Constitutional Law MCQs for Judiciary, Page 5

Correct answer: B. Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar (1979)

In Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar (1979), the Supreme Court was confronted with the plight of thousands of undertrial prisoners who had been in jail for periods exceeding the maximum sentence for their alleged offences. Justice Bhagwati held that the right to speedy trial is an integral and essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21. The State's failure to try accused persons speedily is not only a violation of their fundamental right but also a grave miscarriage of justice. This case revolutionised prison jurisprudence in India.

Source note: MP Jain Constitutional Law / Standard References

Correct answer: B. Conviction under a penal law not in force at the time of the act and punishment greater than that prescribed at the time of the offence - but not conviction for an act that was an offence when committed, even if the punishment has since been enhanced

Article 20(1) has two protections: (1) No person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in force at the time of the act (no retrospective penal legislation); (2) No person shall be subjected to a penalty greater than the maximum prescribed at the time of the offence (no retrospective enhancement of punishment). Notably: (a) A person can be convicted of an offence even if the law has since been repealed - they committed the act when it was an offence; (b) Article 20(1) applies only to criminal conviction and punishment - not civil or tax retroactivity.

Source note: MP Jain Constitutional Law / Standard References

Correct answer: C. Stayed all pending FIRs under Section 124A and directed the Union and States not to register fresh cases while the provision is under constitutional re-examination by the Court

In S.G. Vombatkere v. Union of India (2022), a three-judge bench headed by CJI N.V. Ramana took the extraordinary step of keeping Section 124A IPC in abeyance pending constitutional re-examination. The Court directed that pending sedition proceedings should remain on hold and that no fresh FIRs should be registered under Section 124A while reconsideration was ongoing. After the new criminal codes commenced in 2024, IPC Section 124A no longer governs new offences, but the constitutional challenge remains important for pending IPC-era cases and for comparison with the new BNS sovereignty provision.

Source note: MP Jain Constitutional Law / Standard References

Correct answer: B. Based on relevant considerations, not arbitrary or capricious - there must be a rational basis even for administrative action, not just for legislative classification

Post-Royappa/Maneka Gandhi, the arbitrariness test under Article 14 applies to ALL State action - legislative, executive and quasi-judicial. An action is arbitrary if: (1) it has no rational basis; (2) it is based on irrelevant considerations; (3) it ignores relevant factors; (4) it is disproportionate to the objective; (5) it is exercised mala fide. This test is broader than the 'reasonable classification' test - it applies even where there is no classification issue. Any executive decision that is 'unreasonable in the Wednesbury sense' violates Article 14.

Source note: MP Jain Constitutional Law / Standard References

Correct answer: B. Citizens of the general category (forward castes) not already covered under SC/st/obc reservation - who are economically weaker with family income below Rs. 8 lakh per annum

Article 15(6) provides for reservation 'in addition to the existing reservations' for EWS 'other than the classes mentioned in clauses (4) and (5)'-meaning not SC/ST/OBC who are already protected. The criteria for EWS (set by Central government notification): annual family income below Rs. 8 lakh AND no agricultural land above 5 acres AND no residential flat above 1000 sq ft AND no residential plot above 100 sq yards in notified areas. The EWS reservation is a maximum of 10% of seats/posts in addition to existing reservations.

Source note: MP Jain Constitutional Law / Standard References

Correct answer: B. The State - which includes both Central and State Governments - must provide free and compulsory education; parents have the corresponding duty under Article 51A(k) to ensure their children attend school

Article 21A creates a right of the child - the State has the obligation to provide free and compulsory education. The RTE Act 2009 implements this: it requires neighbourhood schools, free books/uniforms/mid-day meals, qualified teachers, and adequate infrastructure. Simultaneously, Article 51A(k) (11th Fundamental Duty added by 86th Amendment) places a duty on parents/guardians to 'provide opportunities for education to his child or, as the case may be, ward between the age of six and fourteen years.' Both State and parents have complementary obligations.

