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.
Under Article 279A, decisions of the GST Council are taken by a majority of not less than 3/4th of weighted votes, where the Union has ______ of total votes and States collectively have ______.
- 1/2, 1/2
- 1/3, 2/3
- 1/4, 3/4
- 2/3, 1/3
Answer: 1/3, 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 in practice.
Under Article 256, States are obligated to exercise executive power to ensure compliance with laws made by Parliament. The Union can give directions to States for this purpose under which Article?
- Article 256 only
- Article 257 only
- Both Articles 256 and 257
- Article 258
Answer: Both Articles 256 and 257
Article 256: States must exercise executive power to ensure compliance with Parliament laws and existing laws; Union may give directions. Article 257: Extends to Union directions on matters like construction/maintenance of means of communication of national/military importance, protection of railways, etc. Ensures national policy implementation while respecting State executive domain.
In case of conflict between a Union law and a State law on a subject in the Concurrent List, which law prevails?
- State law always prevails
- Union law prevails unless State law has Presidential assent
- Older law prevails
- Law with more votes prevails
Answer: Union law prevails unless State law has Presidential assent
Article 254(1): In repugnancy between Union and State law on Concurrent List, Union law prevails. Exception under Article 254(2): If State law reserved for President's consideration and receives assent, it prevails in that State (but Parliament can still override by subsequent law). Balances Union supremacy with State flexibility.
Which statement best describes the role of writ jurisdiction in Indian constitutionalism?
- Writs are extraordinary remedies available only in criminal cases
- Writs are procedural technicalities with limited substantive impact
- Writs are powerful tools for enforcing rights, checking executive excess, and ensuring constitutional governance
- Writs can only be issued by Supreme Court, not High Courts
Answer: Writs are powerful tools for enforcing rights, checking executive excess, and ensuring constitutional governance
Writ jurisdiction (Articles 32, 226) is cornerstone of Indian constitutionalism: (a) Enforces Fundamental Rights and legal rights, (b) Checks executive/judicial excesses through judicial review, (c) Ensures accountability via Mandamus, Certiorari, etc., (d) Adapts to new challenges through PIL, continuing mandamus. Empowers courts as guardians of Constitution and protectors of citizens' rights against State power.
Violation of which principle of natural justice can be a ground for issuing Certiorari?
- Audi alteram partem only
- Nemo judex in causa sua only
- Both audi alteram partem and nemo judex in causa sua
- Neither; natural justice not relevant for writs
Answer: Both audi alteram partem and nemo judex in causa sua
Natural justice principles: (a) Audi alteram partem (hear the other side: right to notice, hearing, cross-examination), (b) Nemo judex in causa sua (no one should be judge in own cause: rule against bias). Violation of either can be ground for Certiorari to quash order of judicial/quasi-judicial body. Ensures fair procedure in administrative/judicial decisions.
For Quo Warranto to lie, the office in question must be:
- Created by private contract
- Substantive and public in character
- Temporary or honorary
- Within private organization
Answer: Substantive and public in character
Quo Warranto conditions: (a) Office must be substantive (not mere employment/function), (b) Created by Constitution/statute, (c) Public in character (governmental function), (d) Person must assert claim to office, (e) Claim must be without legal authority. Not issued for: (a) Private offices, (b) Offices held at pleasure, (c) Mere declarations of right.
Habeas Corpus cannot be issued in which of the following situations?
- Detention by private individual
- Detention under preventive detention law with procedural compliance
- Detention by foreign government
- Detention of minor by parent
Answer: Detention under preventive detention law with procedural compliance
Habeas Corpus not issued if: (a) Detention is lawful (e.g., valid conviction, preventive detention with procedural safeguards under Article 22), (b) Proceeding is for contempt of court/legislature, (c) Detention by competent court. However, if preventive detention violates procedural safeguards (e.g., no communication of grounds, no advisory board), HC/SC can issue Habeas Corpus.
Mandamus cannot be issued to compel performance of which type of duty?
- Statutory duty
- Ministerial duty
- Discretionary duty
- Public duty
Answer: Discretionary duty
Mandamus compels performance of: (a) Statutory duty (imposed by law), (b) Ministerial duty (no discretion), (c) Public duty. Cannot compel: (a) Discretionary duty (court cannot dictate how discretion exercised, only that it be exercised fairly), (b) Private contracts, (c) Internal legislative proceedings. Respects separation of powers while ensuring accountability.
The Supreme Court may refuse to issue a writ under Article 32 if:
- The petitioner is not a citizen
- An adequate alternative remedy is available
- The violation is of a Directive Principle
- The respondent is a State Government
Answer: An adequate alternative remedy is available
Though Article 32 is a Fundamental Right, SC exercises discretion: may refuse writ if (a) adequate alternative remedy exists (e.g., statutory appeal), (b) petition is frivolous/mala fide, (c) suppression of facts, (d) delay/laches. However, for grave FR violations or where alternative remedy is illusory, SC entertains petition. Balances access to justice with judicial economy.
The Supreme Court can issue writs under Article 32 for enforcement of Fundamental Rights:
- Only within Delhi
- Only within the State where cause of action arises
- Throughout the territory of India
- Only against Union Government authorities
Answer: Throughout the territory of India
Article 32(2): Supreme Court's writ jurisdiction extends throughout India. High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 is limited to: (a) territories within its State, OR (b) cause of action arising within its territories even if respondent resides outside. SC's nationwide jurisdiction ensures uniform FR protection across country.
The writ of Mandamus ('we command') can be issued against which of the following?
