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 Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020), the Supreme Court held that freedom of speech and expression and the right to practice any profession over the internet are protected under Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g), and restrictions must satisfy proportionality test.
- True
- False
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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 (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.
Constitutional Morality acts as a check on majoritarian democracy by ensuring that laws and policies, even if supported by majority, must comply with fundamental rights and constitutional values.
- True
- False
Answer: True
Constitutional Morality vs majoritarianism: (a) Democracy: Rule by majority through elected representatives, (b) Constitutional Morality: Limits majority power to protect minority rights, individual dignity, rule of law. Examples: (a) SC striking down Section 377 despite public opposition (Navtej Singh Johar), (b) Upholding reservation policies despite 'merit' arguments (Indra Sawhney), (c) Protecting religious minorities' rights (SR Bommai). Ensures democracy is substantive (protecting all citizens) not merely procedural (majority rule).
The Constitution explicitly prohibits retired civil servants and judges from accepting post-retirement employment under the government to prevent conflict of interest.
- True
- False
Answer: False
Constitutional provisions: (a) Article 148(4): CAG prohibited from further government employment post-tenure, (b) Article 319: Similar restriction for Election Commissioners, (c) BUT no explicit constitutional bar for retired civil servants/judges. Conduct Rules for civil servants require prior permission for post-retirement employment; judicial conventions discourage immediate appointments to avoid perception of bias. Debate continues on codifying cooling-off periods to preserve institutional integrity.
Constitutional Morality requires the State to not only tolerate but actively accommodate India's religious, linguistic, and cultural diversity as part of its constitutional identity.
- True
- False
Answer: True
Constitutional Morality and pluralism: (a) Preamble: Secular, democratic republic respecting all faiths, (b) Fundamental Rights: Articles 25-30 protect religious/cultural rights of minorities, (c) Directive Principles: Article 46 promotes interests of weaker sections, (d) Federalism: Accommodates regional diversity through State autonomy. Constitutional Morality requires State to: (a) Not impose majoritarian culture, (b) Protect minority identities, (c) Promote inclusive development. Foundation of India's 'unity in diversity' constitutional model.
The Supreme Court has adopted a 'Charter of Judicial Ethics' that is legally enforceable and violations can lead to removal of judges.
- True
- False
Answer: False
Restatement of Values of Judicial Life (1999): Adopted by Supreme Court as ethical guidelines for judges (independence, integrity, impartiality, etc.). However, it is NOT legally enforceable; violations addressed through: (a) In-house procedure for minor misconduct, (b) Impeachment under Article 124(4) for proved misbehaviour (complex Parliamentary process). Debate continues on strengthening judicial accountability while preserving independence.
Constitutional Morality supports 'Transformative Constitutionalism' - using the Constitution as a tool for social change to achieve substantive equality and justice, not merely formal equality.
- True
- False
Answer: True
Transformative Constitutionalism (South African origin; applied in India): Constitution not just limits state power but actively transforms society to realize justice, equality, dignity. Constitutional Morality enables this: (a) Courts interpret provisions to advance marginalized groups (e.g., Vishaka guidelines on sexual harassment), (b) State obligated to take affirmative action (Articles 15(4), 16(4)), (c) Rights interpreted expansively (Article 21 includes health, education, environment). Balances judicial activism with democratic legitimacy.
Under the Representation of People Act, 1951, candidates for Parliament and State Legislatures must declare their assets and liabilities while filing nomination papers.
- True
- False
Answer: True
Section 33A, R.P. Act (inserted per ADR case, 2002): Candidates must file affidavit with Returning Officer disclosing: (a) Criminal cases pending, (b) Assets/liabilities of candidate and spouse, (c) Educational qualification. Affidavits made public on ECI website. Aims to promote transparency, enable voter scrutiny, deter corruption. However, verification and enforcement of disclosures remain challenges.
The Supreme Court has recognized Constitutional Morality as part of the 'Basic Structure' of the Constitution that cannot be amended even by Parliament.
- True
- False
Answer: False
While Constitutional Morality is a guiding principle in judicial interpretation (Navtej Singh Johar, Puttaswamy), the Supreme Court has NOT explicitly declared it part of 'Basic Structure' (Kesavananda Bharati doctrine). Basic Structure includes: supremacy of Constitution, republican/democratic form, secularism, federalism, judicial review, rule of law. Constitutional Morality operationalizes these values but remains a judicial interpretive tool, not a formally enumerated basic feature.
The Supreme Court has held that Constitutional Morality can override social morality when the two conflict, particularly in matters of fundamental rights.
- True
- False
Answer: True
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018): SC held Constitutional Morality (constitutional values) prevails over social morality (majoritarian views) when they conflict. Example: Decriminalizing homosexuality despite social opposition because Article 14, 15, 19, 21 protect individual dignity and autonomy. Similarly, Shayara Bano (triple talaq), Puttaswamy (privacy) affirm constitutional values over traditional practices violating fundamental rights.
The Preamble of the Indian Constitution is justiciable and can be enforced in courts like Fundamental Rights, similar to the US Constitution's Preamble.
- True
- False
Answer: False
Preamble comparison: (a) India: Preamble is part of Constitution (Kesavananda Bharati case) but not enforceable by itself; used for interpreting ambiguous provisions, (b) USA: Preamble ('We the People...') is introductory statement, not source of power or rights; courts don't enforce Preamble directly. Both Preambles express constitutional philosophy: India - Justice, Liberty, Equality, Fraternity; USA - Form more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility. Guiding values, not enforceable provisions.
Both India and USA follow the principle of constitutional supremacy where the Constitution is the supreme law and ordinary laws inconsistent with it are void.
- True
- False
Answer: True
Constitutional supremacy: (a) India: Article 13 declares laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights void; Supreme Court exercises judicial review (Kesavananda Bharati), (b) USA: Supremacy Clause (Article VI) establishes Constitution as supreme law; Marbury v. Madison (1803) established judicial review. Contrast with UK: Parliamentary sovereignty - Parliament can make/unmake any law; courts cannot strike down Acts of Parliament. Constitutional supremacy protects fundamental values from transient legislative majorities.
Unlike India's Directive Principles of State Policy, the Irish Constitution's Directive Principles are justiciable and enforceable by courts.
- True
- False
Answer: False
DPSP comparison: (a) India (Part IV, Articles 36-51): Non-justiciable; fundamental in governance but not enforceable by courts (Article 37), (b) Ireland (Article 45): Also non-justiciable; 'general guidance to Oireachtas (Parliament)' for law-making. Both treat socio-economic goals as aspirational directives, not enforceable rights. However, Indian courts use DPSP for interpreting statutes and FRs, giving them indirect justiciability (Minerva Mills case).
The Indian Constitution is more flexible than the US Constitution because most provisions can be amended by Parliament alone with special majority, while US amendments require ratification by three-fourths of States.
- True
- False
Answer: True
Amendment flexibility: (a) India (Article 368): Most provisions amendable by Parliament with special majority (majority of total membership + 2/3 present and voting); only federal provisions need State ratification (half of States), (b) USA (Article V): Amendments require 2/3 of both Houses of Congress OR constitutional convention, PLUS ratification by 3/4 of State legislatures/conventions. India's flexibility enabled 100+ amendments adapting to changing needs; US rigidity preserved original framework (only 27 amendments in 230+ years).