Consider the following statements regarding Constitutional supremacy vs parliamentary sovereignty:
1. The 42nd Amendment Act of 1976 introduced Article 368(4), which sought to place constitutional amendments beyond judicial scrutiny, a provision later upheld by the Supreme Court in the Minerva Mills case of 1980.
2. The Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala judgment of 1973 established that the basic structure of the Constitution limits the amending power of the Parliament.
3. In the United Kingdom, the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty allows the legislature to enact or repeal any law, as observed in the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949.
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, while the 42nd Amendment did introduce Article 368(4), the Supreme Court struck it down as unconstitutional in the Minerva Mills case (1980), asserting that limited amending power is a basic feature of the Constitution. Statement 2 is correct as the 1973 Kesavananda Bharati judgment established the 'basic structure' doctrine, which prevents Parliament from altering the fundamental identity of the Constitution. Statement 3 is correct because the UK follows the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, where the legislature holds supreme legal authority, as exemplified by the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 which curtailed the powers of the House of Lords.
Consider the following statements regarding The concept of 'Basic Structure' as a safeguard for Rule of Law:
1. The doctrine of basic structure was applied in the Waman Rao v. Union of India case (1981) to clarify that amendments enacted after 24 April 1973 are subject to judicial review.
2. In the Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain case (1975), the Supreme Court invalidated a constitutional amendment that attempted to insulate the election of the Prime Minister from judicial scrutiny.
3. The Golaknath v. State of Punjab judgment of 1967 introduced the basic structure doctrine by holding that the fundamental rights form the core identity of the Constitution.
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 Waman Rao (1981) established 24 April 1973 (the date of the Kesavananda Bharati verdict) as the cut-off for judicial review of constitutional amendments. Statement 2 is correct because the Supreme Court in Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) struck down Clause 4 of Article 329-A, ruling that free and fair elections are a basic feature of the Constitution. Statement 3 is incorrect because, while Golaknath (1967) held that Parliament cannot abridge Fundamental Rights, the 'Basic Structure' doctrine was formally introduced later in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973).
Consider the following statements regarding Judicial review as a mechanism for upholding Rule of Law:
1. The Supreme Court's power to review administrative actions is derived from Article 226, which is limited to cases involving the violation of statutory provisions enacted by the Parliament after 1950.
2. The power of judicial review under Article 32 allows the Supreme Court to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights, serving as a primary check on legislative and executive actions.
3. In the Minerva Mills case of 1980, the Supreme Court held that judicial review is a basic feature of the Constitution and cannot be excluded even by a constitutional amendment.
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 power of judicial review is derived from Articles 13, 32, and 226, and it applies to all laws, not just those enacted after 1950. Statement 2 is correct as Article 32 empowers the Supreme Court to issue writs to protect fundamental rights, acting as a vital check on state power. Statement 3 is correct because the Minerva Mills case (1980) established that judicial review is an essential 'basic feature' of the Constitution, ensuring that the judiciary can strike down any amendment that violates the constitutional framework.
Consider the following statements regarding Rule of Law and the immunity of public officials:
1. Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, provides a procedural safeguard requiring prior government sanction for the prosecution of public servants for acts done in discharge of official duty.
2. Article 361 of the Indian Constitution provides personal immunity to the President and Governors from being answerable to any court for the exercise of their official powers.
3. The Supreme Court in the 1973 Kesavananda Bharati case identified the Rule of Law as a basic feature of the Constitution, limiting the scope of legislative immunity.
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 Section 197 of the CrPC mandates prior government sanction to protect public servants from malicious prosecution while performing official duties. Statement 2 is correct because Article 361 grants the President and Governors absolute immunity from court proceedings regarding the exercise of their powers and duties. Statement 3 is correct as the Supreme Court in the landmark Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) judgment established the Basic Structure doctrine, explicitly including the Rule of Law as a core feature that cannot be abrogated by legislative action.
Consider the following statements regarding Rule of Law in the context of delegated legislation:
1. The Supreme Court in the 1973 Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain case held that the Rule of Law is a basic feature of the Indian Constitution.
2. Article 13 of the Indian Constitution provides that any law inconsistent with or in derogation of fundamental rights is void, serving as a check on delegated legislation.
3. The 1960 Presidential Reference under Article 143 resulted in the Supreme Court declaring that delegated legislation is exempt from the procedural fairness requirements of the Principles of Natural Justice.
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 Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) affirmed that the Rule of Law is a basic feature of the Constitution. Statement 2 is correct because Article 13 explicitly defines 'law' to include ordinances, orders, and regulations, thereby subjecting delegated legislation to judicial review for Fundamental Rights compliance. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Principles of Natural Justice are not exempt; in fact, the judiciary consistently mandates that delegated legislation must adhere to the rule against bias and the right to a fair hearing, especially when such rules affect individual rights.
Consider the following statements regarding Role of the Attorney General in upholding legal standards:
1. The Attorney General submits a formal annual report to the Law Commission of India, detailing the legal advice provided to the Union Cabinet during the preceding fiscal year.
2. The office of the Attorney General was modeled after the British system of the Lord Chancellor, incorporating the dual responsibility of presiding over the Supreme Court and advising the executive.
3. The Attorney General possesses the authority to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against private citizens without obtaining prior consent from the Solicitor General of India.
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 Attorney General (AG) is not required to submit an annual report to the Law Commission; their duty is to provide advice to the Government of India as referred by the President. Statement 2 is incorrect as the office of the AG is modeled after the British Attorney General, not the Lord Chancellor, and the AG has no judicial role like presiding over the Supreme Court. Statement 3 is incorrect because, under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the AG can initiate criminal contempt proceedings either suo motu or with the consent of the Solicitor General, but they do not possess an absolute, independent authority to bypass established procedural requirements regarding consent.
Consider the following statements regarding The doctrine of proportionality in judicial scrutiny:
1. The proportionality framework in India is derived from the 1993 Supreme Court judgment in Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh, which focused on the right to education as a fundamental right.
2. The Supreme Court applied the proportionality test in the 1973 Kesavananda Bharati case to limit the Parliament's power to amend the Constitution under Article 368.
3. The 2019 judgment in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (Aadhaar case) clarified that the proportionality analysis applies to both legislative and executive actions affecting Article 21.
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 the 2017 K.S. Puttaswamy judgment (often associated with the 2019 Aadhaar verdict) formally adopted the four-pronged proportionality test to evaluate the constitutionality of state actions affecting fundamental rights. Statement 1 is incorrect because while Unni Krishnan (1993) discussed rights, the formal adoption of the proportionality test in India is primarily traced to the 2017 Puttaswamy judgment. Statement 2 is incorrect because the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) established the 'Basic Structure Doctrine,' not the proportionality test, which is a distinct legal standard for judicial review.
Consider the following statements regarding Dicey's conceptual framework of Rule of Law:
1. A.V. Dicey first articulated his conceptual framework of the Rule of Law in his 1885 work titled 'An Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution'.
2. The first pillar of Dicey's framework posits that no man is punishable or can be lawfully made to suffer in body or goods except for a distinct breach of law established in the ordinary legal manner.
3. Dicey's second principle asserts that every man, whatever his rank or condition, is subject to the ordinary law of the realm and amenable to the jurisdiction of ordinary tribunals.
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: A.V. Dicey formally introduced his Rule of Law doctrine in his seminal 1885 work, 'An Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution.' His first principle establishes the absence of arbitrary power, ensuring individuals are only punished for clear legal breaches, while his second principle mandates equality before the law, subjecting all citizens-regardless of status-to the same ordinary legal system and courts.
