Laxmikanth Test : Fundamental Rights- 1 - UPSC

The correct answer is option D: All of them.

All three statements correctly describe different aspects of the fundamental rights given in Article 25 of the Indian Constitution.

Statement 1: Freedom of conscience refers to the inner freedom of an individual to mold their relationship with God or creatures in any way they desire. It emphasizes the personal and individual nature of religious beliefs and the freedom to hold and change those beliefs.

Statement 2: The right to profess refers to the freedom to openly and freely declare one's beliefs and faith. It entails the right to express one's religious beliefs and communicate them to others without fear of persecution or discrimination.

Statement 3: The right to practice encompasses the freedom to engage in religious worship, rituals, ceremonies, and the exhibition of beliefs and ideas. It includes the right to perform religious rituals, observe religious customs and practices, and express one's religious beliefs through actions and conduct.

Therefore, all three statements accurately describe different aspects of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 25 of the Indian Constitution.

Both of the given statements are correct regarding Article 27 of the Indian Constitution.

Article 27 of the Constitution of India states that no person shall be compelled to pay any taxes, the proceeds of which are specifically appropriated in payment of expenses for the promotion or maintenance of any particular religion or religious denomination.

Thus, the second statement is correct. Additionally, Article 27 also prohibits the State from favoring any particular religion or religious denomination by law or by financial aid, making the first statement also correct.

The writ jurisdiction of the high court (under Article 226) is not exclusive but concurrent with the writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (under Article 32). It means, when the fundamental rights of a citizen are violated, the aggrieved party has the option of moving either the high court or the Supreme Court directly. However, the writ jurisdiction of the high court is wider than that of the Supreme Court. This is because, the Supreme Court can issue writs only for the enforcement of fundamental rights and not for any other purpose, that is, it does not extend to a case where the breach of an ordinary legal right is alleged.   

The Correct Answer is option B: 2 and 3 Only.

• The writ of prohibition is not available against administrative authorities and legislative bodies.
• It is primarily used to control or restrain judicial or quasi-judicial authorities from exceeding their jurisdiction or acting in excess of their authority. Administrative authorities perform executive functions, and legislative bodies exercise legislative functions, which are outside the scope of the writ of prohibition.
• Therefore, the correct answer is option B: 2 and 3 Only. The writ of prohibition is not available against administrative authorities and legislative bodies. Thank you for pointing out the mistake.

The correct answer is option A: 1 and 2 Only.

The writ of mandamus cannot be issued against a private individual or body, and it cannot be used to enforce departmental instructions that do not possess statutory force.

1. Against a private individual or body: The writ of mandamus is primarily used to compel public officials or bodies to perform their public or statutory duties. It is not applicable to private individuals or bodies as they do not have a statutory duty to perform.

2. To enforce departmental instruction that does not possess statutory force: The writ of mandamus can only be used to enforce a legal duty that is backed by a statute or a legal provision. It cannot be employed to enforce mere departmental instructions that do not have the force of law.

However, statement 3 is incorrect. The writ of mandamus can be issued when the duty in question is mandatory and the petitioner has a legal right to enforce that duty.

Therefore, the correct answer is option A: 1 and 2 Only. The writ of mandamus cannot be issued against a private individual or body, and it cannot be used to enforce departmental instructions that do not possess statutory force.

The writ can be issued only in case of a substantive public office of a permanent character created by a statute or by the Constitution. It cannot be issued in cases of ministerial office or private office.

Explanation: The Kesavananda Bharti case (1973) marked a significant event in the Indian constitutional history, as the Supreme Court ruled that Constitutional Amendments were also laws under Article 13 of the Constitution of India. The Court held that these amendments could be declared void if they were inconsistent with or violated the Fundamental Rights. This judgment established the doctrine of the "Basic Structure" of the Constitution, which means that Parliament cannot alter the basic features of the Constitution through amendments.

They are not sacrosanct or permanent. The Parliament can curtail or repeal them but only by a constitutional amendment act and not by an ordinary act. Moreover, this can be done without affecting the basic structure of the Constitution.

Article 14 says that the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal. protection of the laws within the territory of India. However, there are a few exceptions:

• The President or the Governor is not answerable to any court for the exercise and performance of the powers and duties of his office,

• Members of the Legislature of a state are not liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in the Legislature or any committee thereof.

This law is applicable to all citizens and foreigners.

The correct answer is A: 1.

Statement 1 is correct. Article 19 of the Constitution of India guarantees six fundamental rights to all citizens.

Statement 2 is incorrect. The right to property, which was originally a part of Article 19, was removed from Article 19 and made a separate fundamental right under Article 31. However, it was later deleted as a fundamental right by the 44th Amendment Act of 1978.

Statement 3 is incorrect. The right to property was deleted by the 44th Amendment Act of 1978, not the 42nd Amendment Act of 1976.

Therefore, the correct option is A: 1. 

1. The  scope  of  judicial  review  in  India  is narrower  than  what  exists  in  the  USA,  though  the  American  Constitution does  not  explicitly  mention  the  concept  of  judicial  review  in  any  of  its provisions.  This  is  because,  the  American  Constitution  provides  for  ‘due process  of  law’  against  that  of  ‘procedure  established  by  law’  which  is contained in the Indian Constitution.

2. The words “due process of law” were replaced with the words “procedure established by law”. Thus, Article 21 of the Indian Constitution now reads: “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”

A six-member Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC) in 1966 under the chairmanship of Morarji Desai (followed by K Hanumanthayya) was appointed by Central Government. It was to the examine the various issues in Centre-state relations.

States include:

(a) Government and Parliament of India, that is executive and legislative organs of the Union government.

(b) Government and legislature of states, that is, executive and legislative organs of state government.

(c) All local authorities, that is, municipalities, panchayats, district boards, improvement trusts, etc.

(d) All other authorities, that is, statutory or nonstatutory authorities like LIC, ONGC, SAIL, etc.

Thus, the State has been defined in a wider sense to include all its agencies. It is the actions of these agencies that can be challenged in the courts as violating the Fundamental Rights. According to the Supreme Court, even a private body or an agency working as an instrument of the State falls within the meaning of State Article 12.

The concept of "Rule of Law propounded by A.V. Dicey, the British jurist. His concept has the following three elements or aspects: (i) Absence of arbitrary power, that is, no man can be punished except for a breach of law. (ii) Equality before the law, that is, equal subjection of all citizens (rich or poor, high or low, official or non-official) to the ordinary law of the land administered by the ordinary law courts. (iii) The primacy of the rights of the individual, that is, the constitution is the result of the rights of the individual as defined and enforced by the courts of law rather than the constitution being the source of the individual rights. The first and second elements apply to the Indian System and not the third one. In the Indian System, the constitution is the source of individual rights. The Supreme Court held that the 'Rule of Law' as embodied in Article 14 is a 'basic feature of the constitution. Hence, it cannot be destroyed even by an amendment.