All Exams  >   BPSC (Bihar)  >   Indian Polity for State PSC Exams  >   All Questions

All questions of Judicial Review, Activism & PIL for BPSC (Bihar) Exam

Consider the following about Public Interest Litigation (PIL).
1. It is a legal instrument.
2. both administrative and judicial bodies can entertain it.
3. Representatives of victims can also file a PIL.
4. It can be filed only in social and environmental cases.
Choose the correct answer using the codes below.
  • a)
    1, 2 and 4 only
  • b)
    2 and 3 only
  • c)
    3 only
  • d)
    3 and 4 only
Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

Ojasvi Mehta answered
  • Public-Interest Litigation is litigation for the protection of the public interest. In Indian law, Article 32 of the Indian constitution contains a tool which directly joins the public with the judiciary.
  • A PIL may be introduced in a court of law by the court itself (suo moto), rather than the aggrieved party or another third party. For the exercise of the court's jurisdiction, the victim doesn't need to violate his or her rights to approach the court personally.
  • In a PIL, the right to file suit is given to a public member by the courts through judicial activism. The public member may be Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs), an institution or an individual.

Consider the following statements.
1. The term Judicial review was first coined by Arthur Schlesinger Jr
2. The term judicial activism was first coined by John Marshall
Which of these statements are not correct?
  • a)
    1 Only
  • b)
    2 Only
  • c)
    Both 1 and 2
  • d)
    Neither 1 nor 2
Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

Aravind Menon answered
The correct answer is:
3. Both 1 and 2
Explanation:
1. The term "Judicial review" was not first coined by Arthur Schlesinger Jr. Judicial review is a concept that has been attributed to the landmark case Marbury v. Madison (1803) in the United States, and while the term itself may not have been coined in that case, the practice and principle were firmly established there by Chief Justice John Marshall. Arthur Schlesinger Jr. is known more for his work on the term "imperial presidency," not judicial review.
2. The term "judicial activism" was not first coined by John Marshall. John Marshall was a Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court who played a pivotal role in the establishment of judicial review, but he did not coin the term "judicial activism." The term "judicial activism" was actually first used by Arthur Schlesinger Jr. in a 1947 Fortune magazine article to describe the tendencies of certain Supreme Court justices.
Therefore, both statements are incorrect.

Consider the following statements.
1. The Supreme Court has declared the power of judicial review as a basic feature of the Constitution or an element of the basic structure of the Constitution
2. The power of judicial review can be curtailed or excluded by a constitutional amendment Which of these statements are correct?
  • a)
    1 Only
  • b)
    2 Only
  • c)
    Both 1 and 2
  • d)
    Neither 1 nor 2
Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?

Diya Deshpande answered
The Power of Judicial Review

The power of judicial review refers to the authority of the judiciary to review and strike down any legislation or executive action that is found to be unconstitutional or in violation of the basic structure of the Constitution. This power is an essential feature of a democratic system and is aimed at ensuring that the government operates within the limits of the Constitution.

Statement 1: The Supreme Court has declared the power of judicial review as a basic feature of the Constitution or an element of the basic structure of the Constitution.

This statement is correct. In the landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), the Supreme Court held that the power of judicial review is an essential feature of the Constitution and is part of the basic structure of the Constitution. The Court also stated that this power cannot be taken away by the legislature through the process of constitutional amendment.

Statement 2: The power of judicial review can be curtailed or excluded by a constitutional amendment.

This statement is incorrect. As mentioned above, the Supreme Court has held that the power of judicial review is an essential feature of the Constitution and cannot be taken away by the legislature through the process of constitutional amendment. Any attempt to do so would be unconstitutional and would be struck down by the courts.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, statement 1 is correct, while statement 2 is incorrect. The power of judicial review is an essential feature of the Constitution and cannot be curtailed or excluded by a constitutional amendment.

Which of the following are some of the landmark PIL cases in India?
1. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan
2. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India
3. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala
Select the correct answer using the codes below.
  • a)
    1 only
  • b)
    1 and 3 only
  • c)
    1, 2 and 3
  • d)
    1 and 2 only
Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?

Kavita Mehta answered
  • Kesavananda Bharati v. the State of Kerala: This was a writ petition under A32 of the constitution. The idea of PIL did not exist in India then.
  • Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan: This case was against sexual harassment at workplace, brought by Bhanwari Devi to stop the marriage of a one-year-old girl in rural Rajasthan. Five men raped her. She faced numerous problems when she attempted to seek justice. Naina Kapur decided to initiate a PIL to challenge sexual harassment at the workplace in this supreme court.
  • M. C. Mehta v. Union of India: In this case, the court passed three landmark judgements and several orders against polluting industries which were more than 50,000 in the Ganga basin. The court shut down numerous industries and allowed them to reopen only after controlled pollution. In the end, millions of people escaped air and water pollution in the Ganga basin, including eight states in India.

