CLAT PG question bank

Constitutional Law MCQs for CLAT PG, Page 3

CLAT PG Constitutional Law questions 51-75 of 100, with answer keys and explanations covering fundamental rights, federalism, Parliament, constitutional bodies, judicial review, emergency powers, and writs.

100 questions20 topics51-75 on this page
Start adaptive practiceBrowse CLAT PG

Coverage

Topics in this subject

Revise core LLB subjects through CLAT PG MCQs, passage-led questions, answer keys, explanations, statutes, and exam-oriented legal principles.

  • Anti-Defection Law - Tenth Schedule5
  • Article 14 - Right to Equality5
  • Article 19 - Freedom of Speech and Expression5
  • Article 21 and Maneka Gandhi5
  • Basic Structure Doctrine5
  • Constitutional Amendments - Article 3685
  • Directive Principles of State Policy5
  • Doctrine of Pith and Substance - Federalism5
  • Freedom of Religion - Articles 25-26 and Essential Practices5
  • Judicial Independence and Collegium System5
  • Parliamentary Privileges - Article 1055
  • Preamble and Constitutional Vision5
  • President's Rule - Article 356 and S.R. Bommai5
  • Reservation - Article 16 and Indra Sawhney5
  • Reservation - Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (Mandal Case)5
  • Right to Privacy - Article 21 and Technology5
  • Right to Privacy - Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)5
  • Secularism in the Indian Constitution5
  • Separation of Powers and Judicial Independence5
  • Writs and Article 32 - Constitutional Remedies5
Passage or principleMP Jain Ch.2 / Raja Ram Pal v. Speaker Lok Sabha (2007)

Parliamentary privileges are special rights, immunities and exemptions which each House of Parliament and its members and committees possess to enable them to function effectively without interference from outside. Articles 105 and 194 of the Constitution codify these privileges for Parliament and State Legislatures respectively. Article 105(2) provides that no member of Parliament shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in Parliament or any committee thereof. This immunity is absolute - a member cannot be sued or prosecuted for defamation, contempt or any other cause of action arising from his speech in Parliament. However, this immunity does not extend to speech or conduct outside the House. The relationship between parliamentary privileges and fundamental rights has been a contentious issue. In Keshav Singh's case (1965), the Court held that in cases of conflict between privileges and fundamental rights, the former must yield to the extent required by the latter. In Raja Ram Pal v. Speaker, Lok Sabha (2007), the Supreme Court held that parliamentary privilege, though wide, is not immune from judicial review. The expulsion of members from the House, if it violates fundamental rights or the basic structure of the Constitution, may be judicially reviewed. The Court affirmed that while courts cannot interfere in the internal functioning of Parliament and may not inquire into the truth or regularity of proceedings, they can examine whether constitutional provisions have been violated. The privileges of Parliament are therefore not absolute - they operate within the framework of the Constitution and cannot override its fundamental guarantees.

Question 51EasyParliamentary Privileges - Article 105

Article 105(2) as described in the passage provides that no member of Parliament shall be liable to court proceedings in respect of:

  1. A

    Any act done outside the precincts of Parliament

  2. B

    Anything said or any vote given by him in Parliament or any committee thereof

  3. C

    Conduct relating to financial affairs of the House

  4. D

    Official correspondence carried out in the member's constituency

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Anything said or any vote given by him in Parliament or any committee thereof

The passage states 'no member of Parliament shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in Parliament or any committee thereof.'

Source note: MP Jain Ch.2 / Raja Ram Pal v. Speaker Lok Sabha (2007)

Question 52EasyParliamentary Privileges - Article 105

According to the passage, the immunity under Article 105(2) is described as:

  1. A

    Qualified - available only for speeches on legislative matters

  2. B

    Absolute - a member cannot be sued for defamation or other causes arising from his speech in Parliament

  3. C

    Conditional - requiring the Speaker's prior permission

  4. D

    Limited to criminal proceedings, not civil suits

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Absolute - a member cannot be sued for defamation or other causes arising from his speech in Parliament

The passage states 'This immunity is absolute - a member cannot be sued or prosecuted for defamation, contempt or any other cause of action arising from his speech in Parliament.'

