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: True
Tax distribution framework: (a) Article 270: Taxes levied/collected by Union and distributed: (i) Income tax (excluding agricultural income), (ii) Corporation tax, (b) Distribution mechanism: Finance Commission recommends vertical devolution (Union-State share) and horizontal distribution (among States using criteria like population, area, income distance), (c) 15th FC (2020-25): Recommended 41% vertical devolution to States, new criteria (demographic performance, tax effort) to balance equity (needier States get more) with efficiency (rewarding reforms), (d) Distinction from other articles: Article 268 (Union duties collected/appropriated by States), Article 269 (Union taxes assigned to States), Article 271 (Union surcharge on taxes), (e) Fiscal federalism principle: Shared tax revenues enable States to fulfill constitutional obligations while maintaining national economic integration; technical mediation of political claims through independent Commission, (f) Illustrates calibrated fiscal federalism: Balance between Union's role in national economic management and States' autonomy in expenditure priorities; Finance Commission as neutral arbiter ensuring equitable, efficient resource distribution.
Answer: True
Zonal Councils statutory framework: (a) Legal basis: States Reorganisation Act, 1956 (not Constitution) established five Zonal Councils: Northern, Central, Eastern, Western, Southern, (b) Composition: (i) Union Home Minister (Chairperson), (ii) Chief Ministers of States in zone, (iii) Two other Ministers from each State, (iv) Administrators of UTs in zone, (v) Experts/nominees as needed, (c) Functions: (i) Discuss matters of common interest: Economic planning, social welfare, border disputes, linguistic minorities, (ii) Make recommendations: For policy coordination, dispute resolution, regional development, (iii) Promote cooperation: Through dialogue, consensus-building among States in zone, (d) Applications: (i) Border disputes: Facilitate dialogue on inter-State boundary issues, (ii) Regional development: Coordinate infrastructure, resource sharing within zones, (iii) Social issues: Address linguistic minorities, migration, cultural preservation, (e) Limitations: (i) Advisory role: Recommendations not binding; implementation depends on political will, (ii) Infrequent meetings: Affects continuity, impact of Council deliberations, (iii) Political dynamics: Coalition politics, electoral cycles affect cooperation, (f) Illustrates cooperative federalism: Statutory mechanism complements constitutional federal structures; enables regional cooperation on common challenges while respecting State autonomy.
Answer: True
Governor's executive power under Articles 154, 163: (a) Article 154: Executive power of State vested in Governor, exercised directly or through subordinate officers, (b) Article 163: Governor shall act on aid and advice of Council of Ministers, except in limited discretionary situations (appointing CM in hung assembly, recommending President's Rule, etc.), (c) Practical operation: (i) Governor as constitutional head: Ceremonial role, acts on Cabinet advice in normal circumstances, (ii) Council of Ministers: Real executive power, responsible to State Legislature, (iii) Discretionary powers: Limited to specific constitutional situations, not general policy, (d) Applications: (i) Normal governance: Governor appoints Ministers, summons Assembly, gives assent to Bills on Cabinet advice, (ii) Discretionary situations: Hung Assembly, breakdown of constitutional machinery, Governor may exercise independent judgment, (iii) Judicial oversight: Courts can examine whether Governor acted within constitutional limits, not political considerations, (e) Challenges: (i) Political interference: Governors sometimes act as Union agents, undermining State autonomy, (ii) Clarity: Need for clear conventions on discretionary powers to prevent misuse, (iii) Accountability: Ensuring Governors act as constitutional functionaries, not political appointees, (f) Illustrates calibrated federalism: Governor as Union appointee but State constitutional head; balance between national oversight and State autonomy through aid and advice principle, limited discretion.
Answer: True
Article 256 State compliance obligation: (a) Constitutional text: Executive power of every State shall be so exercised as to ensure compliance with laws made by Parliament, and Union can give directions to State for this purpose, (b) Rationale: (i) Ensures uniform implementation of Union laws across States, (ii) Prevents State obstruction of national policies, (iii) Balances State autonomy with national unity, (c) Applications: (i) Environmental laws: Union can direct States to implement pollution control measures, (ii) Labour laws: Union directions for minimum wages, working conditions implementation, (iii) Welfare schemes: Coordination for Centrally Sponsored Schemes implementation, (d) Limits: (i) Directions must relate to Union laws, not policy preferences, (ii) State executive power not abolished; only guided for compliance, (iii) Judicial review: Courts can examine whether directions constitutional, proportionate, (e) Illustrates cooperative federalism: Article 256 enables Union-State administrative coordination while respecting State executive domain; balance between national policy implementation and State autonomy.