Consider the following statements regarding Principles of natural justice in administrative law:
1. The principle of 'open justice' is associated with the transparency of administrative tribunals, and the 1997 Vishaka guidelines established that these bodies function as courts of record with the power to punish for contempt under the Indian Penal Code.
2. The doctrine of 'necessity' acts as an exception to the rule against bias, allowing a disqualified person to participate in a decision when no other person is available, as codified under Section 12 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.
3. The 'post-decisional hearing' mechanism is a recognized procedural safeguard, and the 1981 Swadeshi Cotton Mills case allows for the total exclusion of pre-decisional natural justice whenever the government invokes the Essential Commodities Act.
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 Vishaka guidelines (1997) were judicial law-making to fill a legislative vacuum, not a statute granting tribunals the power to punish for contempt under the IPC. Statement 2 is incorrect as the doctrine of necessity is a common law principle developed through judicial precedents (e.g., Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana), not codified under Section 12 of the General Clauses Act. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Swadeshi Cotton Mills case (1981) established that pre-decisional natural justice is the rule and post-decisional hearing is an exception; it does not permit the total exclusion of natural justice simply by invoking the Essential Commodities Act.
Consider the following statements regarding Doctrine of separation of powers and constitutionalism:
1. The Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) judgment identified the separation of powers as a part of the basic structure of the Indian Constitution.
2. In the Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) case, the Supreme Court held that the exercise of judicial power by the legislature is incompatible with the constitutional scheme.
3. Article 50 of the Indian Constitution directs the State to take steps to separate the judiciary from the executive in the public services of the State.
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 Kesavananda Bharati (1973), the Supreme Court established the 'basic structure' doctrine, explicitly including the separation of powers as a fundamental feature of the Constitution. The Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) case reinforced this by striking down a constitutional amendment that attempted to adjudicate an election dispute, affirming that the legislature cannot usurp judicial functions. Finally, Article 50 is a Directive Principle of State Policy that mandates the separation of the judiciary from the executive to ensure judicial independence.
Consider the following statements regarding Rule of Law in the context of delegated legislation:
1. The Committee on Subordinate Legislation, established in 1953, scrutinizes the powers delegated by the Parliament to the executive to ensure they remain within the parent Act.
2. In the 1967 A.V. Dicey framework, the concept of Rule of Law emphasizes that no person is above the law and that the law is applied equally to all citizens.
3. The 1978 Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India judgment established that any executive action or delegated legislation affecting personal liberty undergoes the test of reasonableness under Article 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 Committee on Subordinate Legislation was indeed established in 1953 to perform parliamentary oversight on delegated powers. Statement 2 is correct because A.V. Dicey’s classic formulation of the Rule of Law, introduced in his 1885 work 'Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution' (often referenced in 1967 editions), remains the foundational doctrine emphasizing equality before the law and the absence of arbitrary power. Statement 3 is correct as the Maneka Gandhi (1978) judgment revolutionized Indian jurisprudence by linking Articles 14, 19, and 21, mandating that any executive or delegated action affecting liberty must be reasonable, non-arbitrary, and procedurally fair.
Consider the following statements regarding Equality before law vs equal protection of laws:
1. Under the doctrine of Rule of Law, the absence of arbitrary power implies that no individual is above the law, a principle reinforced by the Supreme Court in the ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla case of 1976.
2. The principle of Equal Protection of Laws implies that the state maintains a uniform standard of taxation for all income brackets, a practice upheld by the Supreme Court in the 1960 Income Tax Act review.
3. The concept of Rule of Law as defined by A.V. Dicey in his 1885 work, 'The Law of the Constitution', includes the provision that the judiciary holds the authority to review the legislative intent of all parliamentary statutes.
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 incorrect because the ADM Jabalpur case (1976) is infamously known for the suspension of the Rule of Law during the Emergency, rather than reinforcing it. Statement 2 is incorrect because Equal Protection of Laws allows for 'reasonable classification' (e.g., progressive taxation), not a uniform standard for all income brackets. Statement 3 is incorrect because A.V. Dicey's traditional concept of Rule of Law emphasizes parliamentary sovereignty and the absence of judicial review over legislative intent, whereas the Indian model incorporates judicial review as a basic feature.
Consider the following statements regarding Article 14 and the doctrine of equality before law:
1. The principle of reasonable classification allows the legislature to differentiate between groups, provided the classification is based on an intelligible differentia established by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act.
2. The doctrine of equality before law finds its origin in the British legal system, and the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights serves as the primary constitutional basis for its inclusion in Part III.
3. The Supreme Court in the Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) judgment held that Article 14, Article 19, and Article 21 are distinct silos that operate independently without any interrelationship.
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 principle of reasonable classification is a judicial doctrine evolved by the Supreme Court, not an amendment. Statement 2 is incorrect because while 'Equality before Law' is of British origin, its inclusion in Part III is based on the Indian Constitution itself, not the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Maneka Gandhi case established the 'Golden Triangle' theory, asserting that Articles 14, 19, and 21 are interconnected and must be read together to protect fundamental rights.
Consider the following statements regarding Doctrine of separation of powers and constitutionalism:
1. Article 121 of the Indian Constitution restricts parliamentary discussion regarding the conduct of any judge of the Supreme Court or a High Court in the discharge of their duties.
2. The Basic Structure doctrine, as applied in the Minerva Mills case of 1980, encompasses the principle of legislative supremacy over the judiciary in matters of constitutional amendment.
3. Article 122 of the Indian Constitution provides for the immunity of judicial proceedings from inquiry by the legislature, reflecting the separation of powers established by the Government of India Act 1935.
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 121 explicitly prohibits parliamentary discussion on the conduct of a judge of the Supreme Court or High Court except during impeachment proceedings. Statement 2 is incorrect because the Minerva Mills case (1980) actually reinforced judicial review and held that the limited amending power of Parliament is itself a basic structure, thereby rejecting legislative supremacy. Statement 3 is incorrect because Article 122 bars courts from inquiring into the validity of parliamentary proceedings, which is the inverse of the immunity mentioned, and it is a feature of the Indian Constitution rather than a direct inheritance from the 1935 Act.
Consider the following statements regarding Administrative discretion and the principle of non-arbitrariness:
1. Article 14 of the Indian Constitution provides the foundational framework for non-arbitrariness, serving as a check on the exercise of administrative discretion.
2. In the 1974 E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu case, Justice P.N. Bhagwati articulated that equality and arbitrariness are sworn enemies.
3. The 1978 Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India judgment established that any administrative action affecting personal liberty follows the test of reasonableness.
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.
Article 14 ensures equality before the law, serving as a constitutional safeguard against arbitrary state action. In E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974), Justice Bhagwati famously declared that equality and arbitrariness are sworn enemies, fundamentally linking non-arbitrariness to the right to equality. The Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) judgment expanded the scope of Article 21, mandating that any administrative procedure affecting personal liberty must be fair, just, and reasonable, rather than merely following the letter of the law.
Consider the following statements regarding Rule of Law and the independence of the judiciary:
1. Under Article 124(4), a Judge of the Supreme Court can be removed from office only by an order of the President passed after an address by each House of Parliament supported by a special majority.
2. The administrative expenses of the Supreme Court, including salaries and allowances of the staff, are charged upon the Consolidated Fund of India as per Article 146.
3. Article 129 provides for the Supreme Court to be a court of record, and the Contempt of Courts Act of 1971 defines the procedure for civil contempt proceedings initiated by the Attorney General.
