Doctrine Of Severability MCQs

Consider the following statements regarding Distinction between void and voidable statutes: 1. Under Article 13(1) of the Constitution, pre-constitutional laws inconsistent with fundamental rights are rendered void ab initio only to the extent of their inconsistency, preserving the remainder of the enactment. 2. A voidable statute remains operational until a court of competent jurisdiction issues a writ of certiorari, at which point the entire enactment is struck down regardless of the severability of its parts. 3. The distinction between void and voidable statutes is defined in the General Clauses Act of 1897, which provides the framework for judicial review of legislative acts passed by the Union Parliament. How many of the statements given above are correct?

Only one
Only two
All three
None

Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect. Statement 1 is correct because Article 13(1) incorporates the Doctrine of Severability, ensuring that pre-constitutional laws are not wiped out entirely but only to the extent of their inconsistency with Fundamental Rights. Statement 2 is incorrect because the Doctrine of Severability applies to both pre-constitutional and post-constitutional laws, meaning courts strike down only the offending parts rather than the entire enactment if the remainder is functionally independent. Statement 3 is incorrect because the distinction between void and voidable statutes is a product of judicial interpretation by the Supreme Court (notably in cases like Keshavan Madhava Menon v. State of Bombay), not a definition provided by the General Clauses Act of 1897.

Consider the following statements regarding A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) ruling: 1. The principle of severability functions on the premise that the legislature would have intended to enact the valid portion of a law even if the invalid portion were omitted. 2. Justice Kania, serving as the first Chief Justice of India, presided over the six-judge bench that delivered the judgment in the A.K. Gopalan case. 3. The Supreme Court in the 1950 ruling applied the doctrine to Section 14 of the Preventive Detention Act, declaring it ultra vires while upholding the rest of the statute. How many of the statements given above are correct?

Only one
Only two
All three
None

Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is correct as the doctrine of severability, rooted in Article 13, aims to save valid legislative provisions by separating them from unconstitutional ones if they are independent and distinct. Statement 2 is correct because Chief Justice H.J. Kania led the six-judge bench that delivered the landmark judgment on May 19, 1950. Statement 3 is correct because the Court struck down Section 14 of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, for violating Article 22(5) while maintaining the validity of the remainder of the Act.

Consider the following statements regarding Constitutional limitations on the power of severance: 1. The doctrine of severability allows the judiciary to rewrite the remaining portions of a statute to ensure the legislative intent remains coherent after an invalid provision is removed. 2. The doctrine of pith and substance is considered a subset of the doctrine of severability, as both principles were derived from the Government of India Act of 1935. 3. The Supreme Court in the Minerva Mills case of 1980 expanded the scope of severability to allow the legislature to excise individual clauses from a constitutional amendment. How many of the statements given above are correct?

Only one
Only two
All three
None

Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect. Statement 1 is incorrect because the doctrine of severability prohibits the judiciary from rewriting or filling in gaps in a statute; it only permits the removal of invalid portions while preserving the remainder if they are functionally independent. Statement 2 is incorrect as the doctrine of pith and substance is a tool for determining the legislative competence of a law under the Seventh Schedule, whereas severability concerns the validity of specific provisions; they are distinct legal principles, not subsets of one another. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Minerva Mills case (1980) struck down specific clauses of the 42nd Amendment based on the 'basic structure' doctrine, but it did not grant the legislature the power to excise individual clauses from constitutional amendments, nor does severability apply to the basic structure of the Constitution.

Consider the following statements regarding Judicial review of non-severable statutes: 1. In the 1967 I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab judgment, the Supreme Court established the doctrine of prospective overruling as a direct substitute for the Doctrine of Severability in cases involving property rights. 2. Article 254 of the Constitution provides the legal framework for the Doctrine of Severability, allowing the President to separate repugnant provisions in state laws that conflict with Union legislation. 3. The 1973 Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala verdict expanded the Doctrine of Severability to include the power of the judiciary to strike down individual articles of the Constitution that violate the basic structure. How many of the statements given above are correct?

Only one
Only two
All three
None

Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect. Statement 1 is incorrect because prospective overruling was introduced to avoid reopening past transactions, not as a substitute for severability. Statement 2 is incorrect as Article 254 deals with the repugnancy between Union and State laws, whereas the Doctrine of Severability is a judicial principle derived from Article 13 to save valid parts of a statute. Statement 3 is incorrect because the judiciary cannot strike down individual articles of the Constitution under the Basic Structure doctrine; it can only invalidate constitutional amendments that violate the essential features of the Constitution.

Consider the following statements regarding Legislative competence and severability: 1. Under the Doctrine of Severability, if the valid and invalid portions of a statute are so inextricably linked that they cannot be separated, the entire enactment is declared ultra vires. 2. In the 1954 case of R.M.D. Chamarbaugwalla v. Union of India, the Supreme Court established that the test for severability is whether the legislature would have enacted the valid part had it known the invalid part was unconstitutional. 3. The principle of severability was applied by the Supreme Court in the 1951 A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras judgment to preserve the validity of the Preventive Detention Act despite the invalidation of Section 14. How many of the statements given above are correct?

Only one
Only two
All three
None

Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is correct as the doctrine mandates that if valid and invalid provisions are inextricably intertwined, the entire statute must be struck down. Statement 2 is correct because the 1954 R.M.D. Chamarbaugwalla case established the 'legislative intent' test, determining if the legislature would have passed the law without the offending portion. Statement 3 is correct because, in the 1951 A.K. Gopalan case, the Supreme Court invoked the doctrine to declare Section 14 of the Preventive Detention Act unconstitutional while upholding the validity of the remaining Act.

Consider the following statements regarding Role of the Supreme Court in partial invalidation: 1. The Supreme Court invoked the doctrine in the Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992) case to strike down paragraph 7 of the Tenth Schedule while preserving the rest of the Anti-Defection Law. 2. Article 254 of the Constitution allows for the partial invalidation of state laws that are repugnant to central legislation, provided the conflicting provisions are distinct and severable. 3. Justice S.R. Das, in the 1957 Chamarbaugwalla case, established that the intention of the legislature serves as a primary indicator for determining if the remaining provisions can stand independently. How many of the statements given above are correct?

Only one
Only two
All three
None

Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is correct as the Supreme Court in Kihoto Hollohan (1992) struck down paragraph 7 of the Tenth Schedule for lacking the required ratification under Article 368(2), while upholding the validity of the rest of the Act. Statement 2 is correct because Article 254(1) enables the doctrine of severability by allowing the invalidation of only the repugnant portion of a state law, leaving the remainder operative if it is distinct. Statement 3 is correct because the landmark R.M.D. Chamarbaugwalla v. Union of India (1957) case established that the legislature's intent is the fundamental test to determine if the valid parts of a statute can survive independently after the invalid portions are severed.

Consider the following statements regarding Constitutional validity of partially invalid Acts: 1. The Supreme Court applied the severability principle in the 1973 Kesavananda Bharati judgment to invalidate the 24th Amendment while preserving the core structure of Article 368. 2. The doctrine of severability is derived from Article 13(1) of the Constitution, which renders pre-constitutional laws void only to the extent of their inconsistency with fundamental rights. 3. The doctrine of severability originated from the 1935 Government of India Act, which introduced judicial review mechanisms that were later incorporated into Article 32 of the Constitution. How many of the statements given above are correct?

Only one
Only two
All three
None

Explanation: Statement 2 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect. Statement 2 is correct because Article 13(1) explicitly mandates that pre-constitutional laws are void only to the extent of their inconsistency with Part III, forming the constitutional basis for severability. Statement 1 is incorrect because the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) established the 'Basic Structure Doctrine,' not the doctrine of severability, and it did not invalidate the 24th Amendment. Statement 3 is incorrect because the doctrine of severability is a judicial principle developed by courts (notably in A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras) rather than a mechanism explicitly introduced by the Government of India Act 1935.

Consider the following statements regarding Judicial review of non-severable statutes: 1. The Doctrine of Severability is derived from the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act of 1976, which introduced the power of judicial review to excise unconstitutional clauses from state legislation. 2. The Doctrine of Severability finds its constitutional basis in Article 13(1) of the Indian Constitution, which renders pre-constitutional laws void to the extent of their inconsistency with Fundamental Rights. 3. In the 1951 case of A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, the Supreme Court applied the principle of severability to uphold the validity of the Preventive Detention Act after striking down Section 14. How many of the statements given above are correct?

Only one
Only two
All three
None

Explanation: Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 1 is incorrect because the Doctrine of Severability is a judicial creation derived from Article 13, not the 42nd Amendment, which actually sought to restrict judicial review. Statement 2 is correct as Article 13(1) mandates that pre-constitutional laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights are void only to the extent of such inconsistency, forming the basis for severing the invalid parts. Statement 3 is correct because, in A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950), the Supreme Court struck down Section 14 of the Preventive Detention Act for violating Article 14 while upholding the rest of the Act by applying the doctrine of severability.

