Read the following passage and answer the question as directed.In September 2019, the Supreme Court described {X} as a andquot;shining exampleandquot;with a Uniform Civil Code, and observed that the founders of the Constitution had andquot;hoped and expectedandquot; a Uniform Civil Code for India but there has been no attempt at framing one.A Uniform Civil Code is one that would provide for one law for the entire country, applicable to all religious communities in their personal matters such as marriage, divorce, inheritance, adoption, etc. {Y} of the Constitution lays down that the state shall endeavour to secure a Uniform Civil Code for the citizens throughout the territory of India.{Y} is one of the directive principles. These, as defined in Article 37, are not justifiable (not enforceable by any court) but the principles laid down therein are fundamental in governance. Fundamental rights are enforceable in a court of law. While {Y} uses the words andquot;state shall endeavourandquot;, other Articles in the Directive Principles chapter use words such as andquot;in particular striveandquot;; andquot;shall in particular direct its policyandquot;; andquot;shall be obligation of the stateandquot;, etc. Article 43 mentions andquot;state shall endeavour by suitable legislationandquot;, while the phrase andquot;by suitable legislationandquot; is absent in {Y}. All this implies that the duty of the state is greater in other directive principles than in {Y}.There is no doubt that fundamental rights are more important. The Supreme Court held in Minerva Mills (1980): andquot;Indian Constitution is founded on the bed-rock of the balance between Parts III (Fundamental Rights) and IV (Directive Principles). To give absolute primacy to one over the other is to disturb the harmony of the Constitutionandquot;. Article 31C inserted by the 42ndAmendment in 1976, however, lays down that if a law is made to implement any directive principle, it cannot be challenged on the ground of being violative of the fundamental rights under Articles 14{1} and 19.Indian laws do follow a uniform code in most civil matters andndash; however, they have made hundreds of amendments and therefore in certain matters, there is diversity even under these secular civil laws. Recently, several states refused to be governed by the uniform Motor Vehicles Act, 2019.If the framers of the Constitution had intended to have a Uniform Civil Code, they would have given exclusive jurisdiction to Parliament in respect of personal laws, by including this subject in the Union List. But andquot;personal lawsandquot; are mentioned in the Concurrent List. Last year, the Law Commission concluded that a Uniform Civil Code is neither feasible nor desirable.Q.Which of the following is not a correct match in respect to parts of the Constitution?a)Part I: Union and its Territoriesb)Part III: Citizenshipc)Part IV: Directive Principles of State Policyd)Part VI: State GovernmentsCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?

EduRev

All Courses

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

CLAT Exam > CLAT Questions > Read the following passage and answer the que...

Join the Discussion on the App

Read the following passage and answer the question as directed.

In September 2019, the Supreme Court described {X} as a "shining example" with a Uniform Civil Code, and observed that the founders of the Constitution had "hoped and expected" a Uniform Civil Code for India but there has been no attempt at framing one.
A Uniform Civil Code is one that would provide for one law for the entire country, applicable to all religious communities in their personal matters such as marriage, divorce, inheritance, adoption, etc. {Y} of the Constitution lays down that the state shall endeavour to secure a Uniform Civil Code for the citizens throughout the territory of India.
{Y} is one of the directive principles. These, as defined in Article 37, are not justifiable (not enforceable by any court) but the principles laid down therein are fundamental in governance. Fundamental rights are enforceable in a court of law. While {Y} uses the words "state shall endeavour", other Articles in the 'Directive Principles' chapter use words such as "in particular strive"; "shall in particular direct its policy"; "shall be obligation of the state", etc. Article 43 mentions "state shall endeavour by suitable legislation", while the phrase "by suitable legislation" is absent in {Y}. All this implies that the duty of the state is greater in other directive principles than in {Y}.
There is no doubt that fundamental rights are more important. The Supreme Court held in Minerva Mills (1980): "Indian Constitution is founded on the bed-rock of the balance between Parts III (Fundamental Rights) and IV (Directive Principles). To give absolute primacy to one over the other is to disturb the harmony of the Constitution". Article 31C inserted by the 42^nd Amendment in 1976, however, lays down that if a law is made to implement any directive principle, it cannot be challenged on the ground of being violative of the fundamental rights under Articles 14{1} and 19.
Indian laws do follow a uniform code in most civil matters – however, they have made hundreds of amendments and therefore in certain matters, there is diversity even under these secular civil laws. Recently, several states refused to be governed by the uniform Motor Vehicles Act, 2019.
If the framers of the Constitution had intended to have a Uniform Civil Code, they would have given exclusive jurisdiction to Parliament in respect of personal laws, by including this subject in the Union List. But "personal laws" are mentioned in the Concurrent List. Last year, the Law Commission concluded that a Uniform Civil Code is neither feasible nor desirable.