- Private individuals
- President of India
- Public official failing to perform statutory duty
- Legislature making laws
Answer: Public official failing to perform statutory duty
Mandamus: Issued by higher court to lower court/tribunal/public authority to perform public duty imposed by law. Cannot be issued against: (a) private individuals/bodies, (b) President/Governors (constitutional heads), (c) Legislature (law-making), (d) discretionary duties. Ensures executive accountability for statutory obligations.
Under which Article can a citizen directly approach the Supreme Court for enforcement of Fundamental Rights?
- Article 14
- Article 21
- Article 32
- Article 226
Answer: Article 32
Article 32(1): Right to move Supreme Court for enforcement of Fundamental Rights is itself a Fundamental Right. Dr. Ambedkar called it the 'heart and soul' of Constitution. SC can issue five writs: Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Certiorari, Quo Warranto. Makes FRs enforceable, not merely declaratory.
Which statement best captures the relationship between constitutional amendments and the basic structure doctrine in India?
- Parliament can amend any provision including basic structure
- Basic structure is fixed and no amendments are permitted
- Parliament can amend any provision but cannot destroy or alter the basic structure
- Only Supreme Court can initiate constitutional amendments
Answer: Parliament can amend any provision but cannot destroy or alter the basic structure
Indian constitutional amendment framework: (a) Parliament has wide power to amend Constitution under Article 368 (including Fundamental Rights), (b) But Kesavananda Bharati (1973) limits this power: cannot alter basic structure, (c) Supreme Court is final arbiter of what constitutes basic structure, (d) Balance enables constitutional evolution while protecting core democratic values. Unique model blending flexibility with permanence.
In SR Bommai case (1994), the Supreme Court reinforced that federalism is part of basic structure. Which principle did the Court emphasize regarding State autonomy?
- States can secede from Union
- Union cannot interfere in State matters even during Emergency
- State governments must enjoy constitutional protection against arbitrary dismissal
- Parliament cannot create new States
Answer: State governments must enjoy constitutional protection against arbitrary dismissal
SR Bommai v. Union of India (1994): Held federalism is basic structure; State governments have constitutional status; President's Rule under Article 356 subject to judicial review; floor test is primary method to test majority; State Assembly dissolution not automatic. Protects States from arbitrary Union interference while preserving Union's emergency powers for genuine breakdowns.
As of 2024, approximately how many Constitutional Amendment Acts have been passed by Parliament?
- Around 50
- Around 75
- Around 100
- Around 125
Answer: Around 100
As of 2024, over 105 Constitutional Amendment Acts have been enacted since 1950. First Amendment (1951) addressed land reforms and free speech restrictions; latest amendments address GST, EWS reservation, cooperative societies, etc. Reflects Constitution's flexibility to adapt to changing socio-economic-political needs while preserving core values.
In which case did the Supreme Court first hold that Fundamental Rights cannot be amended by Parliament?
- Shankari Prasad case (1951)
- Sajjan Singh case (1965)
- Golaknath case (1967)
- Kesavananda Bharati case (1973)
Answer: Golaknath case (1967)
Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967): 6:5 majority held: (a) Fundamental Rights are 'transcendental and immutable', (b) Parliament cannot amend Part III, (c) Article 368 only prescribes procedure, not power. Led to 24th Amendment (1971) affirming amending power. Kesavananda (1973) later moderated: Parliament can amend FRs but not destroy basic structure.
Which of the following has NOT been explicitly recognized by Supreme Court as part of the 'Basic Structure' of the Constitution?
- Judicial review
- Federalism
- Parliamentary form of government
- Right to Property as Fundamental Right
Answer: Right to Property as Fundamental Right
Supreme Court has recognized as basic structure: supremacy of Constitution, republican/democratic form, secularism, federalism, separation of powers, judicial review, rule of law, free/fair elections, parliamentary system, limited amending power, balance between FRs and DPSP, individual dignity. Right to Property was removed from FRs by 44th Amendment; now legal right under Article 300A, not basic structure.
The 86th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2002 made which right a Fundamental Right?
- Right to Information
- Right to Education
- Right to Privacy
- Right to Health
Answer: Right to Education
86th Amendment (2002): (a) Inserted Article 21A making free and compulsory education for children 6-14 years a Fundamental Right, (b) Modified Article 45 to focus on early childhood care (below 6 years), (c) Added Fundamental Duty under Article 51A(k) for parents/guardians to provide education opportunities. Operationalized by RTE Act, 2009.
The 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976 is often called the 'Mini-Constitution' because it:
- Added the most number of new Articles
- Made comprehensive changes to Preamble, Fundamental Duties, Directive Principles, and judicial powers
- Replaced the entire Constitution
- Was passed during National Emergency without debate
Answer: Made comprehensive changes to Preamble, Fundamental Duties, Directive Principles, and judicial powers
42nd Amendment (1976): Added 'Socialist', 'Secular', 'Integrity' to Preamble; inserted Fundamental Duties (Part IVA); expanded DPSP; curtailed judicial review; gave Parliament unlimited amending power (later struck down in Minerva Mills). Enacted during 1975-77 Emergency; many provisions diluted by 43rd/44th Amendments post-Emergency.
The 'Basic Structure Doctrine' limiting Parliament's amending power was propounded by the Supreme Court in which landmark case?
- Golaknath case (1967)
- Kesavananda Bharati case (1973)
- Minerva Mills case (1980)
- Waman Rao case (1981)
Answer: Kesavananda Bharati case (1973)
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (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.