Answer: True
Supriyo (2023) committee mechanism for rights examination: (a) Context: Petitions seeking legal recognition of same-sex marriage under Special Marriage Act, 1954, (b) Supreme Court holding: (i) Declined to legalize same-sex marriage: Recognition involves complex policy considerations best left to Parliament, (ii) BUT affirmed rights of queer couples: Protection from discrimination, right to cohabit, access to services without discrimination, (iii) Directed Central Government to constitute high-level committee to examine rights/entitlements of queer couples, (c) Committee mechanism: (i) Facilitates rights protection: Enables systematic examination of queer rights within existing legal framework, (ii) Respects legislative domain: Committee recommendations inform legislative process, not judicial decree, (iii) Institutional innovation: Courts can facilitate rights protection through institutional mechanisms while respecting separation of powers, (d) Applications: (i) Interim protections: Queer couples can seek protection from discrimination, access to services under existing constitutional provisions, (ii) Legislative follow-up: Committee recommendations may inform future legislation on civil unions, anti-discrimination law, (iii) Institutional reform: Directions for sensitization of police, judiciary, healthcare providers to queer rights, (e) Rationale: (i) Separation of powers: Courts recognize limits of judicial expertise in complex policy design but assert role in protecting constitutional values, (ii) Rights protection: Committee enables systematic examination of queer rights within existing legal framework while legislative process unfolds, (iii) Democratic legitimacy: Policy decisions affecting society should be made through democratic process, informed by expert committee recommendations, (f) Illustrates calibrated judicial philosophy: Judicial restraint in policy domain (marriage recognition), activism in rights protection (non-discrimination, dignity); committee mechanism enables systematic rights examination while respecting democratic process.
Answer: True
Navtej Singh Johar (2018) dignity as foundational principle: (a) Context: Challenge to Section 377 IPC criminalizing consensual same-sex relations between adults, (b) Supreme Court holding (5-judge bench unanimous): (i) Human dignity foundational principle underlying Fundamental Rights, (ii) Discrimination based on sexual orientation violates dignity under Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty), (iii) Also violates Article 14 (arbitrary classification), Article 15 (discrimination based on sex — interpreted to include sexual orientation), Article 19 (expression of identity), (c) Applications: (i) Decriminalization: Foundation for subsequent cases on marriage, adoption, anti-discrimination for LGBTQ+ persons, (ii) Institutional reforms: Directions for sensitization of police, judiciary, healthcare providers, (iii) Legislative follow-up: Ongoing debate on civil unions, marriage equality, anti-discrimination law, (d) Rationale: (i) Dignity: Sexual orientation intrinsic to personality; discrimination violates dignity, autonomy, privacy under Article 21, (ii) Equality: Discrimination based on sexual orientation violates Articles 14 (arbitrary classification), 15 (discrimination based on sex — interpreted to include sexual orientation), (iii) Liberty: Criminalization violates Article 19(1)(a) (expression of identity), 19(1)(d) (freedom of movement), (e) Challenges: (i) Social acceptance: Legal reform requires accompanying social education, community engagement, (ii) Implementation: Ensuring rights realized in practice, not just declared in judgments, (f) Illustrates transformative constitutionalism: Using constitutional values to advance substantive equality for marginalized groups; dignity as foundational principle guiding interpretation of rights.