Q. Which of the following is not a correct match in respect to parts of the Constitution?

a)
Part I: Union and its Territories
b)
Part III: Citizenship
c)
Part IV: Directive Principles of State Policy
d)
Part VI: State Governments

Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?

FREE This question is part of

CLAT Practice Test - 6

Attempt Test

Attempt this Test

Verified Answer

Read the following passage and answer the question as directed.In Sept...

The conferment of a person as a citizen of India is governed by Part II of the Constitution of India (Articles 5 to 11). According to Article 5, all the people that were resident in India at the commencement of the Constitution were citizens of India as well as people born in India. The President of India is termed the First Citizen of India.

View all questions of this test

View all answers Start learning for free

< Previous Question Next Question >

Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

The Writ Jurisdiction of Supreme Court can be invoked under Article 32 of the Constitution for the violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Part - III of the Constitution. Any provision in any Constitution for Fundamental Rights is meaningless unless there are adequate safeguards to ensure enforcement of such provisions. Since the reality of such rights is tested only through the judiciary, the safeguards assume even more importance. In addition, enforcement also depends upon the degree of independence of the Judiciary and the availability of relevant instruments with the executive authority. Indian Constitution, like most of Western Constitutions, lays down certain provisions to ensure the enforcement of Fundamental Rights. However, Article 32 is referred to as the “Constitutional Remedy” for enforcement of Fundamental Rights. This provision itself has been included in the Fundamental Rights and hence it cannot be denied to any person. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar described Article 32 as the most important one, without which the Constitution would be reduced to nullity. It is also referred to as the heart and soul of the Constitution. By including Article 32 in the Fundamental Rights, the Supreme Court has been made the protector and guarantor of these Rights. An application made under Article 32 of the Constitution before the Supreme Court, cannot be refused on technical grounds. In addition to the prescribed five types of writs, the Supreme Court may pass any other appropriate order. Moreover, only the questions pertaining to the Fundamental Rights can be determined in proceedings against Article 32. Under Article 32, the Supreme Court may issue a Writ against any person or government within the territory of India. Where the infringement of a Fundamental Right has been established, the Supreme Court cannot refuse relief on the ground that the aggrieved person may have remedy before some other court or under the ordinary law.The relief can also not be denied on the ground that the disputed facts have to be investigated or some evidence has to be collected. Even if an aggrieved person has not asked for a particular Writ, the Supreme Court, after considering the facts and circumstances, may grant the appropriate Writ and may even modify it to suit the exigencies of the case. Normally, only the aggrieved person is allowed to move the Court. But it has been held by the Supreme Court that in social or public interest matters, any one may move the Court. A Public Interest Litigation can be filed before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution or before the High Court of a State under Article 226 of the Constitution under their respective Writ Jurisdictions.All of the following can be inferred from the passage except

View answer

The Writ Jurisdiction of Supreme Court can be invoked under Article 32 of the Constitution for the violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Part – III of the Constitution. Any provision in any Constitution for Fundamental Rights is meaningless unless there are adequate safeguards to ensure enforcement of such provisions. Since the reality of such rights is tested only through the judiciary, the safeguards assume even more importance. In addition, enforcement also depends upon the degree of independence of the Judiciary and the availability of relevant instruments with the executive authority. Indian Constitution, like most of Western Constitutions, lays down certain provisions to ensure the enforcement of Fundamental Rights.However, Article 32 is referred to as the “Constitutional Remedy” for enforcement of Fundamental Rights. This provision itself has been included in the Fundamental Rights and hence it cannot be denied to any person. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar described Article 32 as the most important one, without which the Constitution would be reduced to nullity. It is also referred to as the heart and soul of the Constitution. By including Article 32 in the Fundamental Rights, the Supreme Court has been made the protector and guarantor of these Rights. An application made under Article 32 of the Constitution before the Supreme Court, cannot be refused on technical grounds. In addition to the prescribed five types of writs, the Supreme Court may pass any other appropriate order. Moreover, only the questions pertaining to the Fundamental Rights can be determined in proceedings against Article 32. Under Article 32, the Supreme Court may issue a Writ against any person or government within the territory of India. Where the infringement of a Fundamental Right has been established, the Supreme Court cannot refuse relief on the ground that the aggrieved person may have remedy before some other court or under the ordinary law.The relief can also not be denied on the ground that the disputed facts have to be investigated or some evidence has to be collected. Even if an aggrieved person has not asked for a particular Writ, the Supreme Court, after considering the facts and circumstances, may grant the appropriate Writ and may even modify it to suit the exigencies of the case. Normally, only the aggrieved person is allowed to move the Court. But it has been held by the Supreme Court that in social or public interest matters, any one may move the Court. A Public Interest Litigation can be filed before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution or before the High Court of a State under Article 226 of the Constitution under their respective Writ Jurisdictions.Q. What is the tone of the author?