Consider the following statements regarding Severability of void-ab-initio provisions: 1. In the 1950 case of A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, the Supreme Court applied the principle of severability to strike down Section 14 of the Preventive Detention Act while upholding the remainder of the statute. 2. The Doctrine of Severability is derived from Article 13(1) of the Indian Constitution, which renders pre-constitutional laws void only to the extent of their inconsistency with fundamental rights. 3. The test of severability, as articulated in the 1952 R.M.D. Chamarbaugwalla v. Union of India judgment, examines whether the legislature would have enacted the valid portion of the law had it known the invalid portion was void. How many of the statements given above are correct?

Only one
Only two
All three
None

Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is correct as the Supreme Court in A.K. Gopalan (1950) declared Section 14 of the Preventive Detention Act unconstitutional for violating Article 22(5) while severing it to preserve the rest of the Act. Statement 2 is correct because Article 13(1) explicitly mandates that pre-constitutional laws are void only to the extent of their inconsistency with Part III, forming the constitutional basis for the doctrine. Statement 3 is correct as the R.M.D. Chamarbaugwalla (1957) judgment established the 'test of legislative intent,' determining whether the valid and invalid parts are so inextricably bound that the legislature would not have enacted the law without the invalid portion.

Consider the following statements regarding Severability in the context of Fundamental Rights: 1. The principle of severability ensures that the entire statute is not struck down if only a specific section or clause is found to be inconsistent with Part III of the Constitution. 2. Article 13(1) of the Constitution specifically deals with the doctrine of eclipse and severability regarding laws existing in force in the territory of India before the commencement of the Constitution. 3. Section 13 of the General Clauses Act of 1897 provides the statutory basis for the Doctrine of Severability, allowing courts to excise unconstitutional clauses from central legislation enacted before 1950. How many of the statements given above are correct?

Only one
Only two
All three
None

Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is incorrect. Statement 1 is correct as the Doctrine of Severability ensures that only the unconstitutional portion of a statute is declared void, preserving the remainder if it is functionally independent. Statement 2 is correct because Article 13(1) mandates that pre-constitutional laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights are void only to the extent of such inconsistency, forming the basis for both severability and the doctrine of eclipse. Statement 3 is incorrect because the doctrine is a judicial creation derived from constitutional interpretation under Article 13, not a provision of the General Clauses Act of 1897.

Consider the following statements regarding Doctrine of Eclipse vs Doctrine of Severability: 1. The Doctrine of Eclipse is applicable to both pre-constitutional and post-constitutional laws, as confirmed by the 1973 Kesavananda Bharati judgment which expanded the scope of judicial review to include all legislative acts. 2. Under the 1961 ruling in Deep Chand v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court clarified that the Doctrine of Eclipse applies to pre-constitutional laws but does not extend to post-constitutional laws enacted after 1950. 3. The Doctrine of Severability is associated with the 1954 Behram Khurshed Pesikaka case, which held that the invalid portions of a statute are automatically repealed by the President upon the recommendation of the Law Commission. How many of the statements given above are correct?

Only one
Only two
All three
None

Explanation: Statement 2 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect. Statement 2 is correct because the Supreme Court in Deep Chand v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1959) held that post-constitutional laws violating fundamental rights are void ab initio and cannot be 'eclipsed' by a subsequent constitutional amendment. Statement 1 is incorrect because the Doctrine of Eclipse applies primarily to pre-constitutional laws (Article 13(1)), and the Kesavananda Bharati case dealt with the Basic Structure doctrine, not the expansion of the Eclipse doctrine. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Doctrine of Severability (Article 13) allows courts to strike down only the unconstitutional parts of a statute while upholding the remainder, and it has no connection to the President or the Law Commission for repealing statutes.

Consider the following statements regarding Doctrine of Eclipse vs Doctrine of Severability: 1. The Doctrine of Severability is invoked when the valid and invalid parts of a statute are so distinct that the legislature would have enacted the valid portion even without the invalid part. 2. In the Bhikaji Narain Dhakras v. State of M.P. (1955) case, the Supreme Court held that a law eclipsed by Fundamental Rights becomes enforceable again once the constitutional impediment is removed by an amendment. 3. Article 13(1) of the Indian Constitution provides the legal basis for the Doctrine of Eclipse, which renders pre-constitutional laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights inoperative rather than void ab initio. How many of the statements given above are correct?

Only one
Only two
All three
None

Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is correct as the Doctrine of Severability (Article 13) allows courts to strike down only the unconstitutional portion of a statute if it is separable from the valid part. Statement 2 is correct because the Bhikaji Narain Dhakras case established that pre-constitutional laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights are not dead but merely 'eclipsed' and become enforceable upon the removal of the constitutional hurdle. Statement 3 is correct because Article 13(1) mandates that pre-constitutional laws inconsistent with Part III are void only to the extent of such inconsistency, meaning they remain valid for pre-constitutional acts and revive if the restriction is lifted.

Consider the following statements regarding Severability in delegated legislation: 1. The 1967 Golaknath ruling introduced the severability doctrine specifically for delegated legislation to ensure that constitutional amendments remain subject to judicial review by the High Courts. 2. Under the 1973 Kesavananda Bharati framework, the power to sever invalid provisions from delegated rules is restricted to legislation passed by Parliament, excluding notifications issued by executive ministries. 3. The doctrine of eclipse is often cited in the 1950 A.K. Gopalan judgment as the primary mechanism for striking down delegated legislation that fails to meet the test of proportionality. How many of the statements given above are correct?

Only one
Only two
All three
None

Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect. All three statements are incorrect because the doctrine of severability is derived from Article 13(2) and was notably applied in A.K. Gopalan (1950), not Golaknath (1967), which dealt with the amendability of the Constitution. Furthermore, the power to sever invalid provisions applies to all forms of delegated legislation, including executive notifications, and is not restricted to parliamentary acts. Finally, the doctrine of eclipse, established in Bhikaji Narain Dhakras (1955), relates to pre-constitutional laws being rendered unenforceable rather than being a mechanism for proportionality-based striking down of delegated legislation.

Consider the following statements regarding Severability in the context of Fundamental Rights: 1. In the 1951 case of A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, the Supreme Court applied the principle of severability to uphold the validity of the remaining provisions of the Preventive Detention Act. 2. The 1973 Kesavananda Bharati judgment introduced the Doctrine of Severability to limit the power of Parliament to amend the Preamble, which had previously been considered a non-severable part of the Constitution. 3. The Doctrine of Severability is rooted in Article 13 of the Indian Constitution, which empowers the judiciary to declare laws void if they contravene Fundamental Rights. How many of the statements given above are correct?

Only one
Only two
All three
None

Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 1 is correct as the Supreme Court in A.K. Gopalan (1950) struck down Section 14 of the Preventive Detention Act while upholding the rest of the Act using the doctrine of severability. Statement 3 is correct because Article 13(1) and 13(2) mandate that laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights are void to the extent of such inconsistency, forming the constitutional basis for severability. Statement 2 is incorrect because the Doctrine of Severability is a principle of statutory interpretation long predating 1973, and the Kesavananda Bharati case is famous for the 'Basic Structure' doctrine, not for introducing severability to the Preamble.

Consider the following statements regarding Application of severability in tax laws: 1. In the 1954 case of RMDC v. Union of India, the Supreme Court established that if the valid and invalid portions of a tax law are distinct and separable, the entire enactment does not fail. 2. The principle of severability in tax legislation often relies on the 'test of severability' formulated by the Supreme Court, which examines whether the legislature would have enacted the valid part without the invalid part. 3. In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ahmedabad Rana Caste Association (1983), the court applied the severability doctrine to distinguish between taxable income and exempt charitable receipts within a single tax provision. How many of the statements given above are correct?

Only one
Only two
All three
None

Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is correct as the landmark R.M.D. Chamarbaugwalla v. Union of India (1957) established that if the valid and invalid parts of a statute are distinct and independent, the valid part can be sustained. Statement 2 is correct because the 'test of severability' hinges on the legislative intent, determining whether the legislature would have passed the law had it known the invalid portion would be struck down. Statement 3 is correct as the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ahmedabad Rana Caste Association (1983) applied the doctrine to uphold the validity of tax provisions by separating the taxable income of an association from its exempt charitable receipts.

Consider the following statements regarding Severability in delegated legislation: 1. The 1980 Minerva Mills judgment clarified that delegated legislation failing the severability test is treated as void ab initio, preventing the application of the doctrine of prospective overruling in administrative law. 2. The 1951 Shankari Prasad case provides the legal basis for severing invalid parts of subordinate legislation, allowing the executive to retain the original intent of the parent statute without legislative re-enactment. 3. Article 368 of the Constitution incorporates the doctrine of severability to protect delegated legislation from being declared void when it conflicts with the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III. How many of the statements given above are correct?