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 Article 124(4) mandates a special majority (a majority of the total membership of each House and a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting) for the removal of a judge. Statement 2 is correct because Article 146(3) ensures judicial independence by charging administrative expenses, including salaries and pensions, upon the Consolidated Fund of India, making them non-votable by Parliament. Statement 3 is incorrect because, while Article 129 makes the Supreme Court a court of record, the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, does not require the Attorney General's initiation for civil contempt; instead, civil contempt proceedings can be initiated by the court itself or by a motion of any other person with the consent of the Attorney General or the Solicitor General.
Consider the following statements regarding Principles of natural justice in administrative law:
1. The principle of 'Nemo judex in causa sua' serves as a cornerstone of administrative law, preventing a person from adjudicating a dispute where they possess a pecuniary interest, as affirmed in the 1962 case of Gullapalli Nageswara Rao v. APSRTC.
2. The principle of 'Audi alteram partem' provides for the right to a fair hearing, and the 1978 Maneka Gandhi judgment incorporated this into Article 21, effectively replacing the need for statutory provisions in all executive actions.
3. The concept of 'reasoned decisions' serves as a check on administrative discretion, and the 1974 case of Siemens Engineering v. Union of India suggests that the duty to record reasons is a constitutional requirement for all internal departmental notes.
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 rule against bias (Nemo judex in causa sua) was upheld in Gullapalli Nageswara Rao (1959/1962), establishing that administrative authorities cannot adjudicate matters where they have a conflict of interest. Statement 2 is incorrect because while Maneka Gandhi (1978) expanded the scope of Article 21 to include natural justice, it did not replace statutory requirements but rather mandated that any procedure affecting life or liberty must be fair, just, and reasonable. Statement 3 is incorrect because, while Siemens Engineering (1976) emphasized the importance of reasoned decisions to prevent arbitrary exercise of power, it does not mandate that internal departmental notes (which are often privileged or deliberative) must be recorded as reasoned orders.
Consider the following statements regarding The doctrine of proportionality in judicial scrutiny:
1. The Supreme Court of India formally adopted the four-pronged proportionality test in the 2017 Puttaswamy v. Union of India judgment concerning the right to privacy.
2. The doctrine of proportionality finds its roots in the German administrative law principle of Verhältnismäßigkeitsprinzip, which evaluates the legitimacy of state interference.
3. In the 2018 Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India case, the bench utilized the proportionality standard to assess the constitutionality of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code.
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 2017 Puttaswamy judgment formally established the four-pronged test (legitimate goal, suitability, necessity, and balancing) to determine if state action infringing on fundamental rights is proportionate. Statement 2 is correct because the doctrine originates from the German 'Verhältnismäßigkeitsprinzip,' which mandates that state interference must be minimal and balanced against the objective sought. Statement 3 is correct because the Supreme Court applied this proportionality standard in the 2018 Navtej Singh Johar case to strike down Section 377, ruling that the criminalization of consensual homosexual acts was a disproportionate restriction on the right to privacy and dignity.
Consider the following statements regarding Right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 as a bedrock:
1. The 1997 Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan judgment provided guidelines against sexual harassment at the workplace, utilizing the 1975 Mexico City Declaration to fill the legislative vacuum until the 2013 Act was passed.
2. The 1984 Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation case linked the right to livelihood with the right to life, relying on the 1951 Refugee Convention to establish the rights of pavement dwellers in urban areas.
3. The 2017 Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India judgment affirmed the right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21, noting that this right was originally drafted as a separate Article 21A in the 1947 Constituent Assembly debates.
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 Vishaka guidelines relied on the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), not the Mexico City Declaration. Statement 2 is incorrect as the Olga Tellis case derived the right to livelihood from the right to life under Article 21, but it did not rely on the 1951 Refugee Convention. Statement 3 is incorrect because, while the Puttaswamy judgment affirmed privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21, the Constituent Assembly did not draft a separate Article 21A for privacy; Article 21A was later introduced via the 86th Amendment Act to provide for the Right to Education.
Consider the following statements regarding Equality before law vs equal protection of laws:
1. The principle of Equal Protection of Laws, as incorporated in the Indian Constitution, finds its conceptual origin in the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution ratified in 1868.
2. The concept of Equality before Law, enshrined in Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, is derived from the British legal tradition of the Rule of Law as articulated by A.V. Dicey.
3. In the case of State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952), the Supreme Court clarified that Article 14 forbids class legislation but permits reasonable classification for the purpose of 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 correct. Statement 3 is correct.
Statement 1 is correct as the 'Equal Protection of Laws' clause is indeed a direct borrowing from the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Statement 2 is correct because 'Equality before Law' is a negative concept derived from the British Rule of Law, specifically A.V. Dicey's doctrine which mandates the absence of special privileges for any individual. Statement 3 is correct because the Supreme Court in the Anwar Ali Sarkar case established that while Article 14 prohibits 'class legislation' (arbitrary discrimination), it allows 'reasonable classification' provided the classification is based on an intelligible differentia that has a rational nexus to the object of the legislation.
Consider the following statements regarding Procedural due process vs substantive due process:
1. The principle of 'procedure established by law' was borrowed from the Japanese Constitution of 1947, which provided the Drafting Committee with a model for balancing legislative authority with judicial oversight.
2. The Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) ruling expanded the interpretation of Article 21, effectively incorporating the principles of substantive due process into the Indian constitutional framework.
3. The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution contains a Due Process Clause that has historically been interpreted by the Supreme Court to encompass both procedural and substantive protections for 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 1 is incorrect because the principle of 'procedure established by law' was borrowed from the Japanese Constitution, but it was chosen specifically to limit judicial activism by ensuring courts only verify if a law was enacted correctly, not its fairness. Statement 2 is correct because the 1978 Maneka Gandhi judgment transformed Article 21 by ruling that any procedure must be 'fair, just, and reasonable,' effectively introducing the American concept of substantive due process. Statement 3 is correct as the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause has been historically interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court to protect individuals not only from unfair procedures but also from arbitrary or unreasonable laws that infringe upon fundamental rights.
Consider the following statements regarding Article 14 and the doctrine of equality before law:
1. The state is permitted to make special provisions for women and children under Article 15(3), which functions as a specific exception to the general principle of equality established in Article 14 by the 1st Constitutional Amendment.
2. The classification test used to determine the validity of a law under Article 14 involves checking for a nexus between the object of the act and the date of its enactment as per the 1950 Supreme Court guidelines.
3. The rule of law, as conceptualized by A.V. Dicey, encompasses the absence of arbitrary power and was formally codified as a basic feature of the Constitution in the Kesavananda Bharati (1973) verdict.
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 15(3) was part of the original Constitution, not added by the 1st Amendment. Statement 2 is incorrect because the classification test requires a nexus between the classification and the object of the Act, not the date of enactment. Statement 3 is incorrect because while the rule of law is a basic feature, it was formally declared as such in the Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) case, not Kesavananda Bharati (1973).
Consider the following statements regarding Right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 as a bedrock:
1. The A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras case in 1950 established the doctrine of procedure established by law, which the Supreme Court later incorporated into the Basic Structure doctrine in the 1973 Kesavananda Bharati judgment.
2. Article 21 serves as the primary constitutional safeguard for personal liberty, and the Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India verdict of 1978 formally integrated the due process of law clause found in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
3. The right to a speedy trial is recognized as a component of Article 21, having been derived from the 1979 Hussainara Khatoon case which drew direct inspiration from the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution of Australia.