View answer

The Writ Jurisdiction of Supreme Court can be invoked under Article 32 of the Constitution for the violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Part – III of the Constitution. Any provision in any Constitution for Fundamental Rights is meaningless unless there are adequate safeguards to ensure enforcement of such provisions. Since the reality of such rights is tested only through the judiciary, the safeguards assume even more importance. In addition, enforcement also depends upon the degree of independence of the Judiciary and the availability of relevant instruments with the executive authority. Indian Constitution, like most of Western Constitutions, lays down certain provisions to ensure the enforcement of Fundamental Rights.However, Article 32 is referred to as the “Constitutional Remedy” for enforcement of Fundamental Rights. This provision itself has been included in the Fundamental Rights and hence it cannot be denied to any person. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar described Article 32 as the most important one, without which the Constitution would be reduced to nullity. It is also referred to as the heart and soul of the Constitution. By including Article 32 in the Fundamental Rights, the Supreme Court has been made the protector and guarantor of these Rights. An application made under Article 32 of the Constitution before the Supreme Court, cannot be refused on technical grounds. In addition to the prescribed five types of writs, the Supreme Court may pass any other appropriate order. Moreover, only the questions pertaining to the Fundamental Rights can be determined in proceedings against Article 32. Under Article 32, the Supreme Court may issue a Writ against any person or government within the territory of India. Where the infringement of a Fundamental Right has been established, the Supreme Court cannot refuse relief on the ground that the aggrieved person may have remedy before some other court or under the ordinary law.The relief can also not be denied on the ground that the disputed facts have to be investigated or some evidence has to be collected. Even if an aggrieved person has not asked for a particular Writ, the Supreme Court, after considering the facts and circumstances, may grant the appropriate Writ and may even modify it to suit the exigencies of the case. Normally, only the aggrieved person is allowed to move the Court. But it has been held by the Supreme Court that in social or public interest matters, any one may move the Court. A Public Interest Litigation can be filed before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution or before the High Court of a State under Article 226 of the Constitution under their respective Writ Jurisdictions.Q. What is the correct meaning of the word ‘infringement’?

View answer

Article 5 confers citizenship, at the commencement of the Constitution, on every person who has his domicile in the territory of India and (

View answer

The Writ Jurisdiction of Supreme Court can be invoked under Article 32 of the Constitution for the violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Part - III of the Constitution. Any provision in any Constitution for Fundamental Rights is meaningless unless there are adequate safeguards to ensure enforcement of such provisions. Since the reality of such rights is tested only through the judiciary, the safeguards assume even more importance. In addition, enforcement also depends upon the degree of independence of the Judiciary and the availability of relevant instruments with the executive authority. Indian Constitution, like most of Western Constitutions, lays down certain provisions to ensure the enforcement of Fundamental Rights. However, Article 32 is referred to as the “Constitutional Remedy” for enforcement of Fundamental Rights. This provision itself has been included in the Fundamental Rights and hence it cannot be denied to any person. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar described Article 32 as the most important one, without which the Constitution would be reduced to nullity. It is also referred to as the heart and soul of the Constitution. By including Article 32 in the Fundamental Rights, the Supreme Court has been made the protector and guarantor of these Rights. An application made under Article 32 of the Constitution before the Supreme Court, cannot be refused on technical grounds. In addition to the prescribed five types of writs, the Supreme Court may pass any other appropriate order. Moreover, only the questions pertaining to the Fundamental Rights can be determined in proceedings against Article 32. Under Article 32, the Supreme Court may issue a Writ against any person or government within the territory of India. Where the infringement of a Fundamental Right has been established, the Supreme Court cannot refuse relief on the ground that the aggrieved person may have remedy before some other court or under the ordinary law.The relief can also not be denied on the ground that the disputed facts have to be investigated or some evidence has to be collected. Even if an aggrieved person has not asked for a particular Writ, the Supreme Court, after considering the facts and circumstances, may grant the appropriate Writ and may even modify it to suit the exigencies of the case. Normally, only the aggrieved person is allowed to move the Court. But it has been held by the Supreme Court that in social or public interest matters, any one may move the Court. A Public Interest Litigation can be filed before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution or before the High Court of a State under Article 226 of the Constitution under their respective Writ Jurisdictions.What is the correct meaning of the word ‘infringement’?