Answer: True
Supriyo (2023) separation of powers and marriage recognition: (a) Context: Petitions seeking legal recognition of same-sex marriage under Special Marriage Act, 1954, (b) Supreme Court holding (5-judge Constitution Bench, 3:2 on key issues): (i) Declined to legalize same-sex marriage: Recognition involves complex policy considerations (adoption, succession, maintenance, social welfare) best left to Parliament, (ii) BUT affirmed constitutional rights of queer couples: Protection from discrimination, right to cohabit, access to services without discrimination, (iii) Separation of powers: Courts recognize limits of judicial expertise in complex policy design but assert role in protecting constitutional values, (c) Applications: (i) Legislative follow-up: Ongoing debate on civil unions, marriage equality, anti-discrimination law, (ii) Rights protection: Courts continue to protect queer rights through existing constitutional provisions (Articles 14, 15, 19, 21), (iii) Institutional reform: Directions for sensitization of police, judiciary, healthcare providers to queer rights, (d) Rationale: (i) Institutional competence: Courts expert in constitutional interpretation, rights protection; legislatures expert in policy design, social consensus-building, (ii) Democratic accountability: Policy decisions affecting society should be made through democratic process, not judicial decree, (iii) Rights protection: Courts protect constitutional values against legislative/executive excess while respecting democratic domain, (e) Illustrates calibrated judicial philosophy: Judicial restraint in policy domain (marriage recognition), activism in rights protection (non-discrimination, dignity); balance between constitutional values and democratic legitimacy essential to constitutional democracy.
Answer: True
Navtej Singh Johar (2018) Constitutional Morality and minority protection: (a) Context: Challenge to Section 377 IPC criminalizing consensual same-sex relations between adults, (b) Supreme Court holding (5-judge bench unanimous): (i) Constitutional Morality (constitutional values) prevails over social morality (majoritarian views), (ii) Sexual orientation intrinsic to personality; discrimination violates Articles 14, 15, 19, 21, (iii) State cannot criminalize private consensual conduct between adults, (c) Applications: (i) Decriminalization: Foundation for subsequent cases on marriage, adoption, anti-discrimination for LGBTQ+ persons, (ii) Institutional reforms: Directions for sensitization of police, judiciary, healthcare providers, (iii) Legislative follow-up: Ongoing debate on civil unions, marriage equality, anti-discrimination law, (d) Rationale: (i) Constitutional supremacy: Constitution protects minorities and individuals against majoritarian impulses; democratic legitimacy requires respecting constitutional limits, not just popular will, (ii) Transformative constitutionalism: Using Constitution as tool for social justice, not merely reflecting existing social norms, (iii) Rights protection: Constitutional values (dignity, equality, liberty) provide normative framework for protecting marginalized groups, (e) Challenges: (i) Social acceptance: Legal reform requires accompanying social education, community engagement, (ii) Implementation: Ensuring rights realized in practice, not just declared in judgments, (f) Illustrates transformative constitutionalism: Constitutional Morality as tool for advancing substantive equality; courts protect constitutional values against majoritarian impulses to realize transformative vision of dignity, justice for all.
Answer: True
Supriyo (2023) constitutional rights without marriage recognition: (a) Context: Petitions seeking legal recognition of same-sex marriage under Special Marriage Act, 1954, (b) Supreme Court holding (5-judge Constitution Bench, 3:2 on key issues): (i) Declined to legalize same-sex marriage: Recognition involves complex policy considerations best left to Parliament, (ii) BUT affirmed constitutional rights of queer couples: (a) Protection from discrimination under Articles 14, 15, (b) Right to cohabit, form relationships under Article 21, (c) Access to services (healthcare, banking, etc.) without discrimination, (iii) Rights protection not contingent on marriage recognition: Constitutional rights exist independently of specific institutional recognition, (c) Applications: (i) Anti-discrimination: Queer couples can challenge discrimination in services, employment, housing under Articles 14, 15, (ii) Relationship recognition: Right to cohabit, form relationships protected under Article 21, even without marriage recognition, (iii) Institutional reform: Directions for sensitization of police, judiciary, healthcare providers to queer rights, (d) Rationale: (i) Constitutional supremacy: Fundamental Rights protect individuals regardless of legislative recognition of specific institutions, (ii) Rights protection: Affirms core rights (non-discrimination, dignity) while deferring complex policy questions to legislature, (iii) Democratic legitimacy: Policy decisions affecting society should be made through democratic process, not judicial fiat, (e) Illustrates calibrated judicial philosophy: Judicial restraint in policy domain (marriage recognition), activism in rights protection (non-discrimination, dignity); balance between constitutional values and democratic legitimacy essential to constitutional democracy.