Source note: MP Jain Ch.2 / Raja Ram Pal v. Speaker Lok Sabha (2007)

Question 53MediumParliamentary Privileges - Article 105

In Keshav Singh's case (1965), what did the Court hold about conflicts between parliamentary privileges and fundamental rights?

  1. A

    Privileges always override fundamental rights

  2. B

    In cases of conflict, privileges must yield to the extent required by fundamental rights

  3. C

    Fundamental rights are always subject to parliamentary privileges

  4. D

    The President must resolve all such conflicts

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. In cases of conflict, privileges must yield to the extent required by fundamental rights

The passage states 'In Keshav Singh's case...the Court held that in cases of conflict between privileges and fundamental rights, the former must yield to the extent required by the latter.'

Source note: MP Jain Ch.2 / Raja Ram Pal v. Speaker Lok Sabha (2007)

Question 54MediumParliamentary Privileges - Article 105

In Raja Ram Pal v. Speaker, Lok Sabha (2007), the Supreme Court held that parliamentary privilege:

  1. A

    Is absolutely immune from judicial review

  2. B

    Is subject to judicial review if it violates fundamental rights or the basic structure

  3. C

    Cannot be reviewed even if it violates the Constitution

  4. D

    Extends to all acts of members including those done outside Parliament

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Is subject to judicial review if it violates fundamental rights or the basic structure

The passage states 'parliamentary privilege, though wide, is not immune from judicial review. The expulsion of members...if it violates fundamental rights or the basic structure...may be judicially reviewed.'

Source note: MP Jain Ch.2 / Raja Ram Pal v. Speaker Lok Sabha (2007)

Question 55HardParliamentary Privileges - Article 105

According to the passage, what is the outer limit of parliamentary privileges?

  1. A

    Parliament has unlimited privilege that cannot be touched by any court

  2. B

    Privileges operate within the constitutional framework and cannot override its fundamental guarantees

  3. C

    Privileges extend to all acts of members including those outside Parliament

  4. D

    Privileges are determined solely by Parliament and are not subject to the Constitution

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Privileges operate within the constitutional framework and cannot override its fundamental guarantees

The passage concludes: 'The privileges of Parliament are therefore not absolute - they operate within the framework of the Constitution and cannot override its fundamental guarantees.'

Source note: MP Jain Ch.2 / Raja Ram Pal v. Speaker Lok Sabha (2007)

Passage or principleMP Jain Ch.1 / Kesavananda Bharati / Constituent Assembly Debates

The Preamble to the Constitution of India declares India to be a Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic and sets out four objectives for the citizens of India: Justice - social, economic and political; Liberty - of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship; Equality - of status and opportunity; and Fraternity - assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation. The Preamble derives its authority from the phrase 'We, the People of India' which establishes that the ultimate source of constitutional authority is the people themselves. Initially, in Re Berubari Union (1960), the Supreme Court held that the Preamble was not part of the Constitution and could not be used to interpret or expand constitutional provisions. However, in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), this view was overruled, and the Supreme Court held that the Preamble is an integral part of the Constitution. The Preamble can be used as a key to interpret the Constitution and can itself be amended under Article 368, subject to the basic structure doctrine. The 42nd Constitutional Amendment 1976 inserted the words 'Socialist' and 'Secular' into the Preamble, reflecting the constitutional commitment to a welfare State model and the principle that the State shall not patronise or discriminate between religions. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, in the Constituent Assembly debates, described the Preamble as embodying the philosophy and objectives of the Constitution - a statement of the aspirations and ideals that should guide all constitutional interpretation.

