1. Which case first clearly enunciated the basic structure doctrine of the Indian Constitution?
a. Golaknath v. State of Punjab
b. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala
c. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain
d. Minerva Mills v. Union of India
b. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala
c. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain
d. Minerva Mills v. Union of India
Answer: b. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala
Explanation: Kesavananda Bharati is the landmark decision that held that Parliament cannot amend the “basic structure” of the Constitution.
Explanation: Kesavananda Bharati is the landmark decision that held that Parliament cannot amend the “basic structure” of the Constitution.
2. The Right to Privacy was explicitly held a fundamental right under which article(s) in Puttaswamy v. Union of India?
a. Article 19 only
b. Article 21 only
c. Articles 14, 19 and 21
d. Article 25 & 21
b. Article 21 only
c. Articles 14, 19 and 21
d. Article 25 & 21
Answer: c. Articles 14, 19 and 21
Explanation: The nine-judge bench held that the right to privacy is protected under Articles 14, 19 and 21.
Explanation: The nine-judge bench held that the right to privacy is protected under Articles 14, 19 and 21.
3. Under the Constitution, which Article protects a person from retrospective criminal laws (i.e., law which makes an act criminal after its commission)?
a. Article 14
b. Article 20(1)
c. Article 21
d. Article 22
b. Article 20(1)
c. Article 21
d. Article 22
Answer: b. Article 20(1)
Explanation: Article 20(1) states that no person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in force at the time of commission of the act; hence protects from ex post facto criminal laws.
Explanation: Article 20(1) states that no person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in force at the time of commission of the act; hence protects from ex post facto criminal laws.
4. Which case held that even under Emergency, the right to life and liberty (Article 21) cannot be suspended by the Executive?
a. ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla
b. Puttaswamy v. Union of India
c. Minerva Mills v. Union of India
d. None until the effect of Puttaswamy
b. Puttaswamy v. Union of India
c. Minerva Mills v. Union of India
d. None until the effect of Puttaswamy
Answer: b. Puttaswamy v. Union of India
Explanation: Puttaswamy held that fundamental rights under Part III, including Article 21, are not suspended even during an emergency; it also overruled the ADM Jabalpur decision.
Explanation: Puttaswamy held that fundamental rights under Part III, including Article 21, are not suspended even during an emergency; it also overruled the ADM Jabalpur decision.
5. Which of the following is not part of the “basic structure” doctrine as enunciated by the Supreme Court?
a. Supremacy of the Constitution
b. Separation of powers
c. Judicial review
d. Amending procedure of Article 368 is completely unreviewable
b. Separation of powers
c. Judicial review
d. Amending procedure of Article 368 is completely unreviewable
Answer: d. Amending procedure of Article 368 is completely unreviewable
Explanation: The basic structure doctrine itself imposes limits on amendments; Article 368 is subject to judicial review if amendments violate the basic structure.
Explanation: The basic structure doctrine itself imposes limits on amendments; Article 368 is subject to judicial review if amendments violate the basic structure.
6. Which case declared that the power of Parliament to amend under Article 368 would be subject to fundamental rights review under Article 13?
a. I.C. Golaknath & Ors. v. State of Punjab
b. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala
c. Minerva Mills v. Union of India
d. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain
b. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala
c. Minerva Mills v. Union of India
d. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain
Answer: a. I.C. Golaknath & Ors. v. State of Punjab
Explanation: In Golaknath, the Court held that constitutional amendments are “law” within Article 13 and subject to Part III fundamental rights.
Explanation: In Golaknath, the Court held that constitutional amendments are “law” within Article 13 and subject to Part III fundamental rights.
7. Which constitutional articles deal with the right of citizenship (original and by birth) in India?
a. Articles 5-11
b. Articles 14-19
c. Articles 15-17
d. Articles 21-22
b. Articles 14-19
c. Articles 15-17
d. Articles 21-22
Answer: a. Articles 5-11
Explanation: Articles 5 to 11 define citizenship, eligibility, acquisition, and termination.
Explanation: Articles 5 to 11 define citizenship, eligibility, acquisition, and termination.
8. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, the Supreme Court expanded the meaning of “procedure established by law” under Article 21 to include:
a. Only legislative procedure for detention laws
b. Procedure must be “fair, just and reasonable,” not arbitrary
c. Any law passed by Parliament is valid if procedure is stated
d. The concept of “due process” is rejected; only Indian legislature’s power matters
b. Procedure must be “fair, just and reasonable,” not arbitrary
c. Any law passed by Parliament is valid if procedure is stated
d. The concept of “due process” is rejected; only Indian legislature’s power matters
Answer: b. Procedure must be “fair, just and reasonable,” not arbitrary
Explanation: Maneka Gandhi held that procedure under Article 21 is not only law but must satisfy principles of fairness, non-arbitrariness, and reasonableness.
Explanation: Maneka Gandhi held that procedure under Article 21 is not only law but must satisfy principles of fairness, non-arbitrariness, and reasonableness.
9. Which case(s) held that reservation in promotion (public employment) is valid under certain conditions, but a 50% ceiling applies generally for all reservations?
a. Indra Sawhney v. Union of India
b. M. Nagaraj v. Union of India
c. Both (a) and (b)
d. None of the above
b. M. Nagaraj v. Union of India
c. Both (a) and (b)
d. None of the above
Answer: c. Both (a) and (b)
Explanation: Indra Sawhney laid down the 50% ceiling, creamy layer, etc.; M. Nagaraj dealt with reservation in promotion, adding conditions like quantifiable data.
Explanation: Indra Sawhney laid down the 50% ceiling, creamy layer, etc.; M. Nagaraj dealt with reservation in promotion, adding conditions like quantifiable data.
10. The Preamble of the Indian Constitution was held to be:
a. Part of the Constitution and amendable in entirety
b. Not part of the Constitution, only an aid to interpretation
c. Part of the Constitution but not the basic structure
d. Part of the Constitution and part of the basic structure
b. Not part of the Constitution, only an aid to interpretation
c. Part of the Constitution but not the basic structure
d. Part of the Constitution and part of the basic structure
Answer: d. Part of the Constitution and part of the basic structure
Explanation: The Preamble has been held to be integral to the basic structure and cannot be altered in its essence without violating it.
Explanation: The Preamble has been held to be integral to the basic structure and cannot be altered in its essence without violating it.
Subscribe for updates
Join 10,000+ subscribers.
RU
Ruchika Mohapatra
Contributing author
Have a doubt about this?Ask Doubts
