Constitutional Law MCQs for Judiciary, Page 6

Correct answer: B. Legislation that appears to be within the competence of the legislature enacting it but is in substance an exercise of power the legislature does not possess - what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly

The doctrine of colourable legislation holds that a legislature cannot do indirectly what it lacks power to do directly. Courts look at the substance of the law, not its form or label: if a legislature lacks competence over subject X, it cannot disguise a law about X as a law about subject Y. In K.C. Gajapati Narayan Deo v. State of Orissa (1953), the Supreme Court explained this as a competence doctrine rather than a test of legislative motive. It is often described as preventing a 'fraud on the Constitution.'

Source note: MP Jain Constitutional Law / Standard References

Correct answer: B. Fundamental rights generally cannot be waived where the guarantee protects constitutional policy or public interest; waiver is more properly discussed for procedural or statutory benefits, not the core constitutional guarantee

In Basheshar Nath v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1959), the Supreme Court rejected the idea that a citizen can simply waive fundamental rights such as Article 14. The safer exam rule is that fundamental rights are constitutional limitations serving public policy, not merely private contractual privileges. A person may waive some procedural or statutory benefits in appropriate cases, but that is different from waiving the core constitutional guarantee itself. Article 17, for example, plainly cannot be waived by a victim of untouchability.

Source note: MP Jain Constitutional Law / Standard References

Correct answer: B. Revive and become operative again if the conflicting fundamental right is subsequently amended or removed - the eclipse lifts

The doctrine of eclipse (Bhikaji Narain Dhakras v. State of MP, 1955): a pre-constitutional law inconsistent with a Fundamental Right is NOT void ab initio - it merely becomes 'eclipsed' and unenforceable against citizens. But: (1) It remains valid for non-citizens (since FRs protecting citizens are unavailable to non-citizens - the law still operates in this sphere); (2) It can revive if the inconsistent FR is subsequently removed or amended by Parliament (since Article 13(1) says 'to the extent of inconsistency' - once the inconsistency ends, the law operates again). This contrasts with post-constitutional laws under Article 13(2), which are void ab initio.

Source note: MP Jain Constitutional Law / Standard References

Correct answer: D. Both Navtej Singh Johar (2018) and Joseph Shine (2018) directly relied on privacy, dignity, and autonomy to invalidate penal provisions

Puttaswamy (2017) was directly applied in two major later decisions: (1) Navtej Singh Johar (2018), where Section 377 IPC was struck down insofar as it criminalised consensual adult same-sex relations, and (2) Joseph Shine (2018), where Section 497 IPC on adultery was invalidated for violating dignity, autonomy, and privacy. That is why the combined statement is the most accurate option.

Source note: MP Jain Constitutional Law / Standard References

Correct answer: B. Adherence to the transformative values of the Constitution - dignity, equality, liberty - even when they conflict with prevailing social morality or majority opinion

In Navtej Singh Johar, all five judges invoked 'constitutional morality' (a concept Dr. Ambedkar introduced in Constituent Assembly debates) to hold that the Constitution's values of dignity, equality and liberty must override popular/social morality. Chief Justice Misra observed: 'Constitutional morality cannot be martyred at the altar of social morality.' The Constitution guarantees equal citizenship to every person - this is constitutional morality. Popular morality (social disapproval of certain groups) cannot be a valid basis for constitutional law.

Source note: MP Jain Constitutional Law / Standard References

Correct answer: B. Pavement dwellers have a right to notice and a meaningful opportunity of being heard before eviction; eviction cannot be arbitrary merely because occupation is unauthorised

In Olga Tellis, the Court held that the right to livelihood flows from the right to life because deprivation of livelihood can threaten life itself. Pavement dwellers were therefore entitled to procedural fairness, especially notice and an opportunity of being heard before eviction. The Court did not hold that pavement dwellers can never be removed, nor did it create an unconditional right to permanent alternative accommodation. The judgment is important because even unauthorised occupation must be addressed through constitutionally fair State action.