Source note: MP Jain Constitutional Law / Standard References

Correct answer: B. Must be paid minimum wages for work done in jail - unpaid prison labour is 'forced labour' violating Article 23

In Deena v. Union of India (1983), the Supreme Court followed its earlier ruling in People's Union for Democratic Rights (1982) and applied the expanded definition of forced labour - any labour extracted without the minimum wage prescribed by law constitutes forced labour under Article 23. The State cannot profit from prison labour by paying inmates less than minimum wages. Non-payment exploits the compulsory nature of the work (prisoners have no choice). Prisons must pay minimum wages to prisoners performing labour under work programmes.

Source note: MP Jain Constitutional Law / Standard References

Correct answer: B. Complementary standards - proportionality applies specifically when rights are restricted by the State while arbitrariness is the broader test applicable to all State action including action not directly affecting enumerated rights

After Om Kumar v. Union of India (2001) and K.S. Puttaswamy (2017), the relationship is: (1) Proportionality is the specific rigorous test applied when the State restricts a fundamental right - the action must be necessary, rationally connected to a legitimate aim, and proportionate. (2) Arbitrariness under Article 14 is the general test for all State action - any State action (whether or not it affects an enumerated right) that is arbitrary, unreasonable, or without rational basis violates Article 14. Proportionality is a more demanding sub-species of the non-arbitrariness standard.

Source note: MP Jain Constitutional Law / Standard References

Correct answer: C. No law has been enacted under Article 32(3) - only High Courts under Article 226 have writ jurisdiction beyond the Supreme Court

Article 32(3) empowers Parliament to confer power on any court to issue writs for enforcement of rights. However, Parliament has NOT enacted any law under Article 32(3). The only courts with writ jurisdiction are: (1) The Supreme Court under Article 32; (2) High Courts under Article 226 (which is a direct constitutional power, not derived from Article 32(3)). District Courts and other subordinate courts do NOT have writ jurisdiction. Some argue Parliament should use Article 32(3) to decentralise writ jurisdiction for greater access to justice.

Source note: MP Jain Constitutional Law / Standard References

Correct answer: B. While courts have discretion to direct petitioners to first exhaust statutory alternative remedies before exercising writ jurisdiction, this is a rule of convenience not a rule of law - courts can always entertain writs when fundamental rights are violated or when alternative remedies are inadequate

The rule that alternative remedies should be exhausted before a writ is entertained is a rule of practice (judicial policy), not a rule of law. Courts have consistently held that where: (1) a fundamental right has been violated; (2) the alternative remedy is inadequate; (3) the act is wholly without jurisdiction; (4) principles of natural justice are violated; or (5) there is an urgent need for relief - writ jurisdiction will be exercised regardless of alternative remedies. The writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and High Courts cannot be ousted by Parliament (L. Chandra Kumar, 1997).

Source note: MP Jain Constitutional Law / Standard References

Correct answer: B. Article 21 - the right to die with dignity is part of the right to life with dignity; autonomy over one's own body in terminal illness is a fundamental aspect of personal liberty

Common Cause (2018): A five-judge bench held that the right to life under Article 21 includes the right to live with dignity. When a person is in a permanent vegetative state or terminal illness with no prospect of recovery, artificially prolonging life through medical intervention against the person's known wishes is a violation of dignity and autonomy - not a manifestation of the right to life. The Court allowed: (1) Passive euthanasia (withdrawal of life support) for incompetent PVS patients (with court approval); (2) Advance directives (living wills) for competent individuals. Active euthanasia remains illegal.

Source note: MP Jain Constitutional Law / Standard References

Correct answer: B. Frivolous petitions motivated by publicity, rivalry, or personal score-settling - courts dismiss such petitions with costs to deter misuse of PIL

PIL was developed to provide access to justice for the marginalised who cannot approach courts themselves. However, it has been misused for: (1) Publicity-seeking; (2) Proxy litigation for business rivals; (3) Delaying legitimate projects through frivolous challenges; (4) Personal scores and vendetta. The Supreme Court in State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal (2010) issued guidelines: PILs filed for private gain or with mala fide intent shall be dismissed with exemplary costs. Courts are now more scrutinising of PIL petitioners and screen petitions at the admission stage.

