Blog
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (PCS-J)
MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTION WITH EXPLANATION
Adhyayan IAS Academy
LAW Question and Answer for Judicial Examination
Q1. Which one of the following statements is Correct?
(a) Preamble of the Constitution is the part of the Constitution and can be amended under Article 368
(b) Preamble of the Constitution is not a part of the Constitution and cannot be amended
(c) Preamble is the part of the Constitution and can be amended only if no change in the basic
structure is made
(d) Preamble can be amended by Parliament simply by an objective resolution.
Ans: (c)
Preamble is the part of the basic structure of the Constitution and can be amended only if no change in
the basic structure is made. In the landmark judgment of Kesavananda Bharati, the Supreme Court
propounded the Basic Structure Doctrine. As per this doctrine, the Parliament had the power to amend
any part of the Constitution and there were no barriers on its power. Any part of the Constitution may be
amended as long as the basic structure of the Constitution is not violated.
Q2. Which one of the following statements is correct
(a) The Constitution gives more importance to the society as a whole
(b) The Constitution is individual centric or individual oriented
(c) The Constitution is social-economic pattern of the society but ignores the individual
(d) The Constitution has not ignored individual but has endeavoured to harmonise the individual
interest with permanent interest of the community.
Ans: (d)
Q3. The term ‘other authorities’ as given under Article 12 includes
(a) Such bodies as are functioning as agents of the Executive Government only
(b) All authorities that are created by the Constitution or statute and persons on whom powers are conferred by law
(c) None of the above
(d) All of the above
Ans: (b)
The ‘Other Authorities’ mentioned under Article 12 means all such authorities that lie within the territory of India and are controlled by the government of India through its acts and amendments. In the case of R.D Shetty v. Airport Authority of India, the SC held that, in order to call any authority a State, the following has to be seen:
1. Such other authorities have a governmental functional character
2. The absolute control of such authorities lie with the government
3. Such authorities which have an element of command or authority
4. The authorities discharging public service.
4. On which date the judgment passed which has changed the 50 years old law of Rent and challenged the
Q4 doctrine of equality enshrined in Article 14
(a) 14th April, 2008
(b) 16th April, 2008
(c) 2oth April, 2008
(d) 2nd April, 2008.
Ans: (b)
The case of Satyawati Sharma vs Union Of India, a judgment was passed on 16 April, 2008. In this case, the question before the Court was whether Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 is ultra vires the doctrine of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India?
In this Case the SC passed the judgement which changed the 50 years old law of Rent.
Q5. Article 19(1)(d) provides right to move freely throughout the territory of India. This right Is
(a) Subject to reasonable restriction for certain and specific purposes
(b) Absolute and unchallengeable
(c) Not subjected to any restriction
(d) Guaranteed and any restriction is infringement.
Ans: (a)
As per Article 19, the citizen have the right to move freely throughout the territory of India. However, Clause (5) of this Article states that, this right shall not or prevent the State from making any law imposing reasonable restrictions on the exercise of this right conferred either in the interests of the general public or for the protection of the interests of any Scheduled Tribe.
Q6. Under which one of the following cases the traditional rule of filing petition only by the person aggrieved except in the case of habeas corpus is relaxed
(a) Trilokchand Moichand V. H.B. Munshi
(b) Loginder Nath v. LIOI
(c) Rabindranath Bose V. 1101
(d) Upendra Baxi v. State of UP.
Ans: (d)
In the case of Upendra Baxi v. State of UP, the SC had removed the traditional rule of filing petition only
by the person aggrieved in the case of writ of habeas corpus. Earlier the said writ was to be filed by the aggrieved person. But the court observed that, merely due to the reason that the person is not able to file such a writ because he is unjustly detained is no ground to refuse to entertain any such writ filed by some third party on aggrieved’s behalf.
Q7. In which recent case the meaning and rationale of ”preventive detection” is being discussed in the Constitution or statute
(a) State of Maharashtra v. Bhaurao Punjabrao Gawande
(b) Rajinder Arora v. Union of India.
(c) Naresh Kumar Goel v. Union of India
(d) A.K. Ray v. Union of India.
Ans: (a)
It was observed in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Bhaurao Punjabrao Gawande, there can be no doubt that personal liberty is a precious right. So did the Founding Fathers believe because, while their first object was to give unto the people a Constitution whereby a Government was established, their second object, equally important, was to protect the people against the Government. That is why, while conferring extensive powers on the Government like the power to declare an emergency, the power to
suspend the enforcement of Fundamental Rights or the power to issue Ordinances, they assured to the people a Bill of Rights by Part III of the Constitution, protecting against executive and legislative despotism those human rights which they regarded as ‘fundamental’.
Q8. The term ’State’ in connection with the Directive Principles
(a) Has a meaning given to it in reference to fundamental rights
(b) Means only Union and State Legislature
(c) Means all three organs of the Government
(d) Means the same thing as in connection with the fundamental rights.
Ans: (b)
As per Article 13 of the Constitution, “the State” includes the Parliament of India and the Government and the Legislature of each of the States and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India.The term ’State’ in connection with the Directive Principles
means only Union and State Legislature.
Q9. Assertion (A): Directive Principles are relevant for determining the reasonableness of restrictions under Article 19.
Reason (R): Directive Principles have been declared superior to Fundamental Rights
(a) Both A and R are correct and R is correct explanation of A
(b) Both A and R are correct and R is not correct explanation of A
(c) A is true but R is false
(d) A is false but R is true.
Ans: (c)
DPSP imposes a duty upon the state not only to protect and acknowledge the Fundamental right of the individual but also to achieve Social-economic goals. DPSP are in Part IV of the Constitution of India. In Champakam Dorairajan Case (1951), the Supreme Court ruled that in any case of conflict between Fundamental Rights and DPSPs, the provisions of the former would prevail. DPSPs were regarded to run as a subsidiary to Fundamental Rights. SC also ruled that Parliament can amend Fundamental Rights through constitutional amendment act to implement DPSPs. Also it is true that the Directive Principles are relevant for determining the reasonableness of restrictions under Article 19. Therefore, A is true but R is false.
Q10. The Legal power or position of the President of India is
(a) The same as in the English Constitution
(b) Like the President of America
(c) Like the Administrator of Sikkim
(d) Like that of Chief Justice of Supreme Court.
Ans: (a)
The Constitution of India has provided for a parliamentary form of a government. Under the Indian Constitution, the President occupies the Same position as the King under the English Constitution. He represents the Nation.The President has been made only a nominal executive, the real executive being the council of ministers headed by the Prime Minister. He has to exercise his powers and functions with the aid and advise of the Council of Ministers headed by the prime minister as provided under Article 74 of the Constitution.