Answer: True
Navtej Singh Johar (2018) inclusive interpretation of Article 15: (a) Context: Challenge to Section 377 IPC criminalizing consensual same-sex relations between adults, (b) Supreme Court holding (5-judge bench unanimous): (i) Interpreted 'sex' in Article 15 to include sexual orientation, gender identity, (ii) Discrimination based on sexual orientation violates Article 15 (prohibition of discrimination on religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth), (iii) Also violates Article 14 (arbitrary classification), Article 19 (expression of identity), Article 21 (privacy, dignity, autonomy), (c) Applications: (i) Decriminalization: Foundation for subsequent cases on marriage, adoption, anti-discrimination for LGBTQ+ persons, (ii) Institutional reforms: Directions for sensitization of police, judiciary, healthcare providers, (iii) Legislative follow-up: Ongoing debate on civil unions, marriage equality, anti-discrimination law, (d) Rationale: (i) Substantive equality: Formal equality insufficient; must address structural, intersectional inequalities affecting LGBTQ+ persons, (ii) Inclusive interpretation: 'Sex' in Article 15 interpreted expansively to include sexual orientation, gender identity, ensuring substantive equality, (iii) Constitutional Morality: Prevails over social morality; constitutional values protect minorities against majoritarian impulses, (e) Challenges: (i) Social acceptance: Legal reform requires accompanying social education, community engagement, (ii) Implementation: Ensuring rights realized in practice, not just declared in judgments, (f) Illustrates transformative constitutionalism: Inclusive interpretation of Article 15 ensures protection against discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity; Constitutional Morality guides interpretation of rights in evolving social contexts.
Answer: True
Supriyo (2023) affirmation of queer rights: (a) Context: Petitions seeking legal recognition of same-sex marriage under Special Marriage Act, 1954, (b) Supreme Court holding (5-judge Constitution Bench, 3:2 on key issues): (i) Declined to legalize same-sex marriage: Recognition involves complex policy considerations best left to Parliament, (ii) BUT affirmed rights of queer couples: (a) Protection from discrimination under Articles 14, 15, (b) Right to cohabit, form relationships under Article 21, (c) Access to services (healthcare, banking, etc.) without discrimination, (iii) Directed government to form committee to examine rights/entitlements of queer couples, (c) Applications: (i) Anti-discrimination: Queer couples can challenge discrimination in services, employment, housing under Articles 14, 15, (ii) Relationship recognition: Right to cohabit, form relationships protected under Article 21, even without marriage recognition, (iii) Institutional reform: Directions for sensitization of police, judiciary, healthcare providers to queer rights, (d) Rationale: (i) Separation of powers: Courts recognize limits of judicial expertise in complex policy design but assert role in protecting constitutional values, (ii) Rights protection: Affirms core rights (non-discrimination, dignity) while deferring complex policy questions to legislature, (iii) Democratic legitimacy: Policy decisions affecting society should be made through democratic process, not judicial fiat, (e) Illustrates calibrated judicial philosophy: Judicial restraint in policy domain (marriage recognition), activism in rights protection (non-discrimination, dignity); balance between constitutional values and democratic legitimacy essential to constitutional democracy.
Answer: True
Navtej Singh Johar (2018) sexual orientation as intrinsic to personality: (a) Context: Challenge to Section 377 IPC criminalizing consensual same-sex relations between adults, (b) Supreme Court holding (5-judge bench unanimous): (i) Sexual orientation intrinsic to personality: Core aspect of identity, autonomy, self-determination, (ii) Discrimination based on sexual orientation violates: (a) Article 14 (arbitrary classification), (b) Article 15 (discrimination based on sex — interpreted to include sexual orientation), (c) Article 19 (expression of identity), (d) Article 21 (privacy, dignity, autonomy), (iii) Constitutional Morality prevails over social morality; constitutional values protect minorities against majoritarian impulses, (c) Applications: (i) Decriminalization: Foundation for subsequent cases on marriage, adoption, anti-discrimination for LGBTQ+ persons, (ii) Institutional reforms: Directions for sensitization of police, judiciary, healthcare providers, (iii) Legislative follow-up: Ongoing debate on civil unions, marriage equality, anti-discrimination law, (d) Rationale: (i) Dignity: Sexual orientation intrinsic to personality; discrimination violates dignity, autonomy, privacy under Article 21, (ii) Equality: Discrimination based on sexual orientation violates Articles 14 (arbitrary classification), 15 (discrimination based on sex — interpreted to include sexual orientation), (iii) Liberty: Criminalization violates Article 19(1)(a) (expression of identity), 19(1)(d) (freedom of movement), (e) Challenges: (i) Social acceptance: Legal reform requires accompanying social education, community engagement, (ii) Implementation: Ensuring rights realized in practice, not just declared in judgments, (f) Illustrates transformative constitutionalism: Using constitutional values to advance substantive equality for marginalized groups; dignity as foundational principle guiding interpretation of rights.