Only one
Only two
All three
None

Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect. All three statements are incorrect because the doctrine of severability is primarily a judicial principle derived from Article 13(2) of the Constitution, not Article 368. Statement 1 is false as Minerva Mills dealt with constitutional amendments and judicial review, not the prospective overruling of delegated legislation. Statement 2 is incorrect because the Shankari Prasad case (1951) focused on the amendability of Fundamental Rights, whereas the doctrine of severability in Indian law was famously established in A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950). Statement 3 is wrong because Article 368 pertains to the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution, and severability is a tool used by courts under Article 13 to preserve the valid portions of a statute, not a constitutional protection for delegated legislation.

Consider the following statements regarding A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) ruling: 1. In the A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) case, the Supreme Court examined the constitutional validity of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950. 2. The A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras ruling of 1950 relied upon the Doctrine of Severability to strike down Section 21 of the Preventive Detention Act, citing its direct conflict with the freedom of movement guaranteed under Article 19. 3. The Doctrine of Severability is rooted in Article 13(1) of the Indian Constitution, which renders laws inconsistent with fundamental rights void to the extent of such inconsistency. How many of the statements given above are correct?

Only one
Only two
All three
None

Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 1 is correct as the Supreme Court in A.K. Gopalan (1950) upheld the validity of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, while striking down only a specific provision. Statement 3 is correct because Article 13(1) mandates that laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights are void only to the extent of such inconsistency, forming the basis of the Doctrine of Severability. Statement 2 is incorrect because the Court struck down Section 14 of the Act (not Section 21) for violating Article 22, and it notably held that Article 19 did not apply to preventive detention, rejecting the argument that such laws must satisfy the reasonableness test of Article 19.

Consider the following statements regarding Judicial review of non-severable statutes: 1. The Supreme Court in the 1954 case of State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara utilized the doctrine to excise specific provisions of the Bombay Prohibition Act while retaining the remaining regulatory framework. 2. The judicial test for severability, as articulated in R.M.D. Chamarbaugwalla v. Union of India (1957), examines whether the legislature would have enacted the valid portion had it known the invalid portion was void. 3. Under the doctrine, if the valid and invalid portions of a statute are so inextricably linked that they cannot be separated, the entire enactment is declared unconstitutional by the court. How many of the statements given above are correct?

Only one
Only two
All three
None

Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. All three statements are correct. In State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara (1951), the Supreme Court upheld the Bombay Prohibition Act while striking down only those specific provisions that infringed upon fundamental rights, demonstrating the application of the doctrine. The R.M.D. Chamarbaugwalla v. Union of India (1957) case established the 'legislative intent' test, which mandates that if the valid and invalid parts of a law are so intertwined that they form a single scheme, the entire statute must be struck down to preserve the legislature's true purpose.

Consider the following statements regarding Doctrine of pith and substance relationship: 1. Under the Doctrine of Severability, the court examines whether the valid portion of a statute remains enforceable and meaningful if the invalid portion is removed from the text. 2. The Supreme Court in the State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara (1951) case utilized the Doctrine of Severability to excise specific provisions of the Bombay Prohibition Act that interfered with the import of liquor. 3. The Doctrine of Pith and Substance operates on the principle that the incidental encroachment of a law into a field reserved for another legislature does not invalidate the entire enactment. How many of the statements given above are correct?

Only one
Only two
All three
None

Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is correct as the Doctrine of Severability ensures that if an invalid part of a law is distinct and separable, the remaining valid portion is upheld to preserve legislative intent. Statement 2 is correct because, in State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara (1951), the Supreme Court upheld the Bombay Prohibition Act by severing only those specific provisions that unconstitutionally encroached upon the Union's power to regulate imports. Statement 3 is correct as the Doctrine of Pith and Substance mandates that if the 'true nature and character' of a law falls within a legislature's competence, incidental encroachment into another list does not render the law ultra vires.

Consider the following statements regarding Constitutional limitations on the power of severance: 1. The Kesavananda Bharati judgment of 1973 introduced the doctrine of severability to protect the basic structure of the Constitution from legislative amendments. 2. Under the doctrine of eclipse, the Supreme Court allows the revival of pre-constitutional laws that were rendered inoperative by the 1950 enactment of Part III. 3. The doctrine of severability was applied by the Supreme Court in the 1951 A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras case to excise Section 14 of the Preventive Detention Act. How many of the statements given above are correct?

Only one
Only two
All three
None

Explanation: Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is correct as the Supreme Court in A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) applied the doctrine of severability to strike down Section 14 of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, while upholding the rest of the Act. Statement 1 is incorrect because the doctrine of severability is rooted in Article 13 and was applied by the Supreme Court long before the 1973 Kesavananda Bharati case, which established the Basic Structure doctrine. Statement 2 is incorrect because the doctrine of eclipse applies to pre-constitutional laws that become inconsistent with fundamental rights, rendering them 'eclipsed' and unenforceable, but they are not 'revived' by the 1950 enactment of Part III; rather, they remain dormant until the constitutional inconsistency is removed.

Consider the following statements regarding Severability in the context of Fundamental Rights: 1. Under the Doctrine of Severability, if the valid and invalid parts of a law are so inextricably linked that they cannot be separated, the entire enactment is declared void. 2. The test of severability determines whether the legislature would have enacted the valid portion of a statute had it known that the invalid portion was unconstitutional. 3. The Supreme Court in the 1954 case of R.M.D. Chamarbaugwalla v. Union of India established that the doctrine applies to both pre-constitutional and post-constitutional laws. How many of the statements given above are correct?

Only one
Only two
All three
None

Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is correct as the doctrine mandates that only the repugnant portion of a statute is struck down, unless the valid and invalid parts are inseparable, rendering the whole act void. Statement 2 is correct because the 'test of severability' focuses on legislative intent, evaluating if the legislature would have passed the law without the unconstitutional component. Statement 3 is correct as the 1954 R.M.D. Chamarbaugwalla case clarified that the doctrine applies to both pre-constitutional laws (under Article 13(1)) and post-constitutional laws (under Article 13(2)), ensuring that the entire statute is not invalidated due to a minor unconstitutional provision.

Consider the following statements regarding Effect of severability on the remaining statute: 1. The doctrine of eclipse is often cited in the 1950 Gopalan judgment as the primary mechanism for the permanent invalidation of post-constitutional laws that violate the basic structure of the Constitution. 2. The doctrine of severability, as applied in A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950), allows the court to excise unconstitutional portions of a statute while maintaining the validity of the remaining provisions. 3. Article 13(1) of the Indian Constitution provides that laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights are void to the extent of such inconsistency, forming the constitutional basis for the doctrine of severability. How many of the statements given above are correct?

Only one
Only two
All three
None

Explanation: Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is correct as the doctrine of severability, rooted in the principle of 'ut res magis valeat quam pereat', allows courts to uphold the constitutional parts of a statute by excising only the offending provisions. Statement 3 is correct because Article 13(1) explicitly declares pre-constitutional laws void only to the extent of their inconsistency with Fundamental Rights, providing the statutory foundation for severability. Statement 1 is incorrect because the doctrine of eclipse applies to pre-constitutional laws (making them dormant rather than permanently invalid) and is distinct from the doctrine of severability, and the basic structure doctrine was only established in the 1973 Kesavananda Bharati case, not the 1950 Gopalan judgment.

Consider the following statements regarding Article 13(1) and pre-constitutional laws: 1. In the 1954 case of Behram Khurshid Pesikaka v. State of Bombay, the Supreme Court held that the doctrine of severability creates a total nullity of the entire statute if any part of it conflicts with Article 14. 2. The doctrine of eclipse is considered a sub-component of the doctrine of severability, and it functions to revive a void pre-constitutional law once the constitutional amendment removing the inconsistency is passed. 3. Section 6 of the 1897 General Clauses Act provides the legal basis for the doctrine of severability, allowing courts to strike down an entire act if a single provision is found to be ultra vires the Constitution. How many of the statements given above are correct?

Only one
Only two
All three
None

Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect. Statement 1 is incorrect because the doctrine of severability mandates that only the inconsistent part of a statute is declared void, not the entire act. Statement 2 is incorrect as the doctrine of eclipse and the doctrine of severability are distinct legal principles; the former renders a pre-constitutional law inoperative rather than void, allowing it to be 'revived' by a constitutional amendment, whereas severability involves cutting away the offending portion. Statement 3 is incorrect because Section 6 of the General Clauses Act deals with the effect of repeal and does not provide the legal basis for severability, which is instead derived from the judicial interpretation of Article 13 itself.