Question 56EasyPreamble and Constitutional Vision

According to the passage, in Re Berubari Union (1960), the Supreme Court held that the Preamble:

  1. A

    Was the most important part of the Constitution

  2. B

    Was not part of the Constitution and could not be used to interpret constitutional provisions

  3. C

    Was part of the Constitution and could be amended

  4. D

    Could override any other constitutional provision

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Was not part of the Constitution and could not be used to interpret constitutional provisions

The passage states: 'In Re Berubari Union (1960), the Supreme Court held that the Preamble was not part of the Constitution and could not be used to interpret or expand constitutional provisions.'

Source note: MP Jain Ch.1 / Kesavananda Bharati / Constituent Assembly Debates

Question 57EasyPreamble and Constitutional Vision

The phrase 'We, the People of India' in the Preamble establishes:

  1. A

    That all citizens must participate in constitutional governance directly

  2. B

    That the ultimate source of constitutional authority is the people themselves

  3. C

    That India is a direct democracy

  4. D

    That Parliament represents all people without any restriction

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. That the ultimate source of constitutional authority is the people themselves

The passage states: 'The Preamble derives its authority from the phrase We, the People of India which establishes that the ultimate source of constitutional authority is the people themselves.'

Source note: MP Jain Ch.1 / Kesavananda Bharati / Constituent Assembly Debates

Question 58EasyPreamble and Constitutional Vision

The view in Berubari Union that the Preamble is not part of the Constitution was overruled in:

  1. A

    Minerva Mills v. Union of India

  2. B

    S.R. Bommai v. Union of India

  3. C

    Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)

  4. D

    Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: C. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)

The passage states: 'in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), this view was overruled, and the Supreme Court held that the Preamble is an integral part of the Constitution.'

Source note: MP Jain Ch.1 / Kesavananda Bharati / Constituent Assembly Debates

Question 59MediumPreamble and Constitutional Vision

The words 'Socialist' and 'Secular' were inserted into the Preamble by the 42nd Amendment. According to the passage, 'Secular' reflects:

  1. A

    India's prohibition of all religion

  2. B

    The principle that the State shall not patronise or discriminate between religions

  3. C

    India's commitment to atheism

  4. D

    A ban on religious activities in public life

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. The principle that the State shall not patronise or discriminate between religions

The passage states the 42nd Amendment reflected 'the principle that the State shall not patronise or discriminate between religions.'

Source note: MP Jain Ch.1 / Kesavananda Bharati / Constituent Assembly Debates

Question 60MediumPreamble and Constitutional Vision

Can the Preamble be amended under Article 368 according to the passage?

  1. A

    No - it is a permanent unalterable document

  2. B

    Yes - it can be amended but the amendment is subject to the basic structure doctrine

  3. C

    Yes - it can be freely amended without any restriction

  4. D

    Only the date of adoption can be changed

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Yes - it can be amended but the amendment is subject to the basic structure doctrine

The passage states: 'The Preamble can be used as a key to interpret the Constitution and can itself be amended under Article 368, subject to the basic structure doctrine.'

Source note: MP Jain Ch.1 / Kesavananda Bharati / Constituent Assembly Debates

Passage or principleMP Jain Ch.7 / S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)

Article 356 of the Constitution empowers the President to issue a proclamation imposing President's Rule in a State when he is satisfied that the government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. The provision has been subjected to extensive misuse since independence, being invoked on grounds of political convenience rather than genuine constitutional failure. The landmark nine-judge bench judgment in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) imposed significant constitutional constraints on the use of this power. The Court held unanimously that the power of the President under Article 356 is not absolute and is justiciable - courts can examine the material placed before the President to determine whether it provided a reasonable basis for the satisfaction of the President. The Court further held that the correct test for determining whether a government commands majority support is the floor of the House and not the subjective satisfaction or report of the Governor. A Governor cannot rely upon his own assessment alone to recommend President's Rule; the majority must be demonstrated on the floor of the House through a vote of confidence. The judgment also declared that federalism is a basic feature of the Constitution, citing S.R. Bommai to protect State governments from arbitrary removal. Significantly, the Court held that dissolution of the State Legislative Assembly prior to the approval of the proclamation by Parliament is unconstitutional. This prevents the Centre from presenting Parliament with a fait accompli by dissolving the Assembly before Parliament reviews the proclamation.