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 while A.K. Gopalan established 'procedure established by law', this was not incorporated into the Basic Structure doctrine, which primarily concerns the amending power of Parliament under Article 368. Statement 2 is incorrect because Maneka Gandhi (1978) introduced the 'procedure established by law' to be 'fair, just, and reasonable' (akin to American 'due process'), but it did not formally integrate the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights into the Constitution. Statement 3 is incorrect because the right to a speedy trial in Hussainara Khatoon (1979) was derived from the interpretation of Article 21 itself, not from the Sixth Amendment of the Australian Constitution, which does not exist as Australia lacks a Bill of Rights.
Consider the following statements regarding Rule of Law in the context of delegated legislation:
1. The Administrative Tribunals Act of 1985 provides for the exclusion of judicial review in matters of service law, thereby limiting the application of the Rule of Law in delegated functions.
2. The 42nd Amendment Act of 1976 introduced the doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty, which allows the executive to frame delegated legislation without judicial review.
3. The 1951 Shankari Prasad v. Union of India case held that the executive possesses inherent power to amend the Constitution through delegated legislation, independent 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.
Statement 1 is incorrect because the Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) ruled that the exclusion of judicial review under the Administrative Tribunals Act is unconstitutional, as judicial review is a basic feature of the Constitution. Statement 2 is incorrect because the 42nd Amendment did not establish Parliamentary Sovereignty; instead, the Indian Constitution follows the doctrine of Constitutional Supremacy, and delegated legislation remains subject to judicial review. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Shankari Prasad case (1951) dealt with the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution under Article 368, and the executive has no inherent power to amend the Constitution through delegated legislation.
Consider the following statements regarding The concept of 'Basic Structure' as a safeguard for Rule of Law:
1. The Supreme Court in the Minerva Mills case (1980) struck down clauses of the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976, which sought to grant unlimited amending power to the Parliament.
2. Justice H.R. Khanna provided the decisive opinion in the 1973 case, emphasizing that the power of amendment does not include the power to abrogate the identity of the Constitution.
3. The Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala judgment delivered on 24 April 1973 established the doctrine that the Parliament cannot alter the basic structure of the Constitution.
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: the Minerva Mills (1980) judgment invalidated clauses of the 42nd Amendment that attempted to grant Parliament unlimited amending power, thereby reinforcing the Basic Structure doctrine. Justice H.R. Khanna's pivotal opinion in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) established that the amending power under Article 368 is limited and cannot destroy the Constitution's essential identity. The Kesavananda Bharati verdict, delivered on April 24, 1973, remains the landmark ruling that formally instituted the Basic Structure doctrine, limiting Parliament's authority to amend the Constitution.
Consider the following statements regarding Administrative discretion and the principle of non-arbitrariness:
1. The 1967 Golaknath v. State of Punjab judgment established the doctrine of prospective overruling, which functions as the standard mechanism for limiting administrative authority in tax matters.
2. The 1950 A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras case introduced the doctrine of substantive due process, which serves as the primary basis for evaluating administrative discretion in India.
3. The 1973 Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala case defined the specific limits of executive discretion, providing a comprehensive list of non-amendable administrative procedures.
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 while Golaknath (1967) introduced prospective overruling, it relates to constitutional amendments, not tax-specific administrative limits. Statement 2 is incorrect as A.K. Gopalan (1950) adopted a narrow 'procedure established by law' approach, whereas 'substantive due process' was only effectively integrated into Indian jurisprudence post-Maneka Gandhi (1978). Statement 3 is incorrect because the Kesavananda Bharati (1973) judgment established the 'Basic Structure' doctrine to limit Parliament's amending power, not to provide a list of non-amendable administrative procedures.
Consider the following statements regarding Right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 as a bedrock:
1. In the 1981 Francis Coralie Mullin case, the Supreme Court interpreted the right to life to include the right to live with human dignity, referencing the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as a binding legislative enactment.
2. The Supreme Court in the 1996 Parmanand Katara case ruled that medical aid for injured persons is a fundamental right, citing the 1949 Geneva Convention protocols as the primary legal basis for state action.
3. The 1992 Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh judgment held that the right to education is a facet of the right to life, which led to the insertion of Article 21A through the 86th Constitutional Amendment Act of 2001.
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 while the Supreme Court in Francis Coralie Mullin (1981) held that the right to life includes the right to live with human dignity, it did not treat the 1966 International Covenant as a binding legislative enactment but rather as an interpretive aid. Statement 2 is incorrect because, although Parmanand Katara (1989) established the right to emergency medical aid, it was based on Article 21 and the professional ethics of doctors, not the 1949 Geneva Convention protocols. Statement 3 is incorrect because the 86th Constitutional Amendment Act, which inserted Article 21A, was enacted in 2002, not 2001.
Consider the following statements regarding Dicey's conceptual framework of Rule of Law:
1. The 1928 Nehru Report incorporated Dicey's three principles of the Rule of Law as the foundational basis for the fundamental rights section of the proposed dominion constitution.
2. In the 1959 Delhi Declaration, the International Commission of Jurists adapted Dicey's formalistic approach to include the protection of individual rights and the maintenance of a social order.
3. Dicey's doctrine of equality before the law draws its historical origin from the 1215 Magna Carta, which established the principle that the monarch is subject to the same judicial processes as a commoner.
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 1959 Delhi Declaration expanded the narrow Diceyan formalistic view to include the 'dynamic aspect' of the Rule of Law, emphasizing the protection of individual rights within a social order. Statement 1 is incorrect because the 1928 Nehru Report was primarily concerned with securing fundamental rights against colonial arbitrariness rather than formally incorporating Dicey's specific tripartite framework. Statement 3 is incorrect because, while the Magna Carta (1215) limited royal power, Dicey's doctrine of 'equality before the law' is a modern constitutional concept rooted in the 19th-century British legal system, which explicitly rejected the existence of special courts for state officials.
Consider the following statements regarding Emergency provisions and the suspension of Rule of Law:
1. In the ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla case of 1976, the Supreme Court held that no person has any locus standi to move any writ petition under Article 226 for the enforcement of fundamental rights during an emergency.
2. Article 359 of the Constitution empowers the President to suspend the right to move any court for the enforcement of fundamental rights, except those under Articles 20 and 21, during a National Emergency.
3. The 44th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1978 introduced a provision ensuring that the right to life and personal liberty cannot be suspended even during the operation of a proclamation of emergency.
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 'Habeas Corpus case' (1976) notoriously ruled that no person could move a court to enforce fundamental rights during an emergency. Statement 2 is correct because the 44th Amendment Act (1978) amended Article 359 to explicitly prohibit the suspension of rights guaranteed under Articles 20 and 21, even during a National Emergency. Statement 3 is also correct as this amendment provided a vital constitutional safeguard, effectively overturning the judicial precedent set in the ADM Jabalpur case and ensuring that the right to life and personal liberty remains inviolable.
Consider the following statements regarding Rule of Law and the doctrine of legitimate expectation:
1. Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law, serves as the constitutional foundation for the application of the Rule of Law in India.
2. In the 1994 Food Corporation of India v. M/s Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries case, the Supreme Court held that legitimate expectation is a relevant factor in judicial review of administrative action.
3. The 1950 Constitution of India incorporated the doctrine of legitimate expectation directly from the 1789 French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen to limit executive discretion.
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 E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974) established that Article 14 is the bedrock of the Rule of Law, prohibiting arbitrary executive action. Statement 2 is correct because the 1994 Food Corporation of India case explicitly recognized that while legitimate expectation is not a legal right, it is a significant factor in judicial review to ensure fairness in administrative decision-making. Statement 3 is incorrect because the doctrine of legitimate expectation is a principle of English administrative law developed by the judiciary, not an original constitutional provision derived from the 1789 French Declaration.