Consider the following statements regarding Severability of penal provisions in statutes: 1. The 1967 Golaknath v. State of Punjab ruling provides for the retrospective application of the doctrine of severability to all pre-constitutional penal statutes, including those enacted under the Government of India Act 1935. 2. The doctrine of severability operates on the principle that the valid and invalid parts of a statute are independent and distinct, allowing the former to survive the invalidation of the latter. 3. In the 1954 case of State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara, the Supreme Court utilized the doctrine to sever provisions of the Bombay Prohibition Act that infringed upon the fundamental rights of citizens. How many of the statements given above are correct?

Only one
Only two
All three
None

Explanation: Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is correct as the doctrine of severability (Article 13) ensures that only the unconstitutional portion of a statute is struck down, provided the remaining part is functionally independent. Statement 3 is correct because in State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara (1951), the Supreme Court severed specific invalid provisions of the Bombay Prohibition Act while upholding the rest of the legislation. Statement 1 is incorrect because the doctrine of severability is primarily rooted in Article 13(1) for pre-constitutional laws, and the Golaknath case (1967) is famously associated with the prospective overruling of the power of Parliament to amend Fundamental Rights, not the retrospective application of severability to 1935 Act statutes.

Consider the following statements regarding Constitutional validity of partially invalid Acts: 1. In the 1950 case of A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, the Supreme Court applied the principle of severability to uphold the validity of the Preventive Detention Act despite the invalidity of Section 14. 2. The application of severability in the 1992 Indra Sawhney judgment allowed for the partial retention of reservation policies while striking down the specific sub-clauses related to economic criteria. 3. The test of severability, as articulated in the 1952 R.M.D. Chamarbaugwalla case, focuses on whether the legislature would have enacted the valid portion of the statute had it known the remaining portion was invalid. How many of the statements given above are correct?

Only one
Only two
All three
None

Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 1 is correct as the Supreme Court in A.K. Gopalan (1950) struck down only Section 14 of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, while upholding the rest of the Act. Statement 3 is correct because the R.M.D. Chamarbaugwalla (1957) judgment established the 'test of severability,' determining if the legislature would have enacted the valid parts independently. Statement 2 is incorrect because the Indra Sawhney (1992) case did not use the doctrine of severability to retain reservation policies; rather, it upheld the 27% OBC reservation while striking down the 10% reservation for economically weaker sections as unconstitutional at that time.

Consider the following statements regarding Severability of void-ab-initio provisions: 1. Article 13(2) of the Indian Constitution encompasses the power of the judiciary to strike down laws, and it is associated with the application of severability to laws enacted by the British Parliament prior to 1947. 2. The 1954 Behram Khurshed Pesikaka v. State of Bombay ruling refers to the distinction between void and voidable laws, and it provides for the application of severability to fundamental rights violations occurring in private contracts. 3. The Doctrine of Eclipse, as established in the 1951 Keshavan Madhava Menon v. State of Bombay case, provides for the automatic revival of void-ab-initio post-constitutional laws once the constitutional barrier is removed. How many of the statements given above are correct?

Only one
Only two
All three
None

Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect. Statement 1 is incorrect because Article 13(2) applies to post-constitutional laws, whereas pre-constitutional laws are governed by Article 13(1). Statement 2 is incorrect as the doctrine of severability applies to legislative enactments, not private contracts, and the Behram case primarily clarified that laws violating fundamental rights are not nullities but merely unenforceable against citizens. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Doctrine of Eclipse applies only to pre-constitutional laws (Article 13(1)), while post-constitutional laws that violate fundamental rights are void-ab-initio and cannot be revived by the removal of a constitutional barrier.

Consider the following statements regarding Legislative competence and severability: 1. The principle of severability allows the judiciary to rewrite the defective portions of a statute to align with constitutional standards, a power derived from the 1952 Shankari Prasad v. Union of India ruling. 2. In the 1967 I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab judgment, the court utilized the severability test to separate the property rights provisions from the Ninth Schedule, thereby protecting the validity of the Land Ceiling Acts. 3. The Supreme Court invoked the doctrine of severability in the 1973 Kesavananda Bharati case to excise the specific clauses of the 24th Amendment that sought to limit the scope of judicial review over constitutional changes. How many of the statements given above are correct?

Only one
Only two
All three
None

Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect. Statement 1 is incorrect because the doctrine of severability (Article 13) allows the court to strike down only the unconstitutional portion of a statute, not to rewrite or amend it. Statement 2 is incorrect as the Golaknath case dealt with the prospective overruling of the power to amend Fundamental Rights, not the severability of the Ninth Schedule. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Kesavananda Bharati judgment upheld the validity of the 24th Amendment while establishing the Basic Structure doctrine, rather than excising clauses through severability.

Consider the following statements regarding Distinction between void and voidable statutes: 1. The doctrine of eclipse applies to post-constitutional laws, which renders a statute voidable from the date of enactment until the legislature amends the parent provision to align with constitutional standards. 2. The doctrine of severability, as articulated in A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950), allows the court to excise the unconstitutional portion of a statute while maintaining the validity of the remaining provisions. 3. In the case of Behram Khurshed Pesikaka v. State of Bombay (1955), the Supreme Court established that the doctrine of severability applies to both pre-constitutional and post-constitutional laws with equal legal weight. How many of the statements given above are correct?

Only one
Only two
All three
None

Explanation: Statement 2 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect. Statement 2 is correct as the doctrine of severability, affirmed in A.K. Gopalan (1950), allows courts to strike down only the unconstitutional parts of a law if they are separable from the valid portions. Statement 1 is incorrect because the doctrine of eclipse applies to pre-constitutional laws (making them dormant rather than void ab initio), whereas post-constitutional laws that violate fundamental rights are void ab initio under Article 13(2). Statement 3 is incorrect because the Supreme Court in Behram Khurshed Pesikaka (1955) clarified that while the doctrine of severability applies to both, the doctrine of eclipse is restricted to pre-constitutional laws, and post-constitutional laws infringing on fundamental rights are considered void from their inception.

Consider the following statements regarding Test of severability and legislative intent: 1. The 1973 Kesavananda Bharati judgment established the doctrine of severability as a component of the basic structure, and it prevents the Parliament from using the amendment process to excise any part of the Preamble. 2. If the valid portion of an Act is distinct and independent from the invalid portion, the court preserves the former, provided the statute remains functional and complete in its operation. 3. The doctrine is inapplicable when the valid and invalid provisions are so interwoven that the removal of the unconstitutional part alters the fundamental character or objective of the legislation. How many of the statements given above are correct?

Only one
Only two
All three
None

Explanation: Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 1 is incorrect because the doctrine of severability is a principle of statutory interpretation derived from Article 13, not a component of the Basic Structure doctrine established in the 1973 Kesavananda Bharati case. Statement 2 is correct as it reflects the judicial practice of upholding the constitutional portion of a statute if it remains functional and independent after the invalid part is removed. Statement 3 is correct because courts apply the 'test of severability' to ensure that if the remaining provisions cannot stand alone or if the legislative intent is fundamentally altered, the entire Act must be struck down.

Consider the following statements regarding Effect of severability on the remaining statute: 1. Judicial review under Article 32 allows the Supreme Court to apply the doctrine of severability to international treaties ratified before 1950, provided those treaties contain provisions that conflict with the fundamental rights of citizens. 2. The principle of severability allows the executive branch to notify the removal of unconstitutional sections of a statute without seeking legislative approval, a practice codified in the 1973 constitutional amendments. 3. The doctrine of severability is applicable to both pre-constitutional and post-constitutional laws, as established by the judicial interpretation of Article 13 in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973). How many of the statements given above are correct?

Only one
Only two
All three
None

Explanation: Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is correct because Article 13 mandates that laws inconsistent with fundamental rights are void to the extent of such inconsistency, a principle applied to both pre-constitutional (Art 13(1)) and post-constitutional (Art 13(2)) laws, notably affirmed in cases like A.K. Gopalan and Kesavananda Bharati. Statement 1 is incorrect because the doctrine of severability applies to domestic statutes under Article 13, not international treaties, which are governed by different principles of international law and executive treaty-making power. Statement 2 is incorrect because the doctrine is a judicial tool used by courts to preserve the valid parts of a statute, not an executive power to amend or notify the removal of sections, and no such 1973 amendment exists.

Consider the following statements regarding Severability of administrative rules and regulations: 1. Section 15 of the 1897 General Clauses Act provides a mechanism for the automatic revival of repealed administrative rules if the parent statute is declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. 2. Under the 1950 General Clauses Act, the executive branch possesses the authority to excise invalid portions of subordinate legislation without seeking prior judicial intervention from the High Courts. 3. The 1992 Indra Sawhney judgment expanded the scope of severability to include the entire framework of administrative reservations, allowing the court to strike down individual clauses while preserving the preamble of the policy. How many of the statements given above are correct?