Question 61EasyPresident's Rule - Article 356 and S.R. Bommai

Under Article 356 as described in the passage, the President can impose President's Rule when:

  1. A

    He receives a recommendation from the Prime Minister only

  2. B

    He is satisfied that the State government cannot be carried on in accordance with the Constitution

  3. C

    The State Legislature passes a resolution requesting it

  4. D

    The Supreme Court certifies a constitutional failure

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. He is satisfied that the State government cannot be carried on in accordance with the Constitution

The passage states: 'the President to issue a proclamation...when he is satisfied that the government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.'

Source note: MP Jain Ch.7 / S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)

Question 62EasyPresident's Rule - Article 356 and S.R. Bommai

In S.R. Bommai, the Supreme Court held that the correct test for determining majority support for a State government is:

  1. A

    The Governor's subjective assessment

  2. B

    The President's personal satisfaction

  3. C

    A vote of confidence on the floor of the House

  4. D

    An opinion poll conducted in the State

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: C. A vote of confidence on the floor of the House

The passage states 'the correct test for determining whether a government commands majority support is the floor of the House and not the subjective satisfaction or report of the Governor.'

Source note: MP Jain Ch.7 / S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)

Question 63MediumPresident's Rule - Article 356 and S.R. Bommai

According to the passage, the Supreme Court in S.R. Bommai held that the President's power under Article 356 is:

  1. A

    Absolute and completely non-justiciable

  2. B

    Justiciable - courts can examine material to determine if it provided reasonable basis for the President's satisfaction

  3. C

    Exercisable only on the advice of the Council of Ministers

  4. D

    Available only when the State Legislature is not in session

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Justiciable - courts can examine material to determine if it provided reasonable basis for the President's satisfaction

The passage states 'courts can examine the material placed before the President to determine whether it provided a reasonable basis for the satisfaction of the President.'

Source note: MP Jain Ch.7 / S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)

Question 64MediumPresident's Rule - Article 356 and S.R. Bommai

The passage states that the S.R. Bommai judgment held that federalism is:

  1. A

    A policy preference of Parliament that can be modified

  2. B

    A non-justiciable political question

  3. C

    A basic feature of the Constitution

  4. D

    A directive principle to be implemented gradually

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: C. A basic feature of the Constitution

The passage explicitly states 'The judgment also declared that federalism is a basic feature of the Constitution.'

Source note: MP Jain Ch.7 / S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)

Question 65HardPresident's Rule - Article 356 and S.R. Bommai

Why did the S.R. Bommai Court hold that dissolution of the State Assembly prior to Parliamentary approval of the proclamation is unconstitutional?

  1. A

    Because the Governor must first convene a floor test

  2. B

    To prevent the Centre from presenting Parliament with a fait accompli by dissolving the Assembly before Parliament reviews the proclamation

  3. C

    Because the Assembly can only be dissolved by the President

  4. D

    Because dissolution requires a two-thirds majority in Parliament

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. To prevent the Centre from presenting Parliament with a fait accompli by dissolving the Assembly before Parliament reviews the proclamation

The passage directly states this: 'This prevents the Centre from presenting Parliament with a fait accompli by dissolving the Assembly before Parliament reviews the proclamation.'

Source note: MP Jain Ch.7 / S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)

Passage or principleMP Jain / Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992)

Reservations in public employment are governed primarily by Article 16 of the Constitution. Article 16(1) guarantees equality of opportunity to all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. Article 16(4) carves out a specific exception, enabling the State to make any provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens which is not adequately represented in the services under the State. The nature of Article 16(4) - whether it is an exception to Article 16(1) or an integral part of the equality concept - was definitively settled in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992), where the nine-judge bench held that Article 16(4) is not an exception but an instance of classification, itself a facet of equality. The Court in Indra Sawhney imposed significant qualifications on the operation of reservation: first, total reservations cannot ordinarily exceed 50% of available posts; second, the 'creamy layer' - the more affluent and advanced members of an OBC community - must be excluded from reservation benefits; and third, reservation cannot be extended to promotions. Article 16(4A), inserted by the 77th Constitutional Amendment 1995, specifically overruled the third holding and permitted reservation in promotions for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The subsequent Article 16(4B), inserted by the 81st Amendment 2000, permitted carry-forward of unfilled reserved vacancies beyond the 50% ceiling in a given year, subject to the overall ceiling in a year being maintained.

