Test: Constitution & Political System - 1 - UPSC MCQ

The Constitution itself confers the power of judicial review on the judiciary (both the Supreme Court as well as High Courts). Judicial review is the power of the judiciary to examine the constitutionality of legislative enactments and executive orders of both the Central and State governments. On examination, if they are found to be violative of the Constitution (ultra vires), they can be declared as illegal, unconstitutional and invalid (null and void) by the judiciary. So #1 is wrong.
I.R. Coelho case (2007), the Supreme Court ruled that there could not be any blanket immunity from judicial review of laws included in the Ninth Schedule. Thus #2 is also wrong. So, D: neither 1 nor 2 correct.

As per the bare act:
• In case of a woman who has two or more children, the maternity benefit will continue to be 12 weeks. If less than two children then she'll get 26 weeks paid leave.
• Every establishment with 50 or more employees to provide crèche facilities within a prescribed distance.
The woman will be allowed four visits to the crèche in a day. So #2 is wrong. We are left with Answer C: only 3.

• Articles 124 to 147 in Part V of the Constitution deal with the organisation, independence, jurisdiction, powers, procedures and so on of the Supreme Court.
• 142 is an Article between 124-147 so, closest match is B: related to Supreme Court.

Fifth Schedule of the Constitution deals with the administration and control of scheduled areas. The Governor can make regulations to prohibit or restrict the transfer of land by or among members of the scheduled tribes. So, B is the right answer.

• The Speaker/Chairman may admit the motion or refuse to admit motion for impeachment of SC Judges.
• The address to remove SC Judge must be supported by a special majority of each House of Parliament (ie, a majority of the total membership of that House and a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of that House present and voting). So #4 is right, answer is C.

"Keeping election of the Prime Minister beyond judicial review" is a wrong statement 99th Amendment had replaced the collegium system of appointing judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts with a new body called the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC). In 2015, SC held "ultra vires" the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act and the NJAC Act. So, #2 is right. 

The Supreme Court ruled that "the right to privacy is protected as an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 and as a part of the freedoms guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution" so Option c is right. 

Let's also look at the wrong options:

• Article 14- Gives the Right to Equality. 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act 1976, is known as mini constitution.
• Article 17- Related to the Abolition of Untouchability. It is part of Right to Equality. Part IV- Directive Principles of State Policy, does not have any mention about the Privacy.
• Article 24- Prohibition of employment of children in factories, et(c) 44th Constitution Amendment- 44th amendment of the Constitution was enacted by the Janata Government mainly to nullify some of the amendments made by the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976.

• This idea of rule of law implies that all individuals -rich and poor, men or women, forward or backward castes - are subjected to the same law. So, #2 is right. (Equality before the law)
• The principal role of the judiciary is to protect rule of law and ensure supremacy of law. It safeguards rights of the individual…and ensures that democracy does not give way to individual or group dictatorship.
So, it also means #1 and #4 are right.
• Statement #3 is irrelevant, so by elimination we are left with Option (c)

• Concept of Negative Liberty: Historically speaking, the term liberty was initially defined as absence of all restraints on an individual. John Stuart Mill, the nineteenth century English political philosopher, described, "Restraint as an evil". Mill was especially worried about the restraints coming from the state and society. From this concept, we can infer A: if there are more laws, there is less liberty.
• Concept of Positive Liberty: Since individuals live together in a society, complete absence of restraints would be neither possible nor desirable. It has been very aptly said that your liberty to swing your arm ends there where my nose begins. For liberty to be enjoyed by everyone, it should have reasonable restraints. The freedom of many requires restraint of law on the freedom of some. Later liberals supported the positive liberty. From this concept, we can infer B: if there are no laws, there is no liberty.
• So, as such, both A and B (and even D) seem "appropriate", but question also asks which one reflects both "appropriate" and "nicest"- Option B is the nicest of them three.

Residuary powers were in the hands of Governor General.

• First statement is correct. the 1st Amendment to the constitution (1951) had inserted new Articles 31A and 31B and the Ninth Schedule, thus securing the constitutional validity of zamindari abolition laws by, among other things, specifying that they could not be challenged on the grounds that they violated the Fundamental Rights. Subsequent governments have added other progressive laws in the same, to give them immunity from litigation. Government add the acts in the 9th schedule, 'via parliament' so first statement is right.
• In I.R. Coelho case(2007), the Supreme Court ruled that there could not be any blanket immunity from judicial review of laws included in the Ninth Schedule. So statement#2 is WRONG

The phrase 'Directive Principles of State Policy' denotes the ideals that the State should keep in mind while formulating policies and enacting laws. These are the constitutional instructions or recommendations to the State in legislative, executive and administrative matters. Noted constitutional author Granville Austin considers DPSP as "positive obligations" of the state. Since both the statements are wrong, answer is (d).

The 42nd Amendment Act of 1976 added four new Directive Principles to the original list. They require the State:
1. To secure opportunities for healthy development of children (Article 39).
2. To promote equal justice and to provide free legal aid to the poor (Article 39 A).
3. To take steps to secure the participation of workers in the management of industries (Article 43 A).
4. To protect and improve the environment and to safeguard forests and wild life (Article 48 A).

Rights and duties are correlative and inseparable, hence A is the answer.

1. A legislative process has been provided to enforce these duties.

   • This statement is incorrect. As of my last update, there is no specific legislative process provided to enforce Fundamental Duties. While the Constitution mentions these duties, there are no specific laws or penalties attached to their violation.

2. They are correlative to legal duties.

   • This statement is also incorrect. Fundamental Duties are not directly correlated to legal duties. Legal duties are those prescribed by law and are enforceable by legal means, while Fundamental Duties are moral obligations outlined in the Constitution.

So, the correct answer is: Neither 1 nor 2

• Through these rights, people make demands upon the state. So, "C" is most fitting answer.

Prof.DD Basu classifies fundamental right in following manner:

Sir Alladi Krishnaswami Iyer, a member of the Constituent Assembly, had said  'The Preamble to our Constitution expresses what we had thought or dreamt so long." So "A" is the answer.

Read the preamble given in any school textbook: "We, th e people of In di a,.. ..LI BERT Y of th ough t, expression, belief, faith and worship…"So, "B" is the answer.

If the Rajya Sabha declares that it is necessary in the national interest that Parliament should make laws on a matter in the State List, then the Parliament becomes competent to make laws on that matter. Such a resolution must be passed by the Rajya Sabha by a majority of not less than two-third of its members present and voting.