Consider the following statements regarding Principles of natural justice in administrative law:
1. The rule against bias, known as the 'bias rule', allows for the participation of a judge in a decision-making process if the bias is merely theoretical and the administrative body operates under the 1950 Constitution of India.
2. The doctrine of 'legitimate expectation' originated in the 1969 English case of Schmidt v. Secretary of State, which established that administrative authorities possess the inherent power to override procedural fairness during national emergencies.
3. The Supreme Court in A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1970) held that the dividing line between quasi-judicial and administrative powers is thin and often thin enough to be ignored in the application of natural justice.
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 the landmark A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1970) case abolished the rigid distinction between quasi-judicial and administrative acts, mandating natural justice for both. Statement 1 is incorrect because the 'bias rule' (Nemo judex in causa sua) strictly prohibits any judge or authority from participating in a decision where they have a pecuniary or personal interest, regardless of whether the bias is theoretical or actual. Statement 2 is incorrect because while Schmidt v. Secretary of State (1969) introduced the doctrine of 'legitimate expectation', it emphasized the requirement of procedural fairness rather than granting authorities the power to override it during emergencies.
Consider the following statements regarding Constitutional supremacy vs parliamentary sovereignty:
1. The Government of India Act 1935 established the Federal Court, which exercised the power to declare acts of the Central Legislature void if they conflicted with the provisions of the British North America Act.
2. Article 13 of the Indian Constitution provides for the judicial review of laws, ensuring that legislative enactments remain consistent with Part III fundamental rights.
3. The Diceyian model of parliamentary sovereignty describes the British legislative system, which incorporates a written constitution that functions as the supreme legal document for the judiciary.
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 explicitly empowers the judiciary to declare laws void if they contravene Fundamental Rights, upholding constitutional supremacy. Statement 1 is incorrect because the Federal Court under the 1935 Act adjudicated based on the Government of India Act itself, not the British North America Act. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Diceyian model defines the UK's parliamentary sovereignty, which is characterized by the absence of a codified written constitution, unlike the Indian system where the Constitution is supreme.
Consider the following statements regarding Judicial review as a mechanism for upholding Rule of Law:
1. The doctrine of severability, as applied in the A.K. Gopalan case of 1950, encompasses the principle that the judiciary can rewrite parts of a statute to ensure its consistency with the Rule of Law.
2. The 42nd Amendment Act of 1976 introduced Article 32A, which restricted the High Courts from considering the constitutional validity of central laws, a provision that remains in force today.
3. The writ of quo-warranto is associated with the protection of individual liberty and is the primary mechanism used by the judiciary to review the validity of international treaties signed by the executive.
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 allows the judiciary to strike down only the unconstitutional portions of a statute, not to rewrite or legislate new provisions. Statement 2 is incorrect as Article 32A, introduced by the 42nd Amendment to restrict High Courts' jurisdiction, was subsequently repealed by the 43rd Amendment Act of 1977. Statement 3 is incorrect because 'Quo-Warranto' is a writ used to prevent illegal usurpation of public office, whereas judicial review of international treaties is governed by different constitutional principles and is not the primary function of this specific writ.
Consider the following statements regarding Rule of Law and the independence of the judiciary:
1. The Judicial Appointments Commission Bill, 2014 sought to replace the collegium system, but the Supreme Court declared the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act unconstitutional in 2015.
2. Article 121 prohibits any discussion in Parliament with respect to the conduct of any Judge of the Supreme Court or of a High Court in the discharge of his duties.
3. The power of the President to consult the Supreme Court under Article 143 is a discretionary provision that allows the executive to seek legal opinion on matters of public importance.
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 struck down the 99th Amendment and the NJAC Act in 2015, citing that it compromised judicial independence. Statement 2 is correct because Article 121 restricts parliamentary discussion on judicial conduct, except during impeachment proceedings, ensuring the judiciary remains free from legislative interference. Statement 3 is correct as Article 143 empowers the President to seek the Supreme Court's advisory opinion on questions of law or fact of public importance, which serves as a consultative mechanism rather than a binding judicial order.
Consider the following statements regarding Rule of Law and the doctrine of legitimate expectation:
1. The 1996 decision in Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corporation clarified that a legitimate expectation may arise from an express promise or a consistent past practice.
2. The principle of 'due process of law' was incorporated into the Indian legal framework following the 1978 Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India judgment.
3. Justice H.R. Khanna, in the 1976 ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla case, provided a detailed framework for the application of legitimate expectation in matters concerning preventive detention.
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 Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corporation (1996) established that legitimate expectation arises from express promises or consistent past practices. Statement 2 is correct because the Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) judgment effectively imported the American concept of 'due process of law' into Article 21 by interpreting 'procedure established by law' as one that must be fair, just, and reasonable. Statement 3 is incorrect because Justice H.R. Khanna's famous dissent in the ADM Jabalpur case (1976) focused on the protection of personal liberty and the non-suspendability of Article 21 during an emergency, not on the doctrine of legitimate expectation.
Consider the following statements regarding Rule of Law and the immunity of public officials:
1. The principle of equality before the law, enshrined in Article 14, serves as the constitutional bedrock for the Rule of Law, ensuring that discretionary power is not exercised in an arbitrary manner.
2. The 1975 39th Constitutional Amendment Act introduced Article 329A, which granted the Prime Minister and Speaker immunity from judicial scrutiny regarding election disputes, and this provision remains in the Constitution today.
3. Article 361(3) provides for the issuance of process for the arrest or imprisonment of the President by a High Court, provided the petition is filed during the currency of the President's term.
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 14 ensures equality before the law, acting as a check against arbitrary executive action, a core tenet of the Rule of Law. Statement 2 is incorrect because while the 39th Amendment introduced Article 329A to shield the Prime Minister's election from judicial review, it was subsequently struck down by the Supreme Court in the Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) case and later repealed by the 44th Amendment Act. Statement 3 is incorrect because Article 361 provides complete immunity to the President and Governors from arrest or imprisonment during their term, explicitly prohibiting any court from issuing such processes.
Consider the following statements regarding Administrative discretion and the principle of non-arbitrariness:
1. Under the 1980 Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi ruling, the Supreme Court held that administrative discretion exercised by state instrumentalities remains subject to judicial review.
2. The 1994 S.R. Bommai v. Union of India case clarified that the exercise of power under Article 356 is subject to judicial scrutiny regarding the existence of relevant material.
3. The 2003 I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu judgment confirmed that laws placed in the Ninth Schedule after April 24, 1973, remain open to challenge on grounds of violating basic structure principles.
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 Ajay Hasia (1981) established that any authority falling under 'State' per Article 12 must act non-arbitrarily, making its actions subject to judicial review. Statement 2 is correct because S.R. Bommai (1994) held that while the President's satisfaction under Article 356 is subjective, the material upon which it is based is justiciable to prevent mala fide use. Statement 3 is correct as I.R. Coelho (2007) ruled that the immunity of the Ninth Schedule is not absolute, and laws inserted after the Kesavananda Bharati judgment (April 24, 1973) can be challenged if they violate the Basic Structure of the Constitution.
Consider the following statements regarding Judicial review as a mechanism for upholding Rule of Law:
1. Article 368 of the Constitution provides for the amendment process and includes provisions that grant the Parliament the authority to limit the scope of judicial review over constitutional amendments.
2. The doctrine of judicial review in India draws its legal foundation from Article 13, which empowers the judiciary to declare laws void if they contravene fundamental rights.
3. The Kesavananda Bharati judgment of 1973 established the basic structure doctrine and refers to the power of the President to seek an advisory opinion from the Supreme Court on matters of judicial review.