Only one
Only two
All three
None

Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect. Statement 1 is incorrect because Section 15 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, deals with the construction of references to re-enacted provisions, not the automatic revival of rules upon a statute being declared unconstitutional. Statement 2 is incorrect as the executive cannot unilaterally excise invalid portions of subordinate legislation; the doctrine of severability is a judicial tool applied by courts under Article 13 to determine if the valid portion can survive independently. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Indra Sawhney judgment (1992) dealt with the constitutional validity of reservations under Article 16(4) and did not establish a general rule allowing the executive to selectively excise clauses of reservation policies while preserving preambles.

Consider the following statements regarding Article 13(1) and pre-constitutional laws: 1. The doctrine of severability originated from the 1897 General Clauses Act, which provides the interpretive framework for determining the validity of colonial-era statutes in post-independence courts. 2. The 1951 judgment in State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara clarified that the doctrine of severability applies to both pre-constitutional and post-constitutional laws in India. 3. Article 13(2) of the Constitution applies to pre-constitutional laws enacted before January 26, 1950, while Article 13(1) governs the legislative competence of post-constitutional enactments. How many of the statements given above are correct?

Only one
Only two
All three
None

Explanation: Statement 2 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect. Statement 2 is correct as the Supreme Court in State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara (1951) affirmed that the doctrine of severability applies to both pre- and post-constitutional laws to ensure only the offending portions are struck down. Statement 1 is incorrect because the doctrine is a judicial creation derived from constitutional interpretation, not the General Clauses Act of 1897. Statement 3 is incorrect because it reverses the constitutional provisions: Article 13(1) deals with pre-constitutional laws (void to the extent of inconsistency with Fundamental Rights), while Article 13(2) prohibits the state from making laws that abridge Fundamental Rights post-commencement.

Consider the following statements regarding Article 13(2) and post-constitutional laws: 1. The Supreme Court in A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras established the doctrine of severability to address the constitutionality of the Preventive Detention Act of 1950, which was later incorporated into the Ninth Schedule. 2. The principle of eclipse is often confused with severability, yet the doctrine of severability was first introduced in the Government of India Act 1935 to manage the transition of colonial laws into the independent legal framework. 3. Under the interpretation of Article 13(2), the legislature possesses the inherent power to enact laws that are partially unconstitutional, provided the President of India issues a notification under Article 372 to validate the remaining sections. How many of the statements given above are correct?

Only one
Only two
All three
None

Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect. Statement 1 is incorrect because the doctrine of severability was first articulated by the Supreme Court in A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) regarding the Preventive Detention Act, but it was not incorporated into the Ninth Schedule; the Ninth Schedule was introduced by the 1st Amendment Act of 1951. Statement 2 is incorrect because while the principle of severability has roots in the Government of India Act 1935, the doctrine as applied to post-constitutional laws under Article 13(2) is a judicial innovation of the Supreme Court, not a colonial transition mechanism. Statement 3 is incorrect because Article 13(2) explicitly prohibits the state from making any law that takes away or abridges fundamental rights, and the President has no constitutional authority under Article 372 to validate partially unconstitutional laws enacted by the legislature.

Consider the following statements regarding Severability of penal provisions in statutes: 1. The 1950 Constitution (First Amendment) Act incorporated the doctrine of severability into Article 368, and the Supreme Court subsequently applied this provision in the 1951 Shankari Prasad case to limit judicial review of penal laws. 2. The doctrine of severability is derived from Article 13(1) of the Indian Constitution, which renders laws inconsistent with fundamental rights void to the extent of such inconsistency. 3. In the 1950 case of A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, the Supreme Court applied the doctrine to uphold the validity of the Preventive Detention Act despite striking down Section 14. How many of the statements given above are correct?

Only one
Only two
All three
None

Explanation: Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is correct as Article 13(1) mandates that pre-constitutional laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights are void only to the extent of such inconsistency, forming the basis of the doctrine. Statement 3 is correct because in A.K. Gopalan (1950), the Supreme Court struck down Section 14 of the Preventive Detention Act as unconstitutional while upholding the validity of the remaining provisions. Statement 1 is incorrect because the doctrine of severability is a judicial principle of statutory interpretation derived from Article 13, not an amendment to Article 368, and the Shankari Prasad case (1951) dealt with the validity of constitutional amendments, not the limitation of judicial review over penal laws via severability.

Consider the following statements regarding A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) ruling: 1. The 1950 judgment established that if the valid and invalid portions of a law are so inextricably bound that they cannot be separated, the entire act fails. 2. In A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, the petitioner challenged his detention under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, citing violations of Articles 19, 21, and 22. 3. The Supreme Court observed that the Doctrine of Severability is a rule of construction used to save the valid parts of a statute from being struck down along with the invalid parts. How many of the statements given above are correct?

Only one
Only two
All three
None

Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. All three statements are correct because the A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) case famously applied the Doctrine of Severability, which dictates that if a statute's invalid provisions are inseparable from the valid ones, the entire law must be struck down. The petitioner, A.K. Gopalan, challenged his detention under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, arguing it infringed upon his fundamental rights under Articles 19, 21, and 22, though the Court ultimately upheld the Act while severing only Section 14. Consequently, the Doctrine of Severability functions as a vital rule of statutory construction, ensuring that the judiciary preserves the constitutional validity of a law by isolating and invalidating only the unconstitutional portions.

Consider the following statements regarding Constitutional validity of partially invalid Acts: 1. The doctrine of eclipse is a procedural subset of severability that applies to post-constitutional laws enacted after the 1950 commencement of the Constitution. 2. In the 1967 Golaknath case, the court utilized the severability doctrine to distinguish between ordinary legislative power and the constituent power defined in Article 368. 3. Under the 1954 Berubari Union reference, the court utilized the severability doctrine to separate the executive power of territorial cession from the legislative power of constitutional amendment. How many of the statements given above are correct?

Only one
Only two
All three
None

Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect. Statement 1 is incorrect because the doctrine of eclipse applies to pre-constitutional laws that become inconsistent with fundamental rights, not post-constitutional laws. Statement 2 is incorrect as the Golaknath case (1967) focused on the amendability of fundamental rights under Article 368 rather than the doctrine of severability. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Berubari Union case (1960) dealt with the procedure for ceding territory via Article 368, not the application of the severability doctrine to separate executive and legislative powers.

Consider the following statements regarding Effect of severability on the remaining statute: 1. In the case of R.M.D. Chamarbaugwalla v. Union of India (1957), the Supreme Court held that the intention of the legislature is the primary factor in determining whether the valid parts of an act can survive the removal of the invalid parts. 2. Under the provisions of Article 368, the doctrine of severability applies to constitutional amendments, allowing the judiciary to strike down specific clauses while preserving the integrity of the original 1950 document. 3. The 1957 Chamarbaugwalla ruling established that if the valid and invalid portions of a statute are inextricably linked, the entire act is considered void ab initio under the doctrine of pith and substance. How many of the statements given above are correct?

Only one
Only two
All three
None

Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect. Statement 1 is correct as the 1957 R.M.D. Chamarbaugwalla case established that the legislature's intention is the primary test to determine if valid provisions can survive the excision of invalid ones. Statement 2 is incorrect because the doctrine of severability does not apply to constitutional amendments; the Supreme Court's 'Basic Structure' doctrine (Kesavananda Bharati case) is used instead, which does not permit the severing of amendments that violate the Constitution's core identity. Statement 3 is incorrect because the 'pith and substance' doctrine is used to determine the legislative competence of a law regarding subject matter, whereas the doctrine of severability is used to salvage valid parts of a statute that contains unconstitutional provisions.

Consider the following statements regarding Constitutional limitations on the power of severance: 1. In the R.M.D. Chamarbaugwalla v. Union of India case of 1957, the court held that the doctrine of severability applies to both pre-constitutional and post-constitutional laws without distinction. 2. Article 13(1) of the Indian Constitution provides that laws inconsistent with fundamental rights shall be void to the extent of such inconsistency, forming the legal basis for the doctrine. 3. The 42nd Amendment Act of 1976 incorporated the doctrine of severability into Article 368 to limit the judicial review powers of the High Courts. How many of the statements given above are correct?

Only one
Only two
All three
None

Explanation: Statement 2 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect. Statement 2 is correct as Article 13(1) mandates that pre-constitutional laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights are void only to the extent of such inconsistency, establishing the legal foundation for severability. Statement 1 is incorrect because while the R.M.D. Chamarbaugwalla case (1957) affirmed the doctrine, the Supreme Court clarified that the principle of severability applies differently to pre-constitutional and post-constitutional laws based on the specific language of Articles 13(1) and 13(2). Statement 3 is incorrect because the doctrine of severability is a judicial principle derived from Article 13, and it was never incorporated into Article 368 by the 42nd Amendment Act of 1976.

