Passage-Based MCQ’s on Constitutional Laws for CLAT PG [Part 10]

Article 14 of the Constitution of India is a facet of equality of status and opportunity spoken of in the Preamble to the Constitution. The Article naturally divides itself into two parts:(1) equality before the law, and (2) the equal protection of the law. Judgments of this Court have referred to the fact that the equality before law concept has been derived from the law in the U.K., and the equal protection of the laws has been borrowed from the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. In a revealing judgment, Subba Rao, J., dissenting, in State of U.P. v. Deoman Upadhyaya, further went on to state that whereas equality before law is a negative concept, the equal protection of the law has positive content.

The early judgments of this Court referred to the “discrimination” aspect of Article 14, and evolved a rule by which subjects could be classified. If the classification was intelligible having regard to the object sought to be achieved, it would pass muster under Article 14’s anti-discrimination aspect. Again, Subba Rao, J., dissenting, in Lachhman Das v. State of Punjab, warned that overemphasis on the doctrine of classification or an anxious and sustained attempt to discover some basis for classification may gradually and imperceptibly deprive the Article of its glorious content. He referred to the doctrine of classification as a subsidiary rule evolved by courts to give practical content to the said Article.

In the pre-1974 era, the judgments of this Court did refer to the rule of law or positive aspect of Article 14, the concomitant of which is that if an action is found to be arbitrary and, therefore, unreasonable, it would negate the equal protection of the law contained in Article 14 and would be struck down on this ground. In S.G. Jaisinghani v. Union of India, this Court held that the absence of arbitrary power is the first essential of the rule of law upon which our whole constitutional system is based. In a system governed by rule of law, discretion, when conferred upon executive authorities, must be confined within clearly defined limits. The rule of law from this point of view means that decisions should be made by the application of known principles and rules and, in general, such decisions should be predictable and the citizen should know where he is.

If a decision is taken without any principle or without any rule it is unpredictable and such a decision is the antithesis of a decision taken in accordance with the rule of law. Where discretion is absolute, man has always suffered. It is in this sense that the rule of law may be said to be the sworn enemy of caprice. Discretion must mean sound discretion guided by law. It must be governed by rule, not by humour; it must not be arbitrary, vague and fanciful.

It is, therefore, clear from a reading of even the aforesaid judgments that Article 14 has been referred to in the context of the constitutional invalidity of statutory law to show that such statutory law will be struck down if it is found to be arbitrary. The test of manifest arbitrariness would apply to invalidate legislation as well as subordinate legislation under Article 14. Manifest arbitrariness must be something done by the legislature capriciously, irrationally and/or without adequate determining principle. When something is done which is excessive and disproportionate, such legislation would be manifestly arbitrary

A. State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar
B. E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu
C. R.K. Garg v. Union of India
D. A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras

A. Shayara Bano v. Union of India
B. Minerva Mills v. Union of India
C. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India
D. I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu

A. 24th Constitutional Amendment
B. 42nd Constitutional Amendment
C. 44th Constitutional Amendment
D. 86th Constitutional Amendment

A. Rational nexus and legislative competence
B. Intelligible differentia and rational nexus
C. Reasonable restriction and proportionality
D. Legislative object and executive discretion

A. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India
B. ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla
C. Kharak Singh v. State of UP
D. Golaknath v. State of Punjab

A. Parliamentary sovereignty
B. Limited government through legal restraint
C. Federal autonomy
D. Judicial supremacy

A. Transformative constitutionalism
B. Originalism
C. Constitutional silence
D. Judicial restraint

A. Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India
B. Indra Sawhney v. Union of India
C. State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas
D. Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala

A. Procedural due process
B. Substantive equality
C. Parliamentary privilege
D. Constitutional convention

A. Doctrine of eclipse
B. Doctrine of proportionality
C. Doctrine of prospective overruling
D. Doctrine of severability

A. K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India
B. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India
C. Minerva Mills v. Union of India
D. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala

A. 86th Amendment
B. 93rd Amendment
C. 97th Amendment
D. 102nd Amendment

A. E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu
B. State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan
C. Minerva Mills v. Union of India
D. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India

A. Procedural formalism
B. Individual dignity
C. Executive accountability
D. Federal balance

A. Decriminalisation of adultery in Joseph Shine
B. Introduction of the Ninth Schedule
C. Abolition of privy purses
D. Introduction of GST

1. Correct Answer: B — E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu
Explanation: Royappa fundamentally changed Article 14 jurisprudence by holding that equality and arbitrariness are sworn enemies. Any arbitrary state action automatically violates Article 14, even without explicit discrimination.

2. Correct Answer: A — Shayara Bano v. Union of India
Explanation: In Shayara Bano (Triple Talaq case), the Supreme Court articulated the manifest arbitrariness test. A law is unconstitutional if it is capricious, irrational, or lacks adequate determining principle.

3. Correct Answer: B — 42nd Constitutional Amendment
Explanation: The 42nd Amendment (1976) strengthened the welfare state orientation of the Constitution and reinforced the interplay between equality and social justice.

4. Correct Answer: B — Intelligible differentia and rational nexus
Explanation: Under classical Article 14 doctrine, classification must satisfy two tests: Intelligible differentia and Rational nexus with legislative objective

5. Correct Answer: A — Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India
Explanation: Maneka Gandhi transformed Article 21 by holding that procedure established by law must be fair, just and reasonable, linking Articles 14, 19 and 21 into the “Golden Triangle.”

6. Correct Answer: B — Limited government through legal restraint
Explanation: The rule of law limits arbitrary power and requires that state action be guided by legal principles rather than personal discretion.

7. Correct Answer: A — Transformative constitutionalism
Explanation: Indian constitutional interpretation has evolved dynamically to expand rights protections. The move from classification to arbitrariness review reflects this transformative approach.

8. Correct Answer: A — Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India
Explanation: The Court held that constitutional morality must prevail over majoritarian morality, ensuring protection of LGBTQ rights under Articles 14, 15 and 21.

9. Correct Answer: B — Substantive equality
Explanation: Modern equality jurisprudence rejects laws based on stereotypical assumptions about gender roles.

10. Correct Answer: B — Doctrine of proportionality
Explanation: Proportionality allows courts to invalidate laws that are excessive or disproportionate even if classification exists.

11. Correct Answer: A — K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India
Explanation: The Court held that privacy flows from dignity and liberty, making it part of Article 21 while also reinforcing equality under Article 14.

12. Correct Answer: B — 93rd Amendment
Explanation: The 93rd Amendment (2005) inserted Article 15(5), enabling reservation in private educational institutions.

13. Correct Answer: A — E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu
Explanation: Royappa established that arbitrary state action violates equality, shifting Article 14 away from rigid classification doctrine.

14. Correct Answer: B — Individual dignity
Explanation: Modern constitutional jurisprudence sees dignity as the unifying value connecting equality, liberty, and personal autonomy.

15. Correct Answer: A — Decriminalisation of adultery
Explanation: In Joseph Shine, the Court struck down Section 497 IPC as manifestly arbitrary and violative of dignity, equality and autonomy.