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 explicitly mandates that any law inconsistent with or in derogation of Fundamental Rights shall be void, forming the bedrock of judicial review. Statement 1 is incorrect because the Supreme Court, through the Minerva Mills case (1980), held that judicial review is a basic feature of the Constitution and cannot be excluded or limited by Parliament even under Article 368. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Kesavananda Bharati judgment (1973) established the 'Basic Structure' doctrine to limit Parliament's amending power, whereas the President's power to seek an advisory opinion is derived from Article 143, not the Basic Structure doctrine.
Consider the following statements regarding Rule of Law vs Rule by Law distinction:
1. The 1959 Declaration of Delhi, formulated by the International Commission of Jurists, expanded the Rule of Law to include the protection of social, economic, and cultural rights.
2. The Supreme Court of India, in the 1973 Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala judgment, established the Rule of Law as a fundamental feature of the basic structure of the Constitution.
3. Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law, draws its conceptual inspiration from the Diceyan principle of legal equality.
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 1959 Declaration of Delhi explicitly expanded the Rule of Law beyond mere legal procedures to include the protection of social, economic, and cultural rights to ensure individual dignity. The Kesavananda Bharati judgment (1973) solidified the Rule of Law as a core component of the 'Basic Structure' doctrine, preventing the legislature from undermining constitutional supremacy. Article 14 reflects A.V. Dicey’s concept of 'equality before the law,' which mandates that no person is above the law and all are subject to the same legal jurisdiction, regardless of status.
Consider the following statements regarding Rule of Law and the doctrine of legitimate expectation:
1. A.V. Dicey, in his 1885 work 'Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution', identified the absence of arbitrary power as a primary component of the Rule of Law.
2. The Supreme Court of India, in the 1973 Kesavananda Bharati case, affirmed that the Rule of Law constitutes a basic feature of the Indian Constitution.
3. The doctrine of legitimate expectation was first introduced into English administrative law by Lord Denning in the 1969 case Schmidt v Secretary of State for Home Affairs.
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 A.V. Dicey's seminal 1885 work defined the Rule of Law by the absence of arbitrary power, equality before the law, and the supremacy of legal spirit. Statement 2 is correct because the Supreme Court in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) explicitly identified the Rule of Law as a core component of the Basic Structure doctrine. Statement 3 is correct as Lord Denning formally introduced the doctrine of legitimate expectation in Schmidt v Secretary of State for Home Affairs (1969), establishing that public authorities must act fairly when an individual has a reasonable expectation of a benefit or procedure. All three statements are factually accurate.
Consider the following statements regarding Role of the Attorney General in upholding legal standards:
1. M.C. Setalvad served as the first Attorney General for India, holding the office from 1950 to 1963, which remains the longest tenure for any individual in this constitutional position.
2. The remuneration of the Attorney General is determined by the Parliament through an annual appropriation act, mirroring the salary structure established for judges of the Supreme Court.
3. Under the terms of the Advocates Act of 1961, the Attorney General functions as the ex-officio chairman of the Bar Council of India to oversee professional conduct standards.
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 M.C. Setalvad served from 1950 to 1963, establishing the longest tenure in the office's history. Statement 2 is incorrect because the Attorney General does not receive a salary but is paid a 'retainer' and other fees as determined by the President, not the Parliament. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Attorney General is not the ex-officio chairman of the Bar Council of India; the Bar Council elects its own chairman from among its members.
Consider the following statements regarding Procedural due process vs substantive due process:
1. The 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution, ratified in 1868, introduced the concept of procedural due process to ensure that state governments follow established legal steps before depriving individuals of property.
2. In the Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) verdict, the Supreme Court introduced the concept of substantive due process to protect the fundamental rights of citizens against executive overreach.
3. The expression 'due process of law' appears in the original text of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, reflecting the influence of the 1791 Bill of Rights of the United States.
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 5th Amendment (1791) introduced due process at the federal level, while the 14th Amendment (1868) extended it to states, but the concept existed long before. Statement 2 is incorrect as the Supreme Court adopted the doctrine of substantive due process through judicial interpretation, notably in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), not Kesavananda Bharati. Statement 3 is incorrect because the original text of Article 21 used the phrase 'procedure established by law,' which was later interpreted to include the principles of 'due process of law' only after the Maneka Gandhi case.
Consider the following statements regarding The doctrine of proportionality in judicial scrutiny:
1. The doctrine of proportionality was introduced into the Indian legal system via the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act of 1976 to align judicial review with the basic structure doctrine.
2. The first prong of the proportionality test examines whether a legislative measure pursues a legitimate state aim, as established in the Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India ruling of 2020.
3. The proportionality test requires the court to evaluate the 'least restrictive measure' criterion, ensuring the state chooses the path with the minimal impact on fundamental rights.
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 proportionality was evolved by the Indian judiciary through judicial precedents rather than being introduced by the 42nd Amendment. Statement 2 is correct as the Anuradha Bhasin (2020) judgment explicitly adopted the four-pronged proportionality test, beginning with the requirement of a legitimate state aim. Statement 3 is correct because the 'least restrictive measure' is a core component of this test, mandating that the state must adopt the alternative that least infringes upon fundamental rights while still achieving its objective.
Consider the following statements regarding Article 14 and the doctrine of equality before law:
1. Article 14 of the Indian Constitution is applicable to both citizens and non-citizens, including legal persons such as corporations and registered societies.
2. The Supreme Court in the E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974) case introduced the new dimension of Article 14, asserting that equality is a dynamic concept with no room for arbitrariness.
3. The concept of equal protection of laws is a positive obligation derived from the American Constitution, and it was incorporated into the Indian framework through the Government of India Act 1935.
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 because Article 14 guarantees equality to any 'person,' which includes both natural persons (citizens and foreigners) and legal entities like corporations. Statement 2 is correct as the landmark E.P. Royappa case (1974) shifted the interpretation of Article 14 from a formalistic approach to a substantive one, establishing that 'arbitrariness' is the antithesis of equality. Statement 3 is incorrect because, while 'equal protection of laws' is indeed derived from the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, it was not incorporated via the Government of India Act 1935, but rather directly drafted into the Indian Constitution by the Constituent Assembly.
Consider the following statements regarding Emergency provisions and the suspension of Rule of Law:
1. The 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act of 1976 extended the duration of a National Emergency proclamation from six months to two years and provided for the automatic suspension of Article 19.
2. Under the provisions of the 1975 emergency, the Maintenance of Internal Security Act was utilized to bypass the judicial scrutiny established by the 1973 Kesavananda Bharati judgment regarding the basic structure doctrine.
3. The 38th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1975 added Clause 5 to Article 352, which initially sought to make the satisfaction of the President in declaring an emergency final and conclusive beyond judicial review.
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 the 38th Amendment (1975) added Article 352(5) to bar judicial review of the President's satisfaction, a provision later repealed by the 44th Amendment. Statement 1 is incorrect because the 42nd Amendment extended the duration of a National Emergency proclamation from six months to one year, not two years, and Article 19 is suspended automatically only during an emergency declared on the grounds of war or external aggression, not internal disturbance. Statement 2 is incorrect because the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA) was used to detain individuals without trial, but it did not bypass the basic structure doctrine, which is a judicial interpretative tool used to limit Parliament's amending power, not a legislative act subject to bypass by executive detention laws.
Consider the following statements regarding Rule of Law index and international comparative standards:
1. The International Commission of Jurists adopted the Delhi Declaration in 1959, which established the Rule of Law Index as a formal monitoring mechanism for assessing judicial independence in Commonwealth nations.