Consider the following statements regarding Doctrine of Eclipse vs Doctrine of Severability: 1. The 1951 Shankari Prasad case established the Doctrine of Eclipse as a mechanism for post-constitutional laws, allowing the judiciary to revive statutes that were initially struck down for violating Article 14. 2. The Doctrine of Severability, as applied in A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950), allows the court to excise only the unconstitutional portion of a statute while maintaining the validity of the remainder. 3. The Doctrine of Severability originated from the 1935 Government of India Act, and it functions by nullifying the entire legislative enactment if a single provision is found to be in conflict with the Directive Principles. How many of the statements given above are correct?

Only one
Only two
All three
None

Explanation: Statement 2 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect. Statement 2 is correct because the Doctrine of Severability, notably applied in A.K. Gopalan (1950), allows courts to separate the valid parts of a law from the unconstitutional ones, provided the remainder remains functional. Statement 1 is incorrect because the Doctrine of Eclipse applies to pre-constitutional laws (Bhikhaji Narain Dhiras v. State of M.P., 1955), not post-constitutional ones, and it does not apply to violations of Article 14 in the manner described. Statement 3 is incorrect because the doctrine is not derived from the 1935 Act, and it does not nullify the entire enactment for violating Directive Principles, as these are non-justiciable.

Consider the following statements regarding Doctrine of pith and substance relationship: 1. In the A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) case, the Supreme Court applied the Doctrine of Severability to uphold the validity of the remaining provisions of the Preventive Detention Act after striking down Section 14. 2. The Doctrine of Severability is derived from Article 13(1) of the Indian Constitution, which renders pre-constitutional laws void to the extent of their inconsistency with fundamental rights. 3. The Doctrine of Pith and Substance was first codified in the Government of India Act 1935, and it allows the Union Parliament to override State List entries whenever a law incidentally touches upon subjects in the Concurrent List. How many of the statements given above are correct?

Only one
Only two
All three
None

Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is incorrect. Statement 1 is correct as the Supreme Court in A.K. Gopalan (1950) applied the doctrine of severability to invalidate only Section 14 while upholding the rest of the Preventive Detention Act. Statement 2 is correct because Article 13(1) mandates that pre-constitutional laws inconsistent with Part III are void only to the extent of such inconsistency, forming the constitutional basis for severability. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Doctrine of Pith and Substance is a judicial interpretation evolved by courts to resolve legislative conflicts under the Seventh Schedule, not a codified provision of the Government of India Act 1935, and it does not grant the Union an automatic override power over the State List.

Consider the following statements regarding Severability of void-ab-initio provisions: 1. The principle of pith and substance, often cited in the 1955 State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara case, allows for the severance of legislative entries in the Seventh Schedule to resolve conflicts between Union and State lists. 2. The Supreme Court in the 1960 Berubari Union case clarified that if the valid and invalid parts of a statute are so inextricably linked that they cannot be separated, the entire act is declared void-ab-initio. 3. The 1973 Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala judgment includes provisions for the basic structure doctrine, and it provides for the severance of constitutional amendments that contradict the original 1950 text of the preamble. How many of the statements given above are correct?

Only one
Only two
All three
None

Explanation: Statement 2 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect. Statement 2 is correct as the doctrine of severability, often applied in cases like A.K. Gopalan (1950), mandates that if valid and invalid provisions are inextricably linked, the entire statute fails. Statement 1 is incorrect because the 'pith and substance' doctrine is used to determine the true nature of legislation under the Seventh Schedule, not to sever legislative entries themselves. Statement 3 is incorrect because while Kesavananda Bharati (1973) established the Basic Structure doctrine, it does not provide for the severance of constitutional amendments based on the 1950 preamble text, as the preamble is an integral part of the Constitution subject to amendment under Article 368.

Consider the following statements regarding Test of severability and legislative intent: 1. In the 1950 case of A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, the Supreme Court applied the doctrine to uphold the validity of the Preventive Detention Act despite striking down Section 14 as unconstitutional. 2. The doctrine of severability finds its primary constitutional basis in Article 13(1) of the Indian Constitution, which renders pre-constitutional laws void to the extent of their inconsistency with fundamental rights. 3. The test of severability, as articulated in the 1952 R.M.D. Chamarbaugwalla case, examines whether the legislature would have enacted the valid portion of a statute had it known the invalid portion was void. How many of the statements given above are correct?

Only one
Only two
All three
None

Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is correct as the Supreme Court in A.K. Gopalan (1950) struck down Section 14 of the Preventive Detention Act for violating Article 22(5) while upholding the rest of the Act. Statement 2 is correct because Article 13(1) explicitly states that pre-constitutional laws are void only 'to the extent of such inconsistency,' providing the textual basis for the doctrine. Statement 3 is correct because the R.M.D. Chamarbaugwalla (1957) judgment established the 'legislative intent' test, determining if the valid and invalid parts are so inextricably bound that the legislature would not have enacted the law without the invalid portion.

Consider the following statements regarding Application of severability in tax laws: 1. Under the GST Council framework established in 2016, the doctrine of severability allows the Union government to unilaterally strike down state-level tax exemptions that overlap with the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act. 2. The 1961 Income Tax Act incorporates the severability doctrine through Section 298, which provides for the automatic invalidation of any tax clause found to be in conflict with the Directive Principles of State Policy. 3. The doctrine of severability, as articulated in Article 13(1) of the Constitution, allows the courts to excise only the unconstitutional portion of a tax statute while upholding the remainder. How many of the statements given above are correct?

Only one
Only two
All three
None

Explanation: Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is correct as the Doctrine of Severability, rooted in Article 13(1), empowers courts to strike down only the unconstitutional portion of a statute if it is separable from the valid parts, ensuring the remainder survives. Statement 1 is incorrect because the GST Council is a recommendatory body under Article 279A, and the Union cannot unilaterally strike down state-level exemptions. Statement 2 is incorrect because Section 298 of the Income Tax Act deals with the power to remove difficulties in giving effect to the Act, not the automatic invalidation of clauses based on Directive Principles.

Consider the following statements regarding Impact of the 24th Constitutional Amendment: 1. In the Kesavananda Bharati case of 1973, the Supreme Court held that the 24th Amendment successfully removed the doctrine of severability from the ambit of Article 368. 2. The 25th Constitutional Amendment, passed alongside the 24th, established that the doctrine of severability is the primary mechanism for resolving conflicts between Directive Principles and Fundamental Rights. 3. The 24th Amendment modified Article 13(2) to state that the doctrine of severability applies to legislative acts, but it excludes constitutional amendments passed under the procedure of Article 368. How many of the statements given above are correct?

Only one
Only two
All three
None

Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect. All three statements are incorrect because the 24th Amendment (1971) was enacted to nullify the Golaknath judgment by asserting Parliament's power to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, via Article 368. Statement 1 is false as the Kesavananda Bharati case established the 'Basic Structure' doctrine, which limits, rather than removes, the amending power. Statement 2 is false because the 25th Amendment primarily prioritized certain Directive Principles over Articles 14, 19, and 31, not the doctrine of severability. Statement 3 is false because the 24th Amendment explicitly added Article 13(4), stating that nothing in Article 13 shall apply to any amendment made under Article 368, thereby insulating amendments from judicial review based on Fundamental Rights, not defining the scope of severability.

Consider the following statements regarding Severability in delegated legislation: 1. The doctrine of severability is applied to delegated legislation under Article 13(1) of the Constitution, allowing courts to excise only the invalid portions of a rule while retaining the remainder if they are functionally independent. 2. The principle of severability in administrative law enables a delegated authority to preserve the constitutional validity of a regulation when a specific clause exceeds the parent Act's scope, provided the core objective remains intact. 3. In the 1954 case of R.M.D. Chamarbaugwalla v. Union of India, the Supreme Court established that the test for severability rests on the intention of the legislature to determine if the valid and invalid parts form a single integrated scheme. How many of the statements given above are correct?

Only one
Only two
All three
None

Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. The doctrine of severability, rooted in Article 13, allows courts to strike down only the unconstitutional portions of a law if they are separable from the valid parts, a principle extended to delegated legislation to preserve the parent Act's intent. Statement 2 is correct as it reflects the administrative law application where courts excise ultra vires clauses to maintain the regulation's core objective. Statement 3 is correct because the 1954 R.M.D. Chamarbaugwalla case established the 'test of severability,' emphasizing that if the valid and invalid parts are so intertwined that they form a single integrated scheme, the entire provision must fail.