Question 66EasyReservation - Article 16 and Indra Sawhney

According to the passage, the nine-judge bench in Indra Sawhney held that Article 16(4) is:

  1. A

    An exception to the equality rule in Article 16(1) that overrides it completely

  2. B

    Not an exception but a facet of equality - an instance of classification within the equality concept

  3. C

    A temporary provision to be applied for only 50 years

  4. D

    Applicable only to the Central Government, not State Governments

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Not an exception but a facet of equality - an instance of classification within the equality concept

The passage states 'the nine-judge bench held that Article 16(4) is not an exception but an instance of classification, itself a facet of equality.'

Source note: MP Jain / Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992)

Question 67MediumReservation - Article 16 and Indra Sawhney

The 'creamy layer' exclusion in Indra Sawhney applies to:

  1. A

    All reserved categories including Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

  2. B

    Only Scheduled Castes

  3. C

    Only Other Backward Classes (OBCs) - the more affluent and advanced members of an obc community must be excluded

  4. D

    All citizens regardless of category

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: C. Only Other Backward Classes (OBCs) - the more affluent and advanced members of an obc community must be excluded

The passage states: 'the creamy layer - the more affluent and advanced members of an OBC community - must be excluded from reservation benefits.' The passage does not apply this to SCs and STs.

Source note: MP Jain / Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992)

Question 68MediumReservation - Article 16 and Indra Sawhney

Which Constitutional Amendment overruled the Indra Sawhney holding that reservations cannot extend to promotions?

  1. A

    73rd Amendment

  2. B

    77th Constitutional Amendment 1995 - which inserted Article 16(4A)

  3. C

    44th Amendment

  4. D

    103rd Amendment

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. 77th Constitutional Amendment 1995 - which inserted Article 16(4A)

The passage states: 'Article 16(4A), inserted by the 77th Constitutional Amendment 1995, specifically overruled the third holding and permitted reservation in promotions for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.'

Source note: MP Jain / Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992)

Question 69HardReservation - Article 16 and Indra Sawhney

Article 16(4B) inserted by the 81st Amendment 2000 permits:

  1. A

    Reservation exceeding 50% in all years

  2. B

    Carry-forward of unfilled reserved vacancies beyond the 50% ceiling in a given year, subject to the overall ceiling in a year being maintained

  3. C

    Permanent reservation without any ceiling

  4. D

    Reservation only for women in government jobs

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Carry-forward of unfilled reserved vacancies beyond the 50% ceiling in a given year, subject to the overall ceiling in a year being maintained

The passage states Article 16(4B) 'permitted carry-forward of unfilled reserved vacancies beyond the 50% ceiling in a given year, subject to the overall ceiling in a year being maintained.'

Source note: MP Jain / Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992)

Question 70HardReservation - Article 16 and Indra Sawhney

According to the passage, the 50% ceiling on total reservations is:

  1. A

    An absolute constitutional rule that can never be exceeded under any circumstances

  2. B

    A ceiling that cannot ordinarily be exceeded - the word 'ordinarily' suggesting some extraordinary exceptions may exist

  3. C

    A voluntary guideline for States

  4. D

    A requirement only for Central Government posts

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. A ceiling that cannot ordinarily be exceeded - the word 'ordinarily' suggesting some extraordinary exceptions may exist

The passage states reservations 'cannot ordinarily exceed 50%' - the use of 'ordinarily' indicates this is a rule that admits of exceptions in extraordinary circumstances (as the Court clarified for remote/backward areas).

