Constitutional Law MCQs for Judiciary, Page 4

Correct answer: B. The Centre and States working together harmoniously on shared governance goals through mechanisms like the GST Council, Inter-State Council, etc.

Cooperative federalism refers to the evolving model where Centre and States work as partners rather than adversaries - particularly evident in: (1) the GST Council (Article 279A), where Centre and States jointly recommend GST rates and policy through a consensus-seeking institution backed by weighted voting; (2) the Inter-State Council for discussing Centre-State issues; (3) NITI Aayog replacing Planning Commission as a cooperative planning forum; (4) Centrally Sponsored Schemes implemented jointly. It represents a move away from competitive/confrontational federalism.

Source note: MP Jain Constitutional Law / Standard References

Correct answer: A. Article 246A - giving Parliament and States concurrent power on GST with Parliament having exclusive power on inter-State GST

The 101st Amendment inserted TWO key Articles: (1) Article 246A giving Parliament and State Legislatures concurrent power to make laws on GST - but giving Parliament EXCLUSIVE power for inter-State supply (IGST); (2) Article 279A establishing the GST Council. Together these amendments restructured India's taxation federalism fundamentally - replacing the earlier fragmented system of multiple Central and State taxes with a unified indirect tax. The GST Council is itself a unique federal institution with weighted voting.

Source note: MP Jain Constitutional Law / Standard References

Correct answer: B. Exclude Supreme Court jurisdiction over certain inter-State water disputes and establish tribunals for adjudication

Article 262 provides: (1) Parliament may by law provide for adjudication of any dispute or complaint with respect to use, distribution or control of waters of, or in, any inter-State river or river valley; (2) Parliament may by law provide that neither the Supreme Court nor any other court shall exercise jurisdiction in respect of such dispute. The Inter-State River Water Disputes Act 1956 was enacted under this power - it established the mechanism for Inter-State Water Disputes Tribunals (e.g., Cauvery Tribunal, Krishna Tribunal).

Source note: MP Jain Constitutional Law / Standard References

Correct answer: C. Limiting use of Article 356, strengthening the Inter-State Council, and greater devolution to States and local bodies

The Punchhi Commission (chaired by former CJI M.M. Punchhi) submitted its report in 2010. Key recommendations: (1) amend Article 356 to prevent misuse - impose stricter conditions; (2) activate the Inter-State Council as a substantive policy forum; (3) reform Governors' appointment and role; (4) greater devolution to States and third tier of governance; (5) encourage cooperative federalism through consultation mechanisms. Many recommendations remain unimplemented.

Source note: MP Jain Constitutional Law / Standard References

Correct answer: B. Construction and maintenance of means of communication and protection of railways and similar national assets in States

Article 257 allows the Union to give directions to State governments regarding: (1) construction and maintenance of means of communication declared by Parliament to be of national or military importance; (2) protection of railways. The Union can direct States to take protective measures for these national assets. Costs are governed by an agreement between the Union and the State. This provision reflects the national character of certain infrastructure despite States' territorial jurisdiction.

Source note: MP Jain Constitutional Law / Standard References

Correct answer: B. When Parliament has enacted a comprehensive law on a Concurrent List subject, States cannot legislate on the same subject even if there is no direct conflict - Parliament has 'occupied the field'

The doctrine of occupied field (or covered field) was developed in Hoechst Pharmaceuticals v. State of Bihar (1983). If Parliament has occupied the entire field of legislation on a Concurrent List subject - enacted a complete code leaving no gaps - a State law on the same subject is void even without direct conflict. Parliament's intent to occupy the field exclusively is implied. This goes beyond Article 254's repugnancy test - it doesn't require a direct clash between specific provisions.

Source note: MP Jain Constitutional Law / Standard References

Correct answer: C. Criminal law and criminal procedure

The Concurrent List (List III) includes: criminal law (except offences under Union laws like IPC), criminal procedure (CrPC), civil procedure, marriage and divorce, adoption, succession, education (post-42nd Amendment), forests, protection of wild animals and birds, population control, labour welfare, electricity, newspapers, books and printing presses, bankruptcy and insolvency, etc. Defence (List I, Entry 1), Agriculture (List II, Entry 14) and Public order (List II, Entry 1) are NOT in the Concurrent List.

Source note: MP Jain Constitutional Law / Standard References

Correct answer: A. States have equal standing to challenge Central legislation in the Supreme Court under Article 131

Under Article 131, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in disputes between: States themselves, and between States and the Union. In State of Karnataka v. Union of India, the Court confirmed that States have locus standi to challenge Central actions in the Supreme Court under Article 131. This makes Article 131 the forum for federal disputes - a State can challenge a Central law or executive action here. The dispute must involve a question of law or fact on which the existence of a legal right depends.

Source note: MP Jain Constitutional Law / Standard References

Correct answer: C. The entire spectrum of Centre-State relations - constitutional, legislative, administrative and financial

The Sarkaria Commission on Centre-State Relations, chaired by Justice R.S. Sarkaria, was constituted to examine and review the working of existing arrangements between the Union and States in all spheres - constitutional, legal, administrative, financial - and to recommend appropriate changes. It submitted its report in 1988 with 247 recommendations. Key recommendations included: restricting use of Article 356, activating the Inter-State Council, greater autonomy to States, not treating the Concurrent List as exclusively Central.