Source note: MP Jain Constitutional Law / Standard References

Correct answer: B. A discretionary jurisdiction - the Court may in its discretion grant special leave to appeal from any judgment of any court or tribunal in India (except courts constituted under Armed Forces laws)

Article 136 is the Supreme Court's plenary appellate jurisdiction. Key features: (1) Discretionary - the Court 'may in its discretion grant special leave' - it is not an appeal as of right; (2) Wide scope - 'any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India' except courts/tribunals constituted by/under laws relating to Armed Forces; (3) Not limited to constitutional questions - can cover any question of law or fact; (4) The Court can grant or refuse SLP without giving reasons. It is the primary gateway to the Supreme Court for all matters.

Source note: MP Jain Constitutional Law / Standard References

Correct answer: B. Publication of any matter that scandalises the court, prejudices ongoing proceedings, or interferes with administration of justice

Criminal contempt (Section 2(c) of Contempt of Courts Act 1971) means publication of any matter or doing any act that: (i) scandalises or tends to scandalise or lowers or tends to lower the authority of any court; (ii) prejudices or interferes with any judicial proceeding; (iii) interferes with or obstructs the administration of justice. Civil contempt is wilful disobedience of a court's judgment or order. The Supreme Court under Article 129 has inherent contempt power separate from the statute. In Prashant Bhushan Contempt Case (2020), the Court found tweets about the judiciary to be criminal contempt.

Source note: MP Jain Constitutional Law / Standard References

Correct answer: B. Personal information with no relation to public activity - disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy - unless outweighed by public interest

Section 8(1)(j) RTI exempts from disclosure 'information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer...is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure.' This provision reflects the balance between transparency (RTI right under Article 19) and privacy (Puttaswamy right under Article 21).

Source note: MP Jain Constitutional Law / Standard References

Correct answer: A. A constitutional question once decided cannot be re-litigated between the same parties

Res judicata applies to constitutional litigation like other civil proceedings - a matter directly and substantially in issue between the same parties that has been finally decided by a competent court cannot be re-litigated between those parties. However, res judicata has limited application in PILs - a PIL decided on one set of facts/by one petitioner does not necessarily bar another petitioner from filing a PIL on the same issue with new facts. Also, constitutional questions of broad public importance may be re-examined by larger benches if earlier decisions are shown to be per incuriam or if circumstances have materially changed.

Source note: MP Jain Constitutional Law / Standard References

Correct answer: B. Judges must decide cases impartially without political affiliation, financial interest, or personal relationships affecting their decisions - and must recuse themselves when there is a reasonable apprehension of bias

Institutional integrity means the Supreme Court functions as an independent, impartial institution worthy of public trust. Key requirements: (1) Recusal - a judge must recuse when there is a real danger or reasonable apprehension of bias (financial interest, personal relationship with parties, prior legal advice given); (2) Independence from executive/legislative pressure; (3) Transparency in functioning including live-streaming of proceedings (which the Supreme Court began in 2022); (4) Consistent application of legal principles without regard to who the parties are. The 'Master of Roster' controversy raised concerns about institutional integrity.

Source note: MP Jain Constitutional Law / Standard References

Correct answer: B. Chief Justice S.M. Sikri (who wrote the majority summary and Article 368 analysis)

The Kesavananda Bharati case had 13 judges and 11 separate opinions. Chief Justice S.M. Sikri headed the majority and his judgment along with the view summary ('View of the Majority') is typically referred to as establishing the basic structure. The majority declaration signed by 9 of the 13 judges stated that Article 368 does not enable Parliament to alter the basic structure or framework of the Constitution. CJI Sikri's formulation of unamendable features was the foundational articulation.