Answer: True
Supriyo (2023) committee for queer rights examination: (a) Context: Petitions seeking legal recognition of same-sex marriage under Special Marriage Act, 1954, (b) Supreme Court holding: (i) Declined to legalize same-sex marriage: Recognition involves complex policy considerations best left to Parliament, (ii) BUT affirmed rights of queer couples: Protection from discrimination, right to cohabit, access to services without discrimination, (iii) Directed Central Government to constitute high-level committee to examine rights/entitlements of queer couples, (c) Committee mandate: (i) Examine rights and entitlements: Joint bank accounts, medical decision-making, social security benefits, inheritance, adoption, etc., (ii) Recommend measures: Legislative, administrative, policy measures to protect queer couples' rights within existing legal framework, (iii) Timeline: Committee to submit report within specified timeframe for government consideration, (d) Applications: (i) Interim protections: Queer couples can seek protection from discrimination, access to services under existing constitutional provisions, (ii) Legislative follow-up: Committee recommendations may inform future legislation on civil unions, anti-discrimination law, (iii) Institutional reform: Directions for sensitization of police, judiciary, healthcare providers to queer rights, (e) Rationale: (i) Separation of powers: Courts recognize limits of judicial expertise in complex policy design but assert role in protecting constitutional values, (ii) Rights protection: Committee enables systematic examination of queer rights within existing legal framework while legislative process unfolds, (iii) Democratic legitimacy: Policy decisions affecting society should be made through democratic process, informed by expert committee recommendations, (f) Illustrates calibrated judicial philosophy: Judicial restraint in policy domain (marriage recognition), activism in rights protection (non-discrimination, dignity); committee mechanism enables systematic rights examination while respecting democratic process.
Answer: True
Navtej Singh Johar (2018) decriminalization and constitutional values: (a) Context: Challenge to Section 377 IPC criminalizing consensual same-sex relations between adults, (b) Supreme Court holding (5-judge bench unanimous): (i) Section 377 unconstitutional to extent it criminalizes consensual adult same-sex relations, (ii) Violates Article 14 (arbitrary classification), Article 15 (discrimination based on sex — interpreted to include sexual orientation), Article 19 (expression of identity), Article 21 (privacy, dignity, autonomy), (iii) Constitutional Morality (constitutional values) prevails over social morality (majoritarian views), (c) Applications: (i) Decriminalization: Foundation for subsequent cases on marriage, adoption, anti-discrimination for LGBTQ+ persons, (ii) Institutional reforms: Directions for sensitization of police, judiciary, healthcare providers, (iii) Legislative follow-up: Ongoing debate on civil unions, marriage equality, anti-discrimination law, (d) Rationale: (i) Dignity: Sexual orientation intrinsic to personality; discrimination violates dignity, autonomy, privacy under Article 21, (ii) Equality: Discrimination based on sexual orientation violates Articles 14 (arbitrary classification), 15 (discrimination based on sex — interpreted to include sexual orientation), (iii) Liberty: Criminalization violates Article 19(1)(a) (expression of identity), 19(1)(d) (freedom of movement), (e) Challenges: (i) Social acceptance: Legal reform requires accompanying social education, community engagement, (ii) Implementation: Ensuring rights realized in practice, not just declared in judgments, (f) Illustrates transformative constitutionalism: Using constitutional values to advance substantive equality for marginalized groups; dignity as foundational principle guiding interpretation of rights.