Source note: MP Jain Constitutional Law / Standard References

Correct answer: B. Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) - striking down clause 4 of Article 329A

Kesavananda Bharati announced the basic structure doctrine in 1973. The first clear later application of that doctrine to invalidate a constitutional amendment was Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975), where the Court struck down clause (4) of Article 329A inserted by the 39th Amendment because it damaged core features such as free and fair elections, judicial review and the rule of law. Minerva Mills (1980) was another major application, but it was not the first.

Source note: MP Jain Constitutional Law / Standard References

Correct answer: B. Pursue a legitimate aim, be rationally connected to it, use the least restrictive means available, and be proportionate in balancing benefits against burdens

Proportionality has four stages: (1) Legitimate aim - the State must pursue a valid constitutional objective; (2) Rational connection - the measure must actually help achieve the aim; (3) Necessity - no less restrictive alternative must be available; (4) Proportionality stricto sensu - benefits must outweigh the burden on the right. In Modern Dental College v. State of MP (2016) and K.S. Puttaswamy (2017), the Supreme Court fully adopted this four-stage proportionality test for reviewing restrictions on Fundamental Rights.

Source note: MP Jain Constitutional Law / Standard References

Correct answer: B. Locus standi - the requirement that only a person whose own rights are affected can file a petition

Traditional locus standi required that only a person who has personally suffered a legal injury can file a petition. In developing PIL, Justices P.N. Bhagwati and V.R. Krishna Iyer relaxed this to allow any public-spirited citizen to file a petition under Article 32 or 226 on behalf of those too poor, ignorant or otherwise unable to access courts. The first PIL cases in India involved bonded labourers (Bandhua Mukti Morcha), undertrial prisoners (Hussainara Khatoon), and exploited child workers.

Source note: MP Jain Constitutional Law / Standard References

Correct answer: B. Law under Article 141 having the force of law until Parliament legislates on the subject - binding on all employers

In Vishaka, the Court held that sexual harassment at the workplace violates Articles 14, 19(1)(a) and (g), and 21. Since there was no legislation, the Court exercised its power under Articles 32 and 141 to fill the legislative vacuum and issued the Vishaka Guidelines as binding law. The Court held that in the absence of domestic legislation, international conventions like CEDAW (ratified by India) could be read into domestic rights. The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act 2013 later superseded these guidelines.

Source note: MP Jain Constitutional Law / Standard References

Correct answer: B. Only the ratio decidendi (the legal principle essential to the decision) of a Supreme Court judgment is binding - obiter dicta are persuasive but not binding

Under Article 141, the Supreme Court's declaration of law is binding on all courts. But 'law declared' refers to the ratio decidendi - the binding legal principle on which the decision rests - not obiter dicta (observations made in passing that were not essential to the decision). High Courts and lower courts are bound by the ratio of Supreme Court decisions. Even the Supreme Court itself is generally bound by its own earlier decisions under the doctrine of stare decisis, though it can depart from them by a larger bench.

Source note: MP Jain Constitutional Law / Standard References

Correct answer: B. The tendency of courts to expand judicial role beyond traditional adjudication - actively protecting rights, filling legislative gaps, and monitoring implementation through continuing mandamus

Judicial activism in India is reflected in: (1) PIL jurisdiction allowing courts to take cognisance of public interest matters; (2) Expansive interpretation of Article 21 to include dozens of rights; (3) Continuing mandamus - issuing successive orders to monitor compliance; (4) Vishaka-type legislative directions filling statutory gaps; (5) Monitoring environmental violations, prison conditions, etc. Critics argue activism undermines separation of powers; proponents say it fills governance gaps and protects marginalised populations who cannot access the political system.

Source note: MP Jain Constitutional Law / Standard References

Correct answer: B. A constitutional right under Article 326 and a statutory right under the rpa 1951 - but not a Fundamental Right

In Jyoti Basu v. Debi Ghosal (1982), the Supreme Court held: 'A right to elect, fundamental though it is to democracy, is, anomalously enough, neither a Fundamental Right nor a Common Law Right. It is pure and simple, a statutory right.' The right to vote flows from Article 326 (adult suffrage) and the Representation of the People Act 1951. Violations of voting rights are governed by the election law mechanism (election petitions under RPA) - not by fundamental rights remedies under Article 32.

