Sample GK Questions for CLAT 2024

A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has ordered that Election Commissioners will be appointed by the President of India on the advice of a committee consisting of the Prime Minister, and leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha (or leader of largest opposition party), and the Chief Justice of India. This practice will be enforced until a law in this regard is made by the Parliament, Justice KM Joseph reading out the judgement said. The Constitution Bench was deciding a batch of petitions recommending reform in the process of appointment of members of the Election Commission of India.

The bench noted that several political parties came into power, however, none of them framed a law/ process for appointment of Election Commission. The bench emphasized that the Election Commission is duty bound to act in a fair and legal manner and to abide by the provisions of the Constitution and the directions of the Court.

“Democracy is inexplicably intertwined with power to the people…Democracy facilitates the peaceful revolution in the hands of a common man if held in a free and fair manner.” It said Democracy can succeed only if all stakeholders work on it to maintain the purity of the election process, so as to reflect the will of people. However, it expressed regret at the “unrelenting abuse” of the electoral process over a period of time. It also commented on the impartiality of the media in the present times. “A large section of the media has abdicated its role and become partisan,” it said.

The bench said that power often becomes goal of political parties to an end. However, the conduct of the government has to be fair and, in a democracy, the end cannot justify the means. Thus, it said that EC has to be independent. In his concurring opinion, Justice Rastogi added that grounds of removal of Election Commissioners should be same as that of the Chief Election Commissioner.

Arguing before the Constitution Bench, Advocate Prashant Bhushan appearing for the petitioner in the lead matter contended that there is no law to regulate the appointment of Election Commissioners. Appearing on behalf of the Union of India, the Attorney General for India made submissions on the powers of the Constitutional Courts in India and across the world and their inherent limitations based on the Montesquian principle of Separation of Powers which is also a part of the Indian Constitutional Scheme. Referring to the doctrine of separation of power, the Solicitor General of India, Tushar Mehta averred that the power to appoint has been conferred upon the executive and the inclusion of the CJI in the appointment process would mean that the Constitution has to be rewritten.

Difficulty Level: Moderate to Hard

a. Budhadev Karmaskar v. State of West Bengal
b. Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India
c. Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India
d. S.G. Vombatkere v. Union of India

a. K.K. Venugopal
b. Mukul Rohatgi
c. R. Venkataramani
d. Ashok Desai

a. 3
b. 4
c. 5
d. 6

a. Article 324
b. Article 325
c. Article 326
d. Article 327

a. 1 Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) + 2 Election Commissioners (ECs)
b. 2 Chief Election Commissioners + 3 Election Commissioners
c. 1 Chief Election Commissioner + 3 Election Commissioners
d. 1 Chief Election Commissioner + 4 Election Commissioners

a. Aam Aadmi Party (AAP)
b. All India Trinamool Congress (AITC)
c. Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP)
d. National People’s Party (NPP)

a. Sunil Arora
b. Sushil Chandra
c. Rajiv Kumar
d. Ashok Lavasa

a. Shankar Dayal Sharma
b. Sukumar Sen
c. T.N Seshan
d. Sushil Kumar

a. Constitutional Body
b. Statutory Body
c. Elective Body
d. None of the above

a. TMC
b. AAP
c. CPI
d. NCP