Source note: MP Jain Constitutional Law / Standard References

Correct answer: B. There is an outstanding loan made to the State by the Central Government or in respect of which the Centre has given a guarantee

Article 293(3): A State shall not without the consent of the Government of India raise any loan if there is still outstanding any part of a loan made to that State by the Government of India or by its predecessor government, or in respect of which a guarantee has been given by the Government of India. The Central Government may give its consent subject to such conditions, if any, as it thinks fit. This gives the Centre significant fiscal leverage over States with outstanding Central loans.

Source note: MP Jain Constitutional Law / Standard References

Correct answer: B. Functions of Municipalities (18 subjects)

The 74th Constitutional Amendment 1992 added Part IX-A (Municipalities) and the TWELFTH SCHEDULE (containing 18 subjects for municipalities). These 18 subjects include: urban planning, regulation of land use, public health, sanitation, parks, roads, slum improvement, public amenities, etc. Note: the ELEVENTH SCHEDULE (added by 73rd Amendment) contains 29 subjects for Panchayati Raj Institutions. The Twelfth = Municipalities (18 subjects); Eleventh = Panchayats (29 subjects).

Source note: MP Jain Constitutional Law / Standard References

Correct answer: B. Public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every State - judgments of one State's courts are enforceable throughout India

Article 261 (modelled on the US Full Faith and Credit Clause) requires: (1) Public acts (legislation) of every State have validity throughout India; (2) Public records of every State must be given the same credit everywhere; (3) Judicial proceedings (court judgments and decrees) of every State must be recognised and enforceable throughout India. This prevents a litigant from having to relitigate the same dispute in multiple States - a decree from Kerala can be executed in Maharashtra.

Source note: MP Jain Constitutional Law / Standard References

Correct answer: B. Weighted majority - Union has 1/3 of voting power, all States together have 2/3; decisions require 3/4 of weighted votes

Article 279A(9): every decision of the GST Council shall be taken at a meeting by a majority of not less than 3/4 of the weighted votes of the members present and voting. Voting weight: Centre's vote = 1/3 of total; all States' votes together = 2/3 of total. So Centre alone cannot pass a resolution (needs at least some State support), and States together cannot pass a resolution against the Centre's wishes (need 3/4 - they have only 2/3). This structure requires cooperative decision-making.

Source note: MP Jain Constitutional Law / Standard References

Correct answer: B. State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara (1951)

In State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara (1951), the Bombay Prohibition Act was challenged on the ground that by prohibiting import of liquor (a Central subject), it exceeded State legislative competence. The Supreme Court applied the doctrine of pith and substance: the real nature and character of the Act was to regulate intoxicating liquors within the State (State List entry) - the effect on imports was merely incidental. The Act was upheld. This case established pith and substance as the primary tool for resolving inter-list conflicts.

Source note: MP Jain Constitutional Law / Standard References

Correct answer: C. Marriage, divorce and adoption

The Concurrent List (List III) includes: criminal law and procedure, civil procedure, marriage and divorce, adoption, wills, succession, bankruptcy, education (after 42nd Amendment), forests, protection of wild animals, economic and social planning, drugs, etc. Defence and Banking are Union List subjects. Citizenship is also Union List (Entry 17, List I). Marriage and divorce (Entry 5, List III) being concurrent explains why both Parliament (Hindu Marriage Act, Special Marriage Act) and some State laws can operate in this area.

Source note: MP Jain Constitutional Law / Standard References

Correct answer: B. Allows Parliament to make laws on State List subjects if the legislation is for implementing an international treaty, agreement or convention

Article 253 provides that Parliament has power to make any law for the whole or any part of India for implementing any treaty, agreement or convention with any other country or any decision made at any international conference, association or other body. This power is NOT subject to the Seventh Schedule distribution - Parliament can legislate on State List subjects under Article 253 for treaty implementation. In Gramophone Company of India v. Birendra Bahadur Pandey (1984), the Court held Article 253 is a plenary power overriding normal federal distribution.

Source note: MP Jain Constitutional Law / Standard References

Correct answer: B. The GST Council under Article 279A - where Centre and States jointly decide GST rates and policies through consensus

Cooperative federalism refers to Centre-State collaboration rather than conflict. The GST Council is the best constitutional example: Article 279A establishes the Council with the Union Finance Minister as Chairperson and State Finance Ministers as members. Its formal decisions require not less than three-fourths of the weighted votes of members present and voting, with the Centre carrying one-third weight and the States together carrying two-thirds. The Council embodies the principle that fiscal federalism works best when both Centre and States cooperate rather than compete. The 73rd and 74th Amendments devolving powers to local bodies also reflect cooperative federalism.