2. The Venice Commission, an advisory body of the Council of Europe, published its Rule of Law Checklist in 2016 to assist member states in assessing their domestic legal systems.
3. The United Nations Rule of Law Indicators, developed in 2011, provide a framework for measuring the performance of police, prosecutors, and the judiciary in post-conflict states.
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 while the 1959 Delhi Declaration by the International Commission of Jurists articulated the core principles of the Rule of Law, it did not establish a formal Rule of Law Index; the World Justice Project (WJP) Rule of Law Index was only launched in 2009. Statement 2 is correct as the Venice Commission adopted its Rule of Law Checklist in 2016 to provide a benchmark for assessing the quality of the rule of law in Council of Europe member states. Statement 3 is correct because the UN Rule of Law Indicators, introduced in 2011, serve as a diagnostic tool specifically designed to monitor the performance of justice and security institutions in conflict-affected and post-conflict environments.
Consider the following statements regarding Dicey's conceptual framework of Rule of Law:
1. The third element of Dicey's doctrine emphasizes that the general principles of the constitution are the result of judicial decisions determining the rights of private persons in particular cases.
2. The concept of 'Droit Administratif' was analyzed by Dicey in his 1897 lecture series at Oxford, where he argued that it provided a more robust protection for individual liberties than the English common law system.
3. Dicey's framework identifies the supremacy of the legislature as the primary source of rights, and this interpretation influenced the drafting of the 1946 Cabinet Mission Plan.
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 A.V. Dicey posited that the British Constitution is judge-made, emerging from individual court rulings rather than a written document. Statement 2 is incorrect because Dicey famously criticized the French 'Droit Administratif' as being antithetical to the Rule of Law, arguing it shielded officials from ordinary courts. Statement 3 is incorrect because Dicey emphasized the supremacy of the 'ordinary law' (judiciary) rather than the legislature, and his framework had no direct influence on the 1946 Cabinet Mission Plan, which focused on the transfer of power and constitutional assembly formation.
Consider the following statements regarding Equality before law vs equal protection of laws:
1. The Supreme Court judgment in E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974) introduced the 'new concept of equality' by arguing that equality and arbitrariness are sworn enemies, effectively replacing the Rule of Law with the Rule of Equity.
2. The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which introduced the Equal Protection Clause, was primarily drafted to address the administrative challenges faced by the Reconstruction Finance Corporation in 1932.
3. The doctrine of Equality before Law originates from the Magna Carta of 1215, which established the judicial precedent that the monarch remains subject to the same common law as the common citizenry.
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 while E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974) did establish that equality and arbitrariness are sworn enemies, it expanded the scope of Article 14 rather than replacing the Rule of Law with the Rule of Equity. Statement 2 is false as the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 to grant citizenship and equal protection to formerly enslaved people, not to address the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, which was a Great Depression-era agency created in 1932. Statement 3 is incorrect because the doctrine of 'Equality before Law' is a British concept derived from A.V. Dicey’s 'Rule of Law,' whereas the Magna Carta (1215) primarily limited the monarch's power through feudal law rather than establishing modern legal equality.
Consider the following statements regarding The concept of 'Basic Structure' as a safeguard for Rule of Law:
1. The Preamble was declared a part of the basic structure in the Berubari Union case of 1960, which allowed the Parliament to cede territory to foreign nations under Article 368.
2. The 24th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1971 empowered the Parliament to amend any part of the Constitution, and this provision was upheld by the Supreme Court in the Minerva Mills case.
3. The Supreme Court in the Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu case (1992) held that the Tenth Schedule is part of the basic structure and its provisions are immune from judicial review by High Courts.
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 Berubari Union case (1960) held that the Preamble is not a part of the Constitution, a position later overturned in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973). Statement 2 is incorrect because while the 24th Amendment empowered Parliament to amend any part of the Constitution, the Minerva Mills case (1980) struck down the clauses that sought to exclude judicial review, establishing that limited amending power is a basic feature. Statement 3 is incorrect because, although the Kihoto Hollohan case (1992) upheld the validity of the Tenth Schedule, it explicitly declared that the Speaker's decision is subject to judicial review, and the Schedule itself is not defined as a 'basic structure' element.
Consider the following statements regarding Role of the Attorney General in upholding legal standards:
1. Article 76(2) of the Constitution specifies that the Attorney General performs duties of a legal character assigned by the President, including appearing on behalf of the Government of India in the Supreme Court.
2. The Attorney General is granted the right of audience in all courts within the territory of India under Article 76(3), reflecting the office's role in representing the Union's legal interests.
3. The Attorney General participates in the proceedings of both Houses of Parliament and holds the power to vote on legislative bills as per the provisions of Article 88.
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 and 2 are correct as Article 76(2) mandates the Attorney General (AG) to perform legal duties assigned by the President, and Article 76(3) grants the AG the right of audience in all courts in India. Statement 3 is incorrect because, while Article 88 allows the AG to participate in the proceedings of both Houses of Parliament or any committee thereof, it explicitly denies them the right to vote.
Consider the following statements regarding Rule of Law index and international comparative standards:
1. In the landmark case of ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976), the Supreme Court of India discussed the scope of Rule of Law during the period of a suspended fundamental right.
2. The World Bank’s Worldwide Governance Indicators project, launched in 1996, incorporates the Rule of Law Index as a primary metric to determine the eligibility of developing countries for structural adjustment loans.
3. The 2023 Rule of Law Index indicates that the global score for the 'Fundamental Rights' factor has experienced a decline for the sixth consecutive year.
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 ADM Jabalpur case famously addressed the suspension of Article 21 during the Emergency, leading to the later 44th Amendment which clarified that the right to life cannot be suspended. Statement 3 is correct because the World Justice Project's 2023 Rule of Law Index reported a global decline in the 'Fundamental Rights' factor for the sixth consecutive year. Statement 2 is incorrect because while the World Bank publishes Worldwide Governance Indicators, it does not use the World Justice Project's Rule of Law Index as a primary metric for determining structural adjustment loan eligibility.
Consider the following statements regarding Rule of Law and the independence of the judiciary:
1. The First Judges Case in 1981 established the primacy of the Chief Justice of India in appointment matters, which the 1993 Second Judges Case reversed to introduce the collegium system.
2. The Supreme Court in the Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) case identified the independence of the judiciary as a basic feature of the Constitution.
3. Article 50 of the Constitution of India directs the State to take steps to separate the judiciary from the executive in the public services of the State.
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 First Judges Case (1981) actually held that the executive's opinion had primacy, while the Second Judges Case (1993) reversed this by establishing the collegium system to ensure judicial primacy. Statement 2 is correct as the landmark Kesavananda Bharati judgment (1973) explicitly listed the independence of the judiciary as a core component of the basic structure doctrine. Statement 3 is correct because Article 50, a Directive Principle of State Policy, mandates that the State shall take steps to separate the judiciary from the executive in the public services of the State.
Consider the following statements regarding Rule of Law vs Rule by Law distinction:
1. The German concept of Rechtsstaat, developed during the 19th century, emphasizes the procedural application of administrative regulations to ensure that state actions remain within the scope of enacted legislation.
2. The World Justice Project's 2023 Rule of Law Index ranks nations based on the efficiency of their bureaucratic systems, focusing on the ability of governments to implement policy through codified legal instruments.
3. The 1950 Constitution of India incorporates the American doctrine of Due Process of Law under Article 21, which provides the judiciary with the authority to review the substantive fairness of legislative enactments.