Consider the following statements about the Public Interest Litigations (PILs).
1. It need not be filed by the aggrieved party only.
2. It may be introduced in suo moto by the court.
3. The provision of PILs is mentioned in the constitution of India.
Choose the correct answer using the codes below:
  • a)
    1 and 2
  • b)
    2 and 3
  • c)
    1 and 3
  • d)
    All of the above
Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?

Ojasvi Mehta answered
  • It was introduced by Justice P.N. Bhagwati of the Supreme Court.
  • It was not mentioned in the constitution of India nor any law enacted by Parliament. It is a result of Judicial activism.
  • An individual or group of people directly files public Interest Litigation in the supreme court.
  • It was felt that the government undermines its interests. In such a situation, the court directly accepts the public good. It is a new legal horizon in which the court of law can initiate and enforce action to serve and secure significant Public Interest.

Which of these constitutional provisions give the Judiciary the power of Judicial Review?
1. Article 13 which says laws ultra vires the constitution shall be void
2. Article 32 which gives the Supreme Court the power to issue writs
3. Article 226 which gives High Courts the power to issue writs
Select the correct answer using the codes below.
  • a)
    1 and 2 only
  • b)
    2 and 3 only
  • c)
    1 only
  • d)
    1, 2 and 3
Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?

Pooja Shah answered
  • Article 13 declares that all inconsistent laws with or derogation of any of the fundamental rights shall be void. In other words, it expressly provides for the doctrine of judicial review.
  • This power has been conferred on the Supreme Court (Article 32) and the High Courts (Article 226) that can declare a law unconstitutional and invalid on the ground of contravention of any of the Fundamental Rights.

Consider the following statements.
1. The doctrine of Judicial review originated and developed in the USA
2. In India the constitution itself confers the power of Judicial review on the judiciary (both the Supreme Court as well as High Courts).
Which of these statements are correct?
  • a)
    1 Only
  • b)
    2 Only
  • c)
    Both 1 and 2
  • d)
    Neither 1 nor 2
Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

The doctrine of judicial review originated and developed in the USA. It was propounded for the first time in the famous case of Marbury V. Madison (1803) by John Marshall, the then chief justice of the American Supreme Court. In India, on the other hand, the Constitution itself confers the power of judicial review on the judiciary (both the Supreme Court as well as High Courts).

Regarding judicial activism, consider the following statements.
1. It has democratised the judicial system by giving not just to individuals, but also groups access to the courts.
2. It has forced executive accountability.
3. Judicial activism may be creating strains on this.
4. It has overburdened the courts.
5. It has also attempted to make the electoral system much more free and fair.
Which of the above statements is incorrect?
  • a)
    4 Only
  • b)
    5 Only
  • c)
    None
  • d)
    2 Only
Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

Kavita Mehta answered
  • Judicial activism has had a manifold impact on the political system.
  • It has democratised the judicial system by giving to individuals and groups access to the courts.
  • It has forced executive accountability. It has also attempted to make the electoral system much more free and fair. The court asked candidates contesting elections to file affidavits indicating their assets and income and educational qualifications so that the people could elect their representatives based on accurate knowledge.

Consider the following statements.
1. The 'Procedure established by law' gives wide scope to the Supreme Court to grant protection to the rights of its citizens
2. It can declare laws violative of these rights void not only on substantive grounds of being unlawful but also on procedural grounds of being unreasonable 
Which of these statements are not correct?
  • a)
    2 Only
  • b)
    Both 1 and 2
  • c)
    Neither 1 nor 2 
  • d)
    1 Only
Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?

Rahul Mehta answered
Let's analyze the given statements in the context of the Indian Constitution and judicial review.
  1. The 'Procedure established by law' gives wide scope to the Supreme Court to grant protection to the rights of its citizens.
    This statement is incorrect. The concept of "procedure established by law" is narrower than the "due process of law" found in the U.S. Constitution. Under "procedure established by law," the Supreme Court of India is primarily concerned with whether a law has been enacted following the correct procedure laid down by the legislature. It does not provide the same broad scope for judicial review of the law's reasonableness or fairness as "due process of law" would.
  2. It can declare laws violative of these rights void not only on substantive grounds of being unlawful but also on procedural grounds of being unreasonable.
    This statement is incorrect. The Indian judiciary, under the "procedure established by law," can declare laws void if they do not follow the proper procedure or violate fundamental rights. However, it cannot declare a law void purely on the grounds of it being unreasonable or unfair in substance unless it violates a specific fundamental right.
Therefore, both statements are not correct.
The correct answer is: 
    2. Both 1 and 2

Consider the following statements.
1. Judiciary is the final interpreter of the Constitution
2. Judiciary has the final power to strike down laws passed by the Parliament if they violate the Constitution's basic structure of the constitution.
Which of the above is/are correct?
 
