know (implicit in Article 19(1)(a)), (b) Disproportionate impact on transparency and free/fair elections, (c) Potential for quid pro quo corruption. Directed ECI to disclose bond donor-recipient details. Landmark transparency judgment reinforcing electoral democracy.
In M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006), the Supreme Court upheld reservation in promotions for SCs/STs but imposed which conditions?
- Only economic criteria
- Collect backwardness, inadequacy of representation, administrative efficiency
- Only caste census
- No conditions; automatic entitlement
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.
In Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India (2002), the Supreme Court directed candidates to disclose which information while filing nomination?
- Only educational qualification
- Criminal antecedents, assets, liabilities, educational qualification
- Only party affiliation
- Only election expenses
Answer: Criminal antecedents, assets, liabilities, educational qualification
ADR Case (2002): SC directed ECI to require candidates to disclose: (a) Criminal cases pending, (b) Assets/liabilities of candidate and spouse, (c) Educational qualification. Rationale: Voters' right to know (implicit in Article 19(1)(a)) essential for informed choice in democracy. Led to ECI forms requiring these disclosures; foundation for electoral transparency reforms.
Before the RTI Act, 2005, the Supreme Court recognized right to information as implicit in which Fundamental Right?
- Article 14 (Equality)
- Article 19(1)(a) (Freedom of Speech)
- Article 21 (Life and Liberty)
- Article 25 (Religious Freedom)
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).
In Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992), the Supreme Court upheld reservation for OBCs but introduced which concept to exclude advanced sections within OBCs?
- Poverty line
- Creamy layer
- Income ceiling
- Educational qualification
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.
In Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (2015), the Supreme Court struck down the 99th Constitutional Amendment establishing NJAC holding that which principle is part of basic structure?
- Parliamentary supremacy
- Judicial independence
- Executive accountability
- Federal balance
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.
In SR Bommai v. Union of India (1994), the Supreme Court held that imposition of President's Rule under Article 356 is subject to judicial review and emphasized which principle as part of basic structure?
- Parliamentary sovereignty
- Federalism
- Separation of powers
- Directive Principles supremacy
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.
In which landmark case did the Supreme Court propound the 'Basic Structure Doctrine' limiting Parliament's amending power?
- Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967)
- Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
- Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980)
- Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)
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.
The Governor of a State is appointed by the President by warrant under his hand and ______.
- Seal of the State
- Seal of the Union
- Signature of the Prime Minister
- Advice of the Council of Ministers
Answer: Seal of the Union
Article 155 states: 'The Governor of a State shall be appointed by the President by warrant under his hand and seal.' The 'seal' refers to the Seal of the Union (not State), emphasizing that the Governor is a Union appointee representing the Centre in the State. This reflects the federal balance in India's quasi-federal structure.
The 86th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2002 is associated with:
- Right to Education
- Goods and Services Tax
- Panchayati Raj
- Anti-Defection Law
Answer: Right to Education
The 86th Amendment Act, 2002: (1) Added Article 21A making education a Fundamental Right for children 6-14 years, (2) Added Directive Principle Article 45 for early childhood care, (3) Added Fundamental Duty Article 51A(k) for parents to provide education opportunities. This amendment operationalized the constitutional commitment to universal elementary education.
Under Article 252, Parliament can legislate on a State List subject if:
- Rajya Sabha passes a resolution by simple majority
- Two or more State Legislatures pass resolutions requesting such law
- President issues a proclamation of emergency
- Supreme Court directs Parliament to legislate
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.
In the Nabam Rebia case (2016), the Supreme Court held that a Governor cannot:
- Summon the House without ministerial advice
- Withhold assent to a Money Bill
- Appoint the Chief Minister
- D
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.
The 97th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2011 related to:
- Cooperative Societies
- Goods and Services Tax
- National Judicial Appointments Commission
- Right to Education
Answer: Cooperative Societies
The 97th Amendment Act, 2011 added Part IXB to the Constitution for regulation of Cooperative Societies. It mandated democratic elections, fixed terms, and audit requirements for cooperatives. However, in 2021, the Supreme Court struck down parts related to State cooperatives (violating federalism), upholding only provisions for multi-State cooperatives.
Article 371F provides special provisions for which State?
- Sikkim
- Mizoram
- Arunachal Pradesh
- Goa
Answer: Sikkim
Article 371F, added by the 36th Amendment Act, 1975, provides special provisions for Sikkim's integration into India. It protects Sikkim's existing laws, land ownership patterns, and reservation policies. It also allows the Parliament to determine the number of seats for Sikkim in Lok Sabha and State Assembly, ensuring representation while preserving local identity.
The Governor can promulgate Ordinances under which Article when the State Legislature is not in session?
- Article 123
- Article 213
- Article 214
- Article 215
Answer: Article 213
Article 213 empowers the Governor to promulgate Ordinances when the State Legislature is not in session, if satisfied that circumstances require immediate action. Ordinances have the same force as Acts but must be approved by the Legislature within 6 weeks of reassembly, or they lapse. The Governor's satisfaction is subject to judicial review for mala fides.
The 44th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1978 was enacted primarily to:
- Introduce GST
- Reverse excesses of the 1975 Emergency
- Implement Panchayati Raj
- Add Fundamental Duties
Answer: Reverse excesses of the 1975 Emergency
The 44th Amendment Act, 1978 was passed by the Janata Party government to undo authoritarian changes made during the 1975-77 Emergency. Key reversals: (1) Restored judicial review of emergency proclamations, (2) Made 'armed rebellion' (not 'internal disturbance') the ground for National Emergency, (3) Protected Articles 20-21 from suspension during Emergency, (4) Restored Parliament's term to 5 years.
Under Article 200, when a Bill passed by a State Legislature is presented to the Governor, he/she can:
- Give assent
- Withhold assent
- Reserve the Bill for President's consideration
- All of the above
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.
In the S.R. Bommai v. Union of India case (1994), the Supreme Court laid down guidelines regarding:
- Appointment of Governors
- Imposition of President's Rule under Article 356
- Reservation in promotions
- Judicial appointments
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.
The 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2019 introduced:
- Reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS)
- GST implementation
- National Judicial Appointments Commission
- Right to Education as Fundamental Right
Answer: Reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS)
The 103rd Amendment Act, 2019 added Articles 15(6) and 16(6) to provide 10% reservation in education and government jobs for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) among citizens not covered under existing reservations (SC/ST/OBC). It amended the definition of 'backward classes' to exclude EWS, sparking debates on equality and reservation policy.