Source note: MP Jain Constitutional Law / Standard References

Correct answer: B. The Inter-State River Water Disputes Act 1956 - which creates Tribunals to adjudicate disputes

Article 262 provides that Parliament may by law provide for adjudication of any dispute relating to the use, distribution or control of the waters of any inter-State river. Parliament may also provide that neither the Supreme Court nor any other court shall have jurisdiction in respect of such disputes. The Inter-State River Water Disputes Act 1956 was enacted under Article 262. Various Tribunals (Krishna, Cauvery, Narmada, etc.) have been set up under this Act. The Cauvery dispute between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu is a prominent example of Article 262 jurisdiction.

Source note: MP Jain Constitutional Law / Standard References

Correct answer: B. Not only must there be a procedure prescribed by law, but that procedure must be substantively fair, just and reasonable - mere formal compliance with any procedure is insufficient

Pre-Maneka Gandhi, the Supreme Court in A.K. Gopalan (1950) had held that 'procedure established by law' in Article 21 meant any procedure prescribed by a law - even if arbitrary. Maneka Gandhi (1978) introduced 'substantive due process': the procedure must not merely exist but must be substantively fair, just and reasonable. This brought Indian constitutional law closer to the American 'due process' standard. Every deprivation of life or liberty must now pass a triple test: backed by law (Article 13), the law must be reasonable (Article 14), and the procedure must be fair (Article 21).

Source note: MP Jain Constitutional Law / Standard References

Correct answer: B. Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan v. Union of India (2012) - where the Supreme Court upheld the 25% rte reservation for non-minority private schools

In Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan v. Union of India (2012), the Supreme Court by a 2:1 majority upheld the RTE Act's requirement that private unaided non-minority schools reserve 25% seats for children from weaker sections and disadvantaged groups. The Court held this was a reasonable restriction on the right to run a school under Article 19(1)(g) in the interests of the general public. However, in Pramati (2014), the Court clarified this provision does NOT apply to unaided minority schools (protected under Article 30).

Source note: MP Jain Constitutional Law / Standard References

Correct answer: B. A prescribed procedure with written reasons, subject to judicial review - blocking must be based on grounds in Article 19(2) only

While striking down Section 66A, the Court in Shreya Singhal upheld Section 69A (blocking of websites) but read down the blocking rules to require: (1) orders only on grounds specified in Article 19(2); (2) written reasons; (3) the aggrieved party must be given an opportunity to represent; (4) judicial review availability. The Court held that the executive cannot block speech that falls outside Article 19(2) grounds - speech can only be blocked for the eight constitutionally enumerated reasons, not for mere 'annoyance' or 'inconvenience'.

Source note: MP Jain Constitutional Law / Standard References

Correct answer: B. Has the same fundamental right as other citizens but courts have developed specific principles protecting press freedom - including protection from pre-censorship, excessive taxation and source protection

The Supreme Court has developed the following principles for press freedom under Article 19(1)(a): (1) No prior restraint/pre-censorship unless in exceptional cases (Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi, 1950); (2) Freedom from excessive or discriminatory taxation targeting the press (Indian Express Newspapers, 1985); (3) No compelled disclosure of journalist's sources except in very limited circumstances; (4) Right to receive information and report on court proceedings subject to necessary limitations. The press has the same Article 19 rights as individuals - but as a 'vehicle of expression' for all citizens, its freedom gets heightened protection.

Source note: MP Jain Constitutional Law / Standard References

Correct answer: B. Retain all fundamental rights except those necessarily lost due to the fact of lawful imprisonment - including right against torture, solitary confinement without justification, and degrading treatment

In Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1978), Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer held that 'prisoners are persons' and retain fundamental rights except those incompatible with lawful imprisonment. Prisoners cannot be tortured, subjected to arbitrary solitary confinement, or treated in a degrading manner. Article 21 guarantees them the right to life with dignity even in prison. The Court used Article 32 to issue a writ even though the petition was in the form of a letter from a co-prisoner on behalf of Batra - one of the earliest examples of epistolary jurisdiction.

Source note: MP Jain Constitutional Law / Standard References

Correct answer: B. As soon as may be communicate to the detainee the grounds for detention and afford the earliest opportunity to make a representation against the detention

Article 22(5) provides two essential safeguards for preventive detention: (1) Communication of grounds - 'the authority making the order shall, as soon as may be, communicate to such person the grounds on which the order has been made' (may withhold facts against public interest to disclose); (2) Opportunity of representation - 'shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order.' Failure to comply with these safeguards renders the detention void - the detainee must be released.

Source note: MP Jain Constitutional Law / Standard References

Correct answer: B. Compelling a person to give DNA/blood samples for identification purposes (not to make admissions) does not violate Article 20(3) - it is not 'testimonial' evidence; but polygraph/narco tests (extracting statements) do violate it

The Supreme Court in State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad (1961) held that 'to be a witness' in Article 20(3) means to provide testimonial or communicative evidence - oral statements or written documents that convey knowledge. Physical characteristics like handwriting specimens, fingerprints, blood/DNA samples, voice samples are NOT testimonial - they are physical evidence and their compelled production does not violate Article 20(3). However, narco-analysis and polygraph tests extract statements under chemically induced intoxication - these ARE testimonial and violate Article 20(3) (Selvi v. State of Karnataka, 2010).

Source note: MP Jain Constitutional Law / Standard References