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 Rechtsstaat emphasizes substantive justice and fundamental rights, not merely procedural administrative compliance. Statement 2 is incorrect as the World Justice Project's Index evaluates adherence to the rule of law based on constraints on government powers, absence of corruption, and fundamental rights, rather than bureaucratic efficiency. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Indian Constitution explicitly adopted the 'Procedure Established by Law' (Article 21), and while the judiciary later expanded this via the Maneka Gandhi case (1978) to include principles of 'Due Process,' the original text did not incorporate the American doctrine.
Consider the following statements regarding Rule of Law index and international comparative standards:
1. Article 14 of the Indian Constitution embodies the core principle of Rule of Law by ensuring equality before the law and equal protection of laws within the territory of India.
2. The World Justice Project Rule of Law Index 2023 ranks 142 countries based on eight primary factors, including constraints on government powers and regulatory enforcement.
3. The concept of Rule of Law, as articulated by A.V. Dicey in 1885, emphasizes the absence of arbitrary power and the equality of all citizens before the ordinary law of the land.
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 14 mandates that the State shall not deny equality before the law, a fundamental aspect of the Rule of Law. Statement 2 is correct because the World Justice Project's 2023 Index evaluates 142 countries across eight factors, such as constraints on government powers, absence of corruption, and regulatory enforcement. Statement 3 is correct as A.V. Dicey, in his 1885 work 'Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution', famously defined the Rule of Law through the absence of arbitrary power, equality before the law, and the supremacy of the ordinary law of the land.
Consider the following statements regarding Emergency provisions and the suspension of Rule of Law:
1. Article 358 provides for the automatic suspension of the six freedoms guaranteed by Article 19, and this suspension applies to all legislative and executive actions taken during the period of a financial emergency.
2. The Preventive Detention Act of 1950 served as the primary legal instrument for detaining political dissidents during the 1975 emergency, following its re-enactment by the Parliament in June 1975.
3. The 1978 amendment process involved the repeal of the 39th Constitutional Amendment, which had previously placed the election of the Prime Minister and Speaker outside the scope of judicial inquiry.
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 358 applies only to a National Emergency under Article 352, not a Financial Emergency under Article 360. Statement 2 is incorrect because the Preventive Detention Act of 1950 had expired in 1969; the 1975 Emergency utilized the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA) of 1971. Statement 3 is incorrect because the 44th Amendment Act (1978) did not repeal the 39th Amendment; rather, it repealed the provisions of the 39th Amendment that had placed the election of the Prime Minister and Speaker beyond judicial review, while the Amendment itself remains part of the Constitution's history.
Consider the following statements regarding Rule of Law and the immunity of public officials:
1. Under Article 361(2), no criminal proceedings can be instituted or continued against the President or the Governor of a State in any court during their term of office.
2. The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, was amended in 2018 to include provisions that link the requirement of prior sanction to the investigation of public servants for offences related to the discharge of their duties.
3. The 1950 judgment in the case of State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh established that executive actions affecting property rights remain subject to judicial review despite claims of sovereign immunity.
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 361(2) grants absolute immunity from criminal proceedings to the President and Governors during their tenure. Statement 2 is correct because the 2018 amendment to the Prevention of Corruption Act introduced Section 17A, which mandates prior government sanction before initiating an investigation into public servants for official duties. Statement 3 is correct as the Supreme Court in State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh (1952) asserted that the doctrine of sovereign immunity cannot override the fundamental rights of citizens, establishing that executive actions are subject to judicial review.
Consider the following statements regarding Rule of Law vs Rule by Law distinction:
1. A.V. Dicey, in his 1885 work 'Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution', identified the absence of arbitrary power as a primary pillar of the Rule of Law.
2. The Rule by Law concept is often associated with the 1215 Magna Carta, which introduced the principle that the monarch remains subject to the established legal statutes of the realm.
3. In the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the preamble identifies the Rule of Law as a mechanism to ensure that states utilize legal frameworks to consolidate executive authority.
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 A.V. Dicey's 1885 work established the 'absence of arbitrary power' as a core tenet, asserting that no person can be punished except for a distinct breach of law. Statement 2 is incorrect because the Magna Carta (1215) is historically regarded as a foundational document for the 'Rule of Law' (limiting monarchical power), whereas 'Rule by Law' refers to the instrumental use of law as a tool for executive control. Statement 3 is incorrect because the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights identifies the Rule of Law as a safeguard to protect human rights from state tyranny, not as a mechanism to consolidate executive authority.
Consider the following statements regarding Doctrine of separation of powers and constitutionalism:
1. The 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act of 1976 introduced Article 368, which formalized the doctrine of separation of powers as a core feature of the Indian federal system.
2. The Dicey formulation of the Rule of Law, published in his 1885 treatise, includes the principle of judicial review as a primary component of the British parliamentary tradition.
3. The Montesquieu model of separation of powers, as articulated in his 1748 work 'The Spirit of the Laws', influenced the drafting of the United States Constitution.
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 Montesquieu's 1748 work 'The Spirit of the Laws' provided the theoretical framework for the checks and balances embedded in the US Constitution. Statement 1 is incorrect because Article 368 pertains to the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution, and the separation of powers is a judicial interpretation (Kesavananda Bharati case) rather than a creation of the 42nd Amendment. Statement 2 is incorrect because A.V. Dicey's formulation of the Rule of Law emphasizes equality before the law and the absence of arbitrary power, whereas judicial review is a distinct constitutional mechanism not included in his classical British model.
Consider the following statements regarding Procedural due process vs substantive due process:
1. The Menaka Gandhi v. Union of India case of 1978 relied on the precedent set by the 1967 Golaknath case to establish that legislative procedures are subject to judicial review for reasonableness.
2. The A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) judgment initially limited the scope of Article 21 to procedural due process by interpreting the phrase 'procedure established by law' in a literal sense.
3. Procedural due process focuses on the fairness of the law itself, while substantive due process emerged as a distinct doctrine following the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act of 1976.
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 in A.K. Gopalan (1950), the Supreme Court held that 'procedure established by law' meant any procedure enacted by the legislature, effectively excluding substantive judicial review. Statement 1 is incorrect because Menaka Gandhi (1978) overruled the narrow interpretation of A.K. Gopalan by introducing the concept of 'due process'-requiring laws to be fair, just, and reasonable-rather than relying on the Golaknath case. Statement 3 is incorrect because procedural due process concerns the fairness of the method used, while substantive due process concerns the fairness of the law itself, and neither doctrine was created by the 42nd Amendment.
Consider the following statements regarding Constitutional supremacy vs parliamentary sovereignty:
1. Article 245 of the Indian Constitution defines the territorial extent of laws made by Parliament, and the Supreme Court in the A.K. Gopalan case of 1950 confirmed the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy over the Constitution.
2. The 1803 United States Supreme Court decision in Marbury v. Madison formalised the principle of judicial review, affirming the role of the judiciary in interpreting the Constitution.
3. Under the Indian constitutional framework, the power of judicial review is derived from Articles 32 and 226, which empower the Supreme Court and High Courts to protect constitutional supremacy.
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 India follows constitutional supremacy, not parliamentary sovereignty; the A.K. Gopalan case actually highlighted the limitations of legislative power, and the doctrine of basic structure (Kesavananda Bharati case) later solidified the judiciary's power to invalidate unconstitutional laws. Statement 2 is correct as the 1803 Marbury v. Madison ruling established the precedent that the judiciary has the authority to declare acts of Congress void if they conflict with the Constitution. Statement 3 is correct because Articles 32 and 226 serve as the bedrock of judicial review, granting the Supreme Court and High Courts the jurisdiction to strike down legislation that violates the fundamental rights or the constitutional framework.