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: 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.
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.
Answer: 100
Constitutional amendments trajectory: (a) First Amendment (1951): Addressed land reforms, free speech restrictions, (b) Major amendments: 24th (amending power), 42nd (Mini-Constitution), 44th (post-Emergency corrections), 73rd/74th (local government), 86th (education right), 91st (anti-defection), 101st (GST), 103rd (EWS), 104th (SC/ST reservation extension), 105th (State OBC lists), 106th (women's reservation), (c) Over 105 amendments as of 2024. Demonstrates Constitution's adaptability; basic structure doctrine (Kesavananda) ensures core values protected despite frequent amendments.
Answer: True
Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020): SC held: (a) Freedom of speech and expression (Article 19(1)(a)) and right to practice profession (Article 19(1)(g)) extend to internet medium, (b) Government orders suspending internet must be published, subject to judicial review, (c) Restrictions must satisfy proportionality test: legitimate aim, rational connection, least restrictive alternative, balancing of interests. Applied to J&K internet shutdown case. Establishes digital rights as part of fundamental rights; important for e-governance, digital economy, free speech in digital age.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.