  • a)
    2 only
  • b)
    Both 1 and 2
  • c)
    None of them
Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?

Kavita Mehta answered
  • This means that if a dispute arises regarding the meaning of specific provisions of the constitution, the court gives the final version of the meaning of those specific provisions, for example, the Right to Life under Article 21 of the constitution.
  • It is the power of judicial review. Under judicial review powers, the judiciary can strike down laws, administrative acts, and even constitutional amendments if they violate the constitution or the constitution's basic premises.

Consider the following statements about Judicial review
1. By way of a constitutional amendment, the Parliament can turn down a judicial ruling in so far as it conforms to the basic structure of the constitution.
2. The judiciary can review administrative acts and the decisions taken by some of the regulatory authorities in India.
Which of these is/are correct?
  • a)
    Only 1
  • b)
    Only 2
  • c)
    Both
  • d)
    None of the above
Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

Suresh Reddy answered
The judiciary in India is immensely powerful. Barring a few cases, it has the right to review most acts/rules and regulations. Decisions taken by regulatory authorities like the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) are although subjected to Appellate Tribunals' scrutiny. They can also be challenged in the High courts and Supreme Court.

The constitutional validity of a legislative enactment or an executive order can be challenged in the supreme court on the grounds:
1. It infringes the fundamental rights
2. It is outside the competence of the authority which has framed it
3. It is repugnant constitutional provisions
Choose from the following options.
  • a)
    1 and 2 Only
  • b)
    2 and 3 Only
  • c)
    1 and 3 Only
  • d)
    All of them
Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?

Abhishek Das answered
The correct answer is option 'D', which means that the constitutional validity of a legislative enactment or an executive order can be challenged in the supreme court on all three grounds mentioned: (1) it infringes the fundamental rights, (2) it is outside the competence of the authority which has framed it, and (3) it is repugnant to constitutional provisions. Let's discuss each of these grounds in detail:

1. Infringement of Fundamental Rights:
The Constitution of India guarantees certain fundamental rights to its citizens, such as the right to equality, freedom of speech and expression, right to life and personal liberty, etc. If a legislative enactment or an executive order violates any of these fundamental rights, it can be challenged in the supreme court. The court has the power to strike down such a law or order if it is found to be unconstitutional.

2. Outside the Competence of the Authority:
The Constitution of India clearly defines the powers and jurisdictions of different authorities, such as the legislature and the executive. If a legislative enactment or an executive order goes beyond the powers or jurisdiction of the authority which has framed it, it can be challenged in the supreme court. The court can declare such a law or order as invalid.

3. Repugnancy to Constitutional Provisions:
The Constitution of India is the supreme law of the land, and all legislative enactments and executive orders must conform to its provisions. If a law or order is found to be repugnant or inconsistent with the constitutional provisions, it can be challenged in the supreme court. The court has the authority to strike down such a law or order as unconstitutional.

The power of judicial review is an essential feature of the Indian Constitution, which enables the supreme court to examine the constitutional validity of legislative enactments and executive orders. This power acts as a check on the actions of the legislature and the executive, ensuring that they do not exceed their constitutional limits and do not violate the fundamental rights of the citizens.

In conclusion, the supreme court can challenge the constitutional validity of a legislative enactment or an executive order on the grounds of infringement of fundamental rights, being outside the competence of the authority, and repugnancy to constitutional provisions. This power of judicial review ensures the supremacy of the Constitution and protects the rights and liberties of the citizens.

Why we need Judicial review
1. To uphold the principle of the Supremacy of the constitution
2. To protect the fundamental rights of the citizens
3. To maintain Federal equilibrium 
Choose from the following options.
  • a)
    1 and 2 Only
  • b)
    2 and 3 Only
  • c)
    1 and 3 Only
  • d)
    All of them
Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?

Partho Goyal answered
This is to say that constitutional supremacy entails that the constitution trumps any other norm into the legal system in case of open conflict and/or conditions the interpretation of other norms that show some sort of inconsistency with constitutional imperatives.

Chapter doubts & questions for Judicial Review, Activism & PIL - Indian Polity for State PSC Exams 2025 is part of BPSC (Bihar) exam preparation. The chapters have been prepared according to the BPSC (Bihar) exam syllabus. The Chapter doubts & questions, notes, tests & MCQs are made for BPSC (Bihar) 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, notes, meanings, examples, exercises, MCQs and online tests here.

Chapter doubts & questions of Judicial Review, Activism & PIL - Indian Polity for State PSC Exams in English & Hindi are available as part of BPSC (Bihar) exam. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for BPSC (Bihar) Exam by signing up for free.

Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days!

Study with 1000+ FREE Docs, Videos & Tests
10M+ students study on EduRev