Answer: True
Minerva Mills (1980) harmony between FRs and DPSP: (a) Context: Challenge to 42nd Amendment provisions giving Directive Principles primacy over Fundamental Rights, (b) Supreme Court holding: (i) Balance between Fundamental Rights (Part III) and Directive Principles (Part IV) is part of basic structure, (ii) FRs and DPSP are complementary and harmonious: FRs provide means (individual liberty, rights protection), DPSP provide ends (social justice, egalitarian society), (iii) Neither can be given absolute primacy: Parliament cannot destroy this balance by giving absolute primacy to DPSP over FRs or vice versa, (c) Applications: (i) Subsequent amendments: Must maintain FR-DPSP balance; courts can strike down amendments violating this balance, (ii) Harmonious construction: Courts interpret FRs, DPSP to give effect to both where possible, not as conflicting, (iii) Policy formulation: State policies should advance DPSP goals while respecting FR protections, (d) Rationale: (i) FRs protect individual liberty against state excess, (ii) DPSP guide state policy towards social justice, collective welfare, (iii) Balance ensures neither individual rights nor collective welfare absolutely dominant; both essential to constitutional vision, (e) Illustrates constitutional harmony: Basic structure doctrine preserves complementary relationship between rights, directive principles; neither can be destroyed without altering constitutional identity, ensuring balanced approach to individual liberty and social justice.
Answer: True
Supriyo (2023) rights of queer couples: (a) Context: Petitions seeking legal recognition of same-sex marriage under Special Marriage Act, 1954, (b) Supreme Court holding (5-judge Constitution Bench, 3:2 on key issues): (i) Declined to legalize same-sex marriage: Recognition involves complex policy considerations best left to Parliament, (ii) BUT affirmed rights of queer couples: (a) Protection from discrimination under Articles 14, 15, (b) Right to cohabit, form relationships under Article 21, (c) Access to services (healthcare, banking, etc.) without discrimination, (iii) Directed government to form committee to examine rights/entitlements of queer couples, (c) Applications: (i) Anti-discrimination: Queer couples can challenge discrimination in services, employment, housing under Articles 14, 15, (ii) Relationship recognition: Right to cohabit, form relationships protected under Article 21, even without marriage recognition, (iii) Institutional reform: Directions for sensitization of police, judiciary, healthcare providers to queer rights, (d) Rationale: (i) Separation of powers: Courts recognize limits of judicial expertise in complex policy design but assert role in protecting constitutional values, (ii) Rights protection: Affirms core rights (non-discrimination, dignity) while deferring complex policy questions to legislature, (iii) Democratic legitimacy: Marriage recognition requires broad social consensus, legislative deliberation, not judicial fiat, (e) Illustrates calibrated judicial philosophy: Judicial restraint in policy domain (marriage recognition), activism in rights protection (non-discrimination, dignity); balance between constitutional values and democratic legitimacy essential to constitutional democracy.
Answer: True
Navtej Singh Johar (2018) Constitutional Morality vs social morality: (a) Context: Challenge to Section 377 IPC criminalizing consensual same-sex relations between adults, (b) Supreme Court holding (5-judge bench unanimous): (i) Constitutional Morality (constitutional values) prevails over social morality (majoritarian views) when they conflict, (ii) Sexual orientation intrinsic to personality; discrimination violates Articles 14, 15, 19, 21, (iii) State cannot criminalize private consensual conduct between adults, (c) Applications: (i) Decriminalization: Foundation for subsequent cases on marriage, adoption, anti-discrimination for LGBTQ+ persons, (ii) Institutional reforms: Directions for sensitization of police, judiciary, healthcare providers, (iii) Legislative follow-up: Ongoing debate on civil unions, marriage equality, anti-discrimination law, (d) Rationale: (i) Constitutional supremacy: Constitution protects minorities and individuals against majoritarian impulses; democratic legitimacy requires respecting constitutional limits, not just popular will, (ii) Transformative constitutionalism: Using Constitution as tool for social justice, not merely reflecting existing social norms, (iii) Rights protection: Constitutional values (dignity, equality, liberty) provide normative framework for protecting marginalized groups, (e) Challenges: (i) Social acceptance: Legal reform requires accompanying social education, community engagement, (ii) Implementation: Ensuring rights realized in practice, not just declared in judgments, (f) Illustrates transformative constitutionalism: Constitutional Morality as tool for advancing substantive equality; courts protect constitutional values against majoritarian impulses to realize transformative vision of dignity, justice for all.