Source note: MP Jain Constitutional Law / Standard References

Correct answer: B. Has power over all subjects except Land, Police and Public Order - the lg must act on the aid and advice of the elected Council of Ministers on all other subjects, not independently

In Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India (2018), a five-judge Constitution Bench held that the LG of Delhi is bound to act on the aid and advice of the elected Council of Ministers (headed by the Chief Minister) in all matters except Land, Police and Public Order (which are with the Centre under Article 239AA). The LG cannot obstruct the elected government's decisions or independently refer matters to the President on all subjects. The Court held that a constitutional democracy requires respect for the mandate given by voters to the elected government.

Source note: MP Jain Constitutional Law / Standard References

Correct answer: B. Passive euthanasia and 'advance directives' (living wills) - holding that the right to die with dignity is part of Article 21

In Aruna Shanbaug (2011), the Court allowed passive euthanasia (withdrawal of life support) for PVS patients subject to court approval. In Common Cause v. Union of India (2018), a five-judge bench held that: (1) the right to die with dignity is a fundamental right under Article 21; (2) passive euthanasia (withholding/withdrawing life support) is permissible; (3) a person with a terminal illness may execute an 'advance directive' (living will) specifying they do not want life-prolonging treatment if they become incompetent. Active euthanasia (administering a lethal substance) remains illegal.

Source note: MP Jain Constitutional Law / Standard References

Correct answer: B. Fundamental Rights apply directly between private parties - not just against the State

Traditionally, Fundamental Rights are 'vertical' - they apply against the State (as defined in Article 12). Horizontal application means FRs apply directly between private parties. In India, Articles 17 (untouchability) and 23-24 (exploitation) expressly apply horizontally against private parties. Article 15(2) prohibits discrimination in access to public places even by private persons. The courts have also applied Article 21 horizontally in some cases. Full horizontal application like in South Africa is debated - most FRs still require 'State action' under Article 12.

Source note: MP Jain Constitutional Law / Standard References

Correct answer: B. Establishing adequate medical facilities and ensuring that private hospitals receiving State aid do not deny emergency treatment - failing to provide emergency treatment violates Article 21

The right to health under Article 21 includes: (1) the State's obligation to maintain public health infrastructure; (2) the right to emergency medical treatment - in Paramanand Katara v. Union of India (1989), the Court held every hospital (government or private) has a constitutional obligation to provide emergency medical treatment regardless of medico-legal formalities; (3) protection from life-threatening medical negligence; (4) access to essential medicines. The Consumer Protection Act and Clinical Establishment Act give statutory effect to some aspects of this right.

Source note: MP Jain Constitutional Law / Standard References

Correct answer: C. Article 139A

Article 139A(1) empowers the Supreme Court to transfer to itself cases involving substantial questions of law of general importance pending before two or more High Courts. Article 139A(2) empowers the Supreme Court to transfer any case, appeal or other proceedings from one High Court to another High Court if it is satisfied that it is expedient to do so for the ends of justice. This prevents conflicting decisions from different High Courts on the same question of law and ensures uniformity in constitutional interpretation.

Source note: MP Jain Constitutional Law / Standard References

Correct answer: B. Order divorce by mutual consent waiving the statutory 6-month waiting period, direct cbi investigation, award compensation for human rights violations, and order closure of polluting industries - even in absence of specific statutory authority

Article 142 is an extraordinary plenary power. Notable uses include moulding relief in the Bhopal gas litigation, dissolving marriages on grounds such as irretrievable breakdown in appropriate cases, directing investigation or compensation, and issuing environmental directions. The important limit is equally tested: Article 142 lets the Supreme Court do complete justice in a pending cause, but it cannot be used to violate express constitutional provisions or to casually override substantive statutory rights.

Source note: MP Jain Constitutional Law / Standard References