Source note: MP Jain Constitutional Law / Standard References

Correct answer: B. The Constitution is an organic document that must be interpreted in a broad and progressive manner to meet the needs of changing times - it 'grows' with society

The 'living tree' doctrine (originating in Canadian constitutional law) holds that constitutional documents must be interpreted as living instruments capable of development - not frozen at their original meaning. Indian courts have consistently applied this: Article 21's expansion to include dozens of rights (privacy, livelihood, health, education, clean environment) is a prime example of treating the Constitution as a living document. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud has been a prominent proponent of dynamic constitutional interpretation in India.

Source note: MP Jain Constitutional Law / Standard References

Correct answer: B. The Constitution does not expressly address a matter - courts must determine whether this was intentional (meaning no power exists) or an oversight (where implied powers exist)

Constitutional silence presents interpretive challenges. Examples: (1) The right to privacy - not expressly in the Constitution but implied from Article 21 (Puttaswamy 2017); (2) Proportionality as a review standard - not in the text but derived from Articles 14 and 19; (3) The collegium system - not in the text but derived by the Court from the word 'consultation' in Article 124. Courts must determine when silence means prohibition (negative implication) versus when it creates space for implied powers or rights. Constitutional silence on the right to vote was interpreted as excluding it from fundamental rights (Jyoti Basu v. Debi Ghosal, 1982).

Source note: MP Jain Constitutional Law / Standard References

Correct answer: B. If an unconstitutional part of a law is severable from the rest, courts strike down only the invalid part and uphold the remaining valid part - provided the valid part can stand independently

Severability doctrine: if a part of a statute is unconstitutional but can be separated from the rest without affecting the operation of the remainder, courts strike only the invalid part. Tests (R.M.D.C. v. Union of India, 1957): (1) Can the valid and invalid parts be separated? (2) Is the valid part independent enough to function alone? (3) Would the legislature have passed the valid part independently even knowing the rest was invalid? If the answer to all is yes, severability applies. If the invalid part is so inextricably tied to the whole that separation would distort the legislature's intent, the entire law falls.

Source note: MP Jain Constitutional Law / Standard References

Correct answer: B. That the Speaker must decide defection petitions within a reasonable time - typically 3 months - and courts can direct timely disposal

In Keisham Meghachandra Singh v. Speaker, Manipur (2020), the Supreme Court held that the Speaker cannot indefinitely delay deciding disqualification petitions under the Tenth Schedule. The Court directed that petitions should ordinarily be decided within 3 months. The Court's intervention was necessary because Speakers - being members of the ruling party - had a structural conflict of interest in deciding defection petitions filed against members of their own party, leading to deliberate delay to benefit the government.

Source note: MP Jain Constitutional Law / Standard References

Correct answer: B. Two-thirds majority of members present and voting declaring it necessary in the national interest

Article 249 requires a special resolution: supported by not less than two-thirds of members present and voting (not two-thirds of total membership). Once such a resolution is passed, Parliament can make laws on that State List subject for one year. The law can be extended annually. This provision is intended to allow national-level legislation on State subjects when genuinely needed for national interest - the two-thirds requirement prevents it from being misused by a bare majority government.

Source note: MP Jain Constitutional Law / Standard References

Correct answer: B. A bill providing for imposition of taxes, appropriation of money from the Consolidated Fund, and regulation of custody and audit of public accounts

Article 110(1) defines Money Bills as bills dealing with: (a) imposition, abolition, remission, alteration or regulation of any tax; (b) regulation of borrowing by the Government; (c) custody and withdrawal from the Consolidated Fund; (d) appropriation of money from the Consolidated Fund; (e) declaring expenditure to be charged on the Consolidated Fund; (f) receipt of money on account of the Consolidated Fund or its custody or audit; (g) any matter incidental to the above. The Speaker certifies a bill as a Money Bill under Article 110(3). In Rojer Mathew v. South India Bank (2019), the Court held the Aadhaar Act was improperly certified as a Money Bill.