Answer: True
Minerva Mills (1980) limited amending power: (a) Context: Challenge to 42nd Amendment provisions giving Parliament unlimited amending power, DPSP primacy over FRs, (b) Supreme Court holding: (i) Parliament's amending power under Article 368 is limited; cannot destroy basic structure of Constitution, (ii) Balance between Fundamental Rights (Part III) and Directive Principles (Part IV) is part of basic structure; Parliament cannot give absolute primacy to one over other, (iii) Constitutional supremacy prevails over parliamentary sovereignty; Constitution, not Parliament, is supreme, (c) Applications: (i) Subsequent amendments: Must preserve basic structure; courts can strike down amendments violating core features, (ii) Judicial review: Courts retain power to examine constitutional amendments for basic structure compliance, (iii) Rights protection: Fundamental Rights forming part of basic structure remain protected against legislative excess, (d) Rationale: (i) Constitutional identity: Basic structure preserves core values defining Indian constitutionalism, (ii) Democratic safeguards: Prevents transient parliamentary majorities from destroying foundational democratic features, (iii) Rights protection: Ensures Fundamental Rights forming part of basic structure remain protected, (e) Illustrates constitutional supremacy: Basic structure doctrine ensures Constitution, not transient majorities, supreme; amendment power enables adaptation but cannot destroy core identity essential to constitutional democracy.
Answer: True
Anuradha Bhasin (2020) internet shutdowns and proportionality: (a) Context: Challenge to internet shutdowns in Jammu & Kashmir following Article 370 abrogation; issue of balancing digital free speech with national security, (b) Supreme Court holding: (i) Freedom of speech (Article 19(1)(a)) and profession (Article 19(1)(g)) extend to internet medium, (ii) Internet shutdown orders must be published for transparency and judicial review, (iii) Restrictions must satisfy proportionality test: legitimate aim, rational connection, least restrictive alternative, balancing of interests, (c) Proportionality application: (i) Legitimate aim: National security, public order, prevention of crime, (ii) Rational connection: Shutdowns may prevent misuse but must be evidence-based, not speculative, (iii) Necessity: Less restrictive alternatives preferred (targeted restrictions, content blocking vs. blanket shutdown), (iv) Balancing: Benefits of restriction vs. harm to free speech, economic activity, access to information, (d) Applications: (i) J&K internet shutdown case: Court directed publication of orders, periodic review, time-bound restrictions, (ii) DPDP Act, 2023: Data protection framework balancing privacy with legitimate state/business needs, (iii) Algorithmic accountability: Emerging jurisprudence on AI bias, transparency in automated decision-making, (e) Rationale: (i) Democratic discourse: Digital free speech essential for democratic participation, accountability, (ii) National security: Legitimate state interest in preventing misuse of digital platforms for violence, terrorism, (iii) Calibrated restrictions: Proportionality ensures restrictions justified, not arbitrary; preserves democratic space while protecting legitimate state interests, (f) Illustrates adaptive constitutionalism: Applying enduring values (free speech, privacy) to emerging technological contexts through calibrated judicial review; proportionality ensures balanced response to complex digital governance challenges.
Answer: True
Joseph Shine (2018) gender equality and marital autonomy: (a) Context: Challenge to Section 497 IPC criminalizing adultery (only men punished; women treated as property of husbands), (b) Supreme Court holding (unanimous): (i) Section 497 unconstitutional: Violates Article 14 (arbitrary classification — only men punished), Article 15 (discrimination based on sex — reinforces patriarchal stereotypes), Article 21 (violates autonomy, dignity, privacy in marital relationships), (ii) Constitutional Morality: Gender equality, individual autonomy override traditional moral codes, (iii) Impact: Decriminalized adultery; civil remedies (divorce, maintenance) remain, (c) Applications: (i) Gender justice: Foundation for subsequent cases on marital rights, reproductive autonomy, LGBTQ+ rights, (ii) Personal law reform: Reinforces principle that personal laws subject to Fundamental Rights scrutiny, (iii) Social change: Legal reform requires accompanying social education to shift patriarchal attitudes, (d) Rationale: (i) Equality: Law cannot treat women as property; must recognize equal agency in marital relationships, (ii) Dignity: Marital relationships based on mutual respect, autonomy, not ownership, (iii) Privacy: State cannot criminalize private consensual conduct between adults, (e) Illustrates evolving gender jurisprudence: From patriarchal norms to equality, autonomy, dignity; Constitutional Morality guides interpretation of rights in evolving social contexts.