Consider the following statements regarding Legislative competence and severability: 1. The Doctrine of Severability is rooted in Article 13(1) of the Indian Constitution, which renders laws inconsistent with fundamental rights void to the extent of such inconsistency. 2. The Doctrine of Eclipse, as defined in the 1955 Bhikaji Narain Dhakras case, functions as a sub-category of severability by allowing pre-constitutional laws to remain dormant until the 1950 Constitution removed the shadow of invalidity. 3. Article 254 of the Constitution provides for the doctrine of severability in cases of repugnancy between central and state laws, enabling the court to strike down the conflicting provisions while retaining the state legislation. How many of the statements given above are correct?

Only one
Only two
All three
None

Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect. Statement 1 is correct as Article 13(1) mandates that pre-constitutional laws inconsistent with Part III are void only to the extent of such inconsistency, forming the basis of the Doctrine of Severability. Statement 2 is incorrect because the Doctrine of Eclipse and the Doctrine of Severability are distinct legal principles; the former applies to laws that become unenforceable due to a constitutional 'shadow' but are not necessarily 'severed' or void ab initio. Statement 3 is incorrect because Article 254 deals with the 'Doctrine of Repugnancy,' which determines the priority of central laws over state laws, and it does not inherently provide for severability in the manner described.

Consider the following statements regarding Role of the Supreme Court in partial invalidation: 1. The Doctrine of Severability is derived from Article 13 of the Indian Constitution, which empowers the judiciary to declare laws void to the extent of their inconsistency with fundamental rights. 2. In the A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) case, the Supreme Court applied the doctrine to uphold the validity of the Preventive Detention Act after striking down Section 14. 3. The test of severability, as articulated in the R.M.D. Chamarbaugwalla v. Union of India (1957) judgment, examines whether the valid portions of a statute remain functional without the invalid parts. How many of the statements given above are correct?

Only one
Only two
All three
None

Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is correct as Article 13 mandates that laws inconsistent with Part III are void only to the extent of such inconsistency, forming the basis of severability. Statement 2 is correct because, in A.K. Gopalan (1950), the Court struck down Section 14 of the Preventive Detention Act while upholding the rest of the statute. Statement 3 is correct as the R.M.D. Chamarbaugwalla (1957) judgment established the 'test of severability,' which determines if the legislature would have enacted the valid portion independently had it known the rest was invalid.

Consider the following statements regarding Application of severability in tax laws: 1. The 1950 Constitution, as interpreted in the Kameshwar Singh case, provides that the doctrine of severability applies to tax laws only when the invalid provision constitutes more than fifty percent of the total fiscal legislation. 2. The Supreme Court judgment in the 1978 Maneka Gandhi case expanded the doctrine of severability to include the power of judicial review over the administrative implementation of tax collection procedures by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. 3. The 1922 Indian Income Tax Act contained a specific clause regarding severability that allowed the High Courts to rewrite ambiguous tax brackets to ensure the revenue collection targets remained consistent with the annual budget. How many of the statements given above are correct?

Only one
Only two
All three
None

Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect. All three statements are factually incorrect: the doctrine of severability, as established in A.K. Gopalan and R.M.D. Chamarbaugwalla cases, does not rely on a fifty percent threshold, nor is it limited to tax laws. The Maneka Gandhi case (1978) fundamentally expanded the scope of Article 21 regarding 'procedure established by law' and due process, but it did not grant the judiciary the power to rewrite administrative tax collection procedures. Furthermore, the 1922 Indian Income Tax Act contained no such severability clause, as the judiciary is constitutionally prohibited from rewriting legislation or usurping the legislature's power to set tax brackets.

Consider the following statements regarding Impact of the 24th Constitutional Amendment: 1. Following the Golaknath judgment of 1967, the 24th Amendment was enacted to provide for the judicial application of the doctrine of severability to protect the basic structure of the Constitution. 2. The 24th Amendment Act integrated the doctrine of severability into the text of Article 13, effectively preventing the judiciary from declaring any constitutional amendment void in its entirety. 3. The 24th Amendment introduced Article 368(4), which formally codified the doctrine of severability to ensure that judicial review remains applicable to all constitutional amendments. How many of the statements given above are correct?

Only one
Only two
All three
None

Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect. All three statements are incorrect because the 24th Constitutional Amendment (1971) was enacted to nullify the Golaknath judgment by asserting Parliament's power to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, under Article 368. The amendment did not introduce the doctrine of severability; rather, it explicitly added Article 13(4) and 368(3) to state that Article 13 does not apply to constitutional amendments, thereby attempting to insulate them from judicial review. The doctrine of severability is a judicial principle originating from Article 13(1) and (2) to invalidate only the unconstitutional parts of a statute, whereas the 24th Amendment sought to exclude constitutional amendments from the scope of judicial scrutiny entirely, which was later countered by the Supreme Court in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) via the Basic Structure doctrine.

Consider the following statements regarding Impact of the 24th Constitutional Amendment: 1. Under the provisions of the 24th Amendment, the Supreme Court maintains the authority to apply the doctrine of severability to determine the validity of amendments based on the procedural requirements of Article 368. 2. The 24th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1971 restored the power of Parliament to amend any part of the Constitution, including Part III, thereby limiting the scope of the doctrine of severability regarding fundamental rights. 3. The 24th Amendment Act of 1971 incorporated the doctrine of severability into the Preamble, ensuring that the socialist and secular ideals remain immune to legislative modification. How many of the statements given above are correct?

Only one
Only two
All three
None

Explanation: Statement 2 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect. Statement 2 is correct because the 24th Amendment (1971) was enacted to nullify the Golaknath judgment, explicitly affirming Parliament's power to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, thus bypassing the restrictions that previously necessitated the doctrine of severability in that context. Statement 1 is incorrect because the doctrine of severability is a tool for judicial review of ordinary legislation under Article 13, not a mechanism for the judiciary to validate the procedural compliance of constitutional amendments under Article 368. Statement 3 is incorrect because the doctrine of severability was never incorporated into the Preamble, and the Preamble itself was amended by the 42nd Amendment (1976), not the 24th, to include the terms 'socialist' and 'secular'.

Consider the following statements regarding Severability of penal provisions in statutes: 1. The test of severability, as articulated in R.M.D. Chamarbaugwalla v. Union of India (1957), examines whether the legislature would have enacted the valid portion had it known the invalid portion was unconstitutional. 2. Section 15A of the Indian Penal Code, introduced by the 2013 amendment, does not prevent courts from applying the doctrine of severability to penal statutes containing vague or overbroad definitions. 3. Under the 1973 Kesavananda Bharati judgment, the Supreme Court established that the doctrine of severability applies to the entire constitutional text, allowing for the partial excision of fundamental rights if they conflict with the basic structure. How many of the statements given above are correct?

Only one
Only two
All three
None

Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is incorrect. Statement 1 is correct as the R.M.D. Chamarbaugwalla (1957) judgment established the 'intention of the legislature' test, determining if valid and invalid parts are so inextricably bound that they cannot be separated. Statement 2 is correct because the doctrine of severability remains a judicial tool under Article 13 to preserve the constitutionality of statutes, and no amendment has stripped courts of this power to excise unconstitutional portions of penal laws. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Kesavananda Bharati (1973) judgment established the 'Basic Structure Doctrine' to protect the Constitution from amendments, and it explicitly prohibits the excision or abrogation of fundamental rights that form the core of this structure, rather than allowing their partial removal.

Consider the following statements regarding Role of the Supreme Court in partial invalidation: 1. The doctrine prevents the total nullification of a statute when only a specific clause or section violates the constitutional scheme established under Part III of the Constitution. 2. Under the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act of 1976, the Supreme Court gained the authority to apply severability to constitutional amendments, a power first exercised in the Minerva Mills v. Union of India case. 3. The doctrine of severability originated from the 1935 Government of India Act, and the Supreme Court formalised its application in the 1948 judicial review of the Bombay Prohibition Act. How many of the statements given above are correct?

Only one
Only two
All three
None

Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect. Statement 1 is correct as the Doctrine of Severability (Article 13) allows courts to strike down only the unconstitutional portion of a law while preserving the rest, provided the valid parts are independent and functional. Statement 2 is incorrect because the power of judicial review over constitutional amendments is derived from the basic structure doctrine established in Kesavananda Bharati (1973), not the 42nd Amendment, which actually sought to curtail judicial power. Statement 3 is incorrect because the doctrine was formally established by the Supreme Court in A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950), not through the 1935 Act or the 1948 Bombay Prohibition Act case.

Consider the following statements regarding Severability of administrative rules and regulations: 1. Article 13(1) of the Indian Constitution provides that pre-constitutional laws inconsistent with fundamental rights are void to the extent of such inconsistency. 2. The 1973 Kesavananda Bharati ruling established the doctrine of severability as a core component of the basic structure, which prevents the legislature from amending the Constitution to remove judicial review. 3. The doctrine of severability, as applied to administrative rules, was famously articulated by the Supreme Court in the 1954 case of RMDC v. Union of India. How many of the statements given above are correct?