Source note: MP Jain Constitutional Law / Standard References

Correct answer: B. Elected legislators switching their party allegiance after being elected - voting against their party's whip or joining another party for personal or financial gain

Floor-crossing - or 'aaya ram gaya ram' politics (named after Haryana MLA Gaya Lal who switched parties three times in one day in 1967) - had destabilised many State governments in the 1960s-70s. The Anti-Defection Law (52nd Amendment 1985, Tenth Schedule) was the constitutional response. A member who 'voluntarily gives up membership' or votes against party direction is disqualified. The law prevents legislators from treating their vote as a personal tradeable asset, binding them to honour the mandate on which they were elected.

Source note: MP Jain Constitutional Law / Standard References

Correct answer: B. Examines the accounts showing the appropriation of sums granted by Parliament and the CAG's report thereon - scrutinising whether government money was spent as Parliament intended

The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) - one of the three financial committees of Parliament - examines the Appropriation Accounts and the CAG's Audit Reports. It scrutinises whether money granted by Parliament was spent on the purposes for which it was voted, whether the expenditure conforms to law, and whether there has been wasteful or irregular expenditure. The PAC reports its findings to Parliament. It is distinct from the Estimates Committee (examines budget estimates) and the Committee on Public Undertakings (examines PSUs).

Source note: MP Jain Constitutional Law / Standard References

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

In Berubari Union (1960) the Court held the Preamble was NOT part of the Constitution. This was completely reversed in Kesavananda Bharati (1973), where the thirteen-judge bench overruled Berubari Union and held the Preamble IS part of the Constitution. It can be used as a guide to interpret constitutional provisions and is itself amendable under Article 368 - subject always to the basic structure doctrine. The significance: if the Preamble's ideals (Justice, Liberty, Equality, Fraternity) are part of the Constitution, any amendment attacking them attacks the basic structure.

Source note: MP Jain Constitutional Law / Standard References

Correct answer: B. Socialist and Secular

The 42nd Amendment 1976 - enacted during the Emergency period - inserted 'Socialist' and 'Secular' into the Preamble. The Preamble now reads: 'Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic.' Indian Socialism means democratic socialism (mixed economy, welfare state) - NOT Soviet-style communism. Secularism means the State treats all religions equally ('positive secularism') - not Western-style strict separation. The 44th Amendment (1978) undid many 42nd Amendment changes but retained these two words.

Source note: MP Jain Constitutional Law / Standard References

Correct answer: B. The head of State - the President - is elected and not hereditary

A Republic, as opposed to a monarchy, means the head of State is elected by the people or their representatives - not a hereditary monarch. The President of India is elected by an Electoral College (elected MPs + elected MLAs) under Article 54 for a five-year term. This distinguishes India from countries like the UK where the head of State is a hereditary monarch. Dr. Ambedkar emphasised that Republic means there are no privileged classes - all public offices are open to every citizen.

Source note: MP Jain Constitutional Law / Standard References

Correct answer: C. Dignity of the individual and unity and integrity of the Nation

The Preamble expressly states that Fraternity aims at assuring 'the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation.' Dr. Ambedkar considered fraternity the most essential principle - without fraternity, liberty and equality become no natural course of things. Fraternity means treating fellow citizens as brothers - recognising their inherent dignity. It is the constitutional basis for anti-discrimination laws, dignity jurisprudence under Article 21, and the prohibition of untouchability under Article 17.

Source note: MP Jain Constitutional Law / Standard References

Correct answer: C. Yes - but amendment cannot destroy the basic structure embedded in it

In Kesavananda Bharati (1973), the Court held the Preamble is part of the Constitution and can be amended under Article 368. However, the Preamble embeds the basic objectives - sovereignty, democratic republic, justice, liberty, equality, fraternity - and any amendment destroying these would violate the basic structure doctrine. So Parliament can amend the Preamble's words but cannot fundamentally alter the constitutional vision it represents.

Source note: MP Jain Constitutional Law / Standard References