Source note: MP Jain / Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992)

Passage or principleMP Jain Ch.2 / Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992)

The Mandal Commission case - Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) - is among the most significant constitutional judgments on the law of reservations. A nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of 27% reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in central government services as recommended by the Mandal Commission. However, the Court imposed several significant conditions on the operation of reservation under Article 16(4). First, the Court held that reservations shall ordinarily not exceed 50% of the available posts; exceeding this limit would interfere with the equality clause in Articles 14 and 16. Second, the Court introduced the 'creamy layer' exclusion - holding that the more advanced and affluent members of an OBC community (the creamy layer) should be excluded from the benefit of reservation, as they no longer suffer from the backwardness that justifies affirmative action. Third, the Court held that reservations cannot be extended to promotions - Article 16(4) permits reservation only in appointments. This third holding was subsequently overturned by the 77th Constitutional Amendment (1995) which inserted Article 16(4A) permitting reservation in promotions for SCs and STs. The Court also held that the determination of backwardness cannot be based solely on economic criteria - social and educational backwardness are the relevant tests under the Constitution. The Mandal case judgment continues to govern the law of OBC reservations and is the foundational precedent for any discussion of affirmative action in public employment under the Constitution.

Question 71EasyReservation - Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (Mandal Case)

In Indra Sawhney (1992), what percentage of reservation for OBCs in central government services was upheld?

  1. A

    10%

  2. B

    15%

  3. C

    27%

  4. D

    50%

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: C. 27%

The passage states the Court 'upheld the constitutional validity of 27% reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in central government services.'

Source note: MP Jain Ch.2 / Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992)

Question 72MediumReservation - Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (Mandal Case)

The 'creamy layer' exclusion introduced by the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney means:

  1. A

    The top 10% of candidates by merit are excluded from reservation

  2. B

    The more advanced and affluent members of an obc community should be excluded from the benefit of reservation

  3. C

    Reservation is available only to the poorest 50% in each obc community

  4. D

    Candidates with graduate degrees are excluded from obc reservation

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. The more advanced and affluent members of an obc community should be excluded from the benefit of reservation

The passage states 'the Court introduced the creamy layer exclusion - holding that the more advanced and affluent members of an OBC community...should be excluded.'

Source note: MP Jain Ch.2 / Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992)

Question 73EasyReservation - Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (Mandal Case)

According to the passage, the Court in Indra Sawhney held that reservations shall ordinarily not exceed what percentage of available posts?

  1. A

    27%

  2. B

    33%

  3. C

    49%

  4. D

    50%

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: D. 50%

The passage states 'reservations shall ordinarily not exceed 50% of the available posts.'

Source note: MP Jain Ch.2 / Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992)

Question 74MediumReservation - Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (Mandal Case)

The holding in Indra Sawhney that reservations cannot be extended to promotions was subsequently overturned by:

  1. A

    A larger nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court

  2. B

    The 77th Constitutional Amendment which inserted Article 16(4A)

  3. C

    The 86th Constitutional Amendment

  4. D

    The Parliament enacting a regular law under Article 16

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. The 77th Constitutional Amendment which inserted Article 16(4A)

The passage states 'This third holding was subsequently overturned by the 77th Constitutional Amendment (1995) which inserted Article 16(4A).'

Source note: MP Jain Ch.2 / Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992)

Question 75HardReservation - Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (Mandal Case)

On what basis did the Court in Indra Sawhney hold that backwardness cannot be determined?

  1. A

    Religious affiliation alone

  2. B

    Caste alone

  3. C

    Solely on economic criteria - social and educational backwardness are the relevant tests

  4. D

    Geographical location alone

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: C. Solely on economic criteria - social and educational backwardness are the relevant tests

The passage states 'the determination of backwardness cannot be based solely on economic criteria - social and educational backwardness are the relevant tests under the Constitution.'

Source note: MP Jain Ch.2 / Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992)

Continue revision

Administrative Law100 questions with explanationsADR and Arbitration20 questions with explanationsBSA70 questions with explanationsCode of Civil Procedure 190845 questions with explanationsCriminal Law (BNS 2023)85 questions with explanationsEnvironmental Law50 questions with explanations