Only one
Only two
All three
None

Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 1 is correct as Article 13(1) mandates that pre-constitutional laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights are void only to the extent of their inconsistency, preserving the remainder. Statement 3 is correct because the 1957 (not 1954) RMDC v. Union of India case established the principles for severability, determining whether a statute's valid and invalid parts can be separated. Statement 2 is incorrect because the doctrine of severability is a principle of statutory interpretation derived from Article 13, not a component of the Basic Structure doctrine, which was established to limit the Parliament's amending power under Article 368.

Consider the following statements regarding Article 13(1) and pre-constitutional laws: 1. The doctrine of severability was applied by the Supreme Court in the 1950 case of A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras to preserve the valid portions of the Preventive Detention Act. 2. Article 13(1) of the Constitution of India renders pre-constitutional laws void only to the extent of their inconsistency with Part III fundamental rights. 3. Under the principle of severability, the judiciary examines whether the valid and invalid portions of a statute are so inextricably bound that the legislature would not have enacted the former without the latter. How many of the statements given above are correct?

Only one
Only two
All three
None

Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is correct as the Supreme Court in A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) applied the doctrine of severability to strike down Section 14 of the Preventive Detention Act while upholding the rest of the statute. Statement 2 is correct because Article 13(1) mandates that pre-constitutional laws are void only to the extent of their inconsistency with Fundamental Rights, rather than declaring the entire statute void ab initio. Statement 3 is correct as it accurately defines the 'test of severability,' which requires courts to determine if the valid and invalid parts are so intertwined that the legislature would not have enacted the law without the offending provision.

Consider the following statements regarding Article 13(2) and post-constitutional laws: 1. Article 13(2) prohibits the state from enacting laws that abridge fundamental rights, and the doctrine of severability is derived from the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act of 1976 to limit judicial review. 2. The Doctrine of Severability, as applied under Article 13(2), allows the judiciary to strike down only the offending portion of a post-constitutional law while preserving the remainder if the valid and invalid parts are distinct and independent. 3. In the 1954 case of R.M.D. Chamarbaugwalla v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that the principle of severability applies to both pre-constitutional and post-constitutional laws to prevent the entire statute from being declared void. How many of the statements given above are correct?

Only one
Only two
All three
None

Explanation: Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 1 is incorrect because the doctrine of severability is a judicial principle derived from Article 13 itself, not the 42nd Amendment, which actually sought to curtail judicial review. Statement 2 is correct as it accurately defines the doctrine, which ensures that only the unconstitutional parts of a law are struck down, provided they are separable from the valid parts. Statement 3 is correct because the Supreme Court in R.M.D. Chamarbaugwalla (1957) clarified that the principle of severability applies to both pre-constitutional and post-constitutional laws to ensure the survival of the valid portions of a statute.

Consider the following statements regarding Doctrine of pith and substance relationship: 1. The Doctrine of Severability originated from the 1886 Marbury v. Madison ruling in the United States, and it provides for the automatic invalidation of an entire statute if any single clause is found to be unconstitutional. 2. The judicial application of the Doctrine of Pith and Substance was notably established in the Privy Council case of Prafulla Kumar Mukherjee v. Bank of Commerce Ltd (1947). 3. The Doctrine of Pith and Substance is primarily utilized to resolve legislative conflicts between the Union List and the State List under the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. How many of the statements given above are correct?

Only one
Only two
All three
None

Explanation: Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 1 is incorrect because the Doctrine of Severability (Article 13) dictates that only the unconstitutional portion of a statute is struck down, not the entire act, and it is not derived from Marbury v. Madison. Statement 2 is correct as the Privy Council in Prafulla Kumar Mukherjee v. Bank of Commerce Ltd (1947) established that if a law in 'pith and substance' falls within the competence of the legislature, it is valid even if it incidentally encroaches on matters in another list. Statement 3 is correct because this doctrine is a judicial tool used to determine the true nature of legislation when there is an overlap or conflict between the legislative lists in the Seventh Schedule.

Consider the following statements regarding Test of severability and legislative intent: 1. The 1951 Shankari Prasad case introduced the doctrine of severability to the Indian legal system, and it was subsequently codified under the 1st Constitutional Amendment Act to limit judicial review of land reform laws. 2. The principle of 'pith and substance' is often invoked alongside severability to determine if the valid and invalid parts of a legislative enactment are so inextricably linked that they cannot be separated. 3. Justice S.R. Das, in the 1957 judgment concerning the Bombay Lotteries and Prize Competitions Control and Tax Act, emphasized that the intention of the legislature serves as the primary touchstone for severability. How many of the statements given above are correct?

Only one
Only two
All three
None

Explanation: Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 1 is incorrect because the doctrine of severability was first applied in the A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) case, not Shankari Prasad, and it is a judicial principle derived from Article 13 rather than a codification under the 1st Amendment. Statement 2 is correct as the 'pith and substance' doctrine helps courts determine if the legislature would have enacted the valid portion of a law even without the invalid part, which is central to severability. Statement 3 is correct because in R.M.D. Chamarbaugwalla v. Union of India (1957), Justice S.R. Das established that the primary test for severability is whether the legislature would have passed the act had it known the invalid portion would be struck down.

Consider the following statements regarding Article 13(2) and post-constitutional laws: 1. The doctrine of severability is applicable to constitutional amendments, as clarified by the Supreme Court in the Kesavananda Bharati judgment of 1973, which allows for the excision of specific clauses that violate the basic structure. 2. The test of severability involves determining the legislative intent, and the court looks to the Statement of Objects and Reasons attached to the 1951 First Amendment Act to decide if the invalid portion can be removed. 3. Article 13(2) functions as a limitation on the executive branch, and the doctrine of severability provides the legal basis for the President to veto specific sections of a bill before it receives assent under Article 111. How many of the statements given above are correct?

Only one
Only two
All three
None

Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect. Statement 1 is incorrect because the doctrine of severability applies to ordinary laws, whereas constitutional amendments are governed by the 'Basic Structure' doctrine established in Kesavananda Bharati (1973), which can invalidate an entire amendment if it violates the Constitution's core identity. Statement 2 is incorrect as the test of severability, famously articulated in A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950), focuses on whether the valid portion of a statute remains enforceable and meaningful without the invalid part, rather than relying on the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the 1951 Act. Statement 3 is incorrect because Article 13(2) acts as a limitation on the legislature, not the executive, and the doctrine of severability is a judicial tool for post-enactment review, not a mechanism for the President to selectively veto portions of a bill under Article 111.

Consider the following statements regarding Distinction between void and voidable statutes: 1. Under the provisions of the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951, the doctrine of severability was formally codified to ensure that no statute could be declared partially invalid by the High Courts. 2. The doctrine of pith and substance is used to determine whether a statute is void or voidable, providing the judiciary with the authority to invalidate an entire act if one provision exceeds the legislative competence. 3. The Supreme Court in Deep Chand v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1959) held that post-constitutional laws are void ab initio, and the doctrine of severability is applicable to them in the same manner as pre-constitutional laws. How many of the statements given above are correct?

Only one
Only two
All three
None

Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect. Statement 1 is incorrect because the doctrine of severability is a judicial principle derived from Article 13, not a creation of the First Amendment, and courts routinely declare statutes partially invalid to preserve the remainder. Statement 2 is incorrect as the doctrine of pith and substance is used to resolve legislative conflicts under the Seventh Schedule, whereas the doctrine of severability determines whether the valid parts of a law can survive the invalid ones. Statement 3 is incorrect because, while Deep Chand v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1959) established that post-constitutional laws are void ab initio, the Supreme Court held that the doctrine of eclipse does not apply to them, unlike pre-constitutional laws, though severability remains applicable to both.

Consider the following statements regarding Severability of administrative rules and regulations: 1. Administrative rules framed under the delegated legislation power of the 1951 Industrial Disputes Act are subject to the same judicial scrutiny regarding severability as primary statutes. 2. In the 1963 judgment of AK Gopalan v. State of Madras, the court held that the valid portion of a statute can be upheld if it remains functionally independent after the excision of the invalid part. 3. The test of severability involves determining whether the legislature would have enacted the valid part of the law had it known the remaining portion was unconstitutional. How many of the statements given above are correct?

Only one
Only two
All three
None

Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is correct as the Doctrine of Severability applies equally to delegated legislation and primary statutes to ensure constitutional compliance. Statement 2 is correct because the Supreme Court in AK Gopalan (1950, not 1963) established that if the valid portion of a law is functionally independent and the legislative intent remains intact, it can be saved from being struck down in its entirety. Statement 3 is correct as the 'test of severability' focuses on whether the legislature would have enacted the remaining valid provisions had they known the invalid parts were unconstitutional, a principle consistently upheld in Indian jurisprudence.

Doctrine Of Severability Practice

Performance Summary

Choose a Topic to Start Practice

Daily Current Affairs