View answer

Top Courses for CLATView all

Legal Reasoning for CLAT

Lucent for GK

Current Affairs: Daily, Weekly & Monthly

CLAT Mock Test Series 2025

Crash Course for CLAT

Top Courses for CLAT

View all

Read the following passage and answer the question as directed.In September 2019, the Supreme Court described {X} as a "shining example"with a Uniform Civil Code, and observed that the founders of the Constitution had "hoped and expected" a Uniform Civil Code for India but there has been no attempt at framing one.A Uniform Civil Code is one that would provide for one law for the entire country, applicable to all religious communities in their personal matters such as marriage, divorce, inheritance, adoption, etc. {Y} of the Constitution lays down that the state shall endeavour to secure a Uniform Civil Code for the citizens throughout the territory of India.{Y} is one of the directive principles. These, as defined in Article 37, are not justifiable (not enforceable by any court) but the principles laid down therein are fundamental in governance. Fundamental rights are enforceable in a court of law. While {Y} uses the words "state shall endeavour", other Articles in the Directive Principles chapter use words such as "in particular strive"; "shall in particular direct its policy"; "shall be obligation of the state", etc. Article 43 mentions "state shall endeavour by suitable legislation", while the phrase "by suitable legislation" is absent in {Y}. All this implies that the duty of the state is greater in other directive principles than in {Y}.There is no doubt that fundamental rights are more important. The Supreme Court held in Minerva Mills (1980): "Indian Constitution is founded on the bed-rock of the balance between Parts III (Fundamental Rights) and IV (Directive Principles). To give absolute primacy to one over the other is to disturb the harmony of the Constitution". Article 31C inserted by the 42ndAmendment in 1976, however, lays down that if a law is made to implement any directive principle, it cannot be challenged on the ground of being violative of the fundamental rights under Articles 14{1} and 19.Indian laws do follow a uniform code in most civil matters – however, they have made hundreds of amendments and therefore in certain matters, there is diversity even under these secular civil laws. Recently, several states refused to be governed by the uniform Motor Vehicles Act, 2019.If the framers of the Constitution had intended to have a Uniform Civil Code, they would have given exclusive jurisdiction to Parliament in respect of personal laws, by including this subject in the Union List. But "personal laws" are mentioned in the Concurrent List. Last year, the Law Commission concluded that a Uniform Civil Code is neither feasible nor desirable.Q.Which of the following is not a correct match in respect to parts of the Constitution?a)Part I: Union and its Territoriesb)Part III: Citizenshipc)Part IV: Directive Principles of State Policyd)Part VI: State GovernmentsCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

Question Description
Read the following passage and answer the question as directed.In September 2019, the Supreme Court described {X} as a "shining example"with a Uniform Civil Code, and observed that the founders of the Constitution had "hoped and expected" a Uniform Civil Code for India but there has been no attempt at framing one.A Uniform Civil Code is one that would provide for one law for the entire country, applicable to all religious communities in their personal matters such as marriage, divorce, inheritance, adoption, etc. {Y} of the Constitution lays down that the state shall endeavour to secure a Uniform Civil Code for the citizens throughout the territory of India.{Y} is one of the directive principles. These, as defined in Article 37, are not justifiable (not enforceable by any court) but the principles laid down therein are fundamental in governance. Fundamental rights are enforceable in a court of law. While {Y} uses the words "state shall endeavour", other Articles in the Directive Principles chapter use words such as "in particular strive"; "shall in particular direct its policy"; "shall be obligation of the state", etc. Article 43 mentions "state shall endeavour by suitable legislation", while the phrase "by suitable legislation" is absent in {Y}. All this implies that the duty of the state is greater in other directive principles than in {Y}.There is no doubt that fundamental rights are more important. The Supreme Court held in Minerva Mills (1980): "Indian Constitution is founded on the bed-rock of the balance between Parts III (Fundamental Rights) and IV (Directive Principles). To give absolute primacy to one over the other is to disturb the harmony of the Constitution". Article 31C inserted by the 42ndAmendment in 1976, however, lays down that if a law is made to implement any directive principle, it cannot be challenged on the ground of being violative of the fundamental rights under Articles 14{1} and 19.Indian laws do follow a uniform code in most civil matters – however, they have made hundreds of amendments and therefore in certain matters, there is diversity even under these secular civil laws. Recently, several states refused to be governed by the uniform Motor Vehicles Act, 2019.If the framers of the Constitution had intended to have a Uniform Civil Code, they would have given exclusive jurisdiction to Parliament in respect of personal laws, by including this subject in the Union List. But "personal laws" are mentioned in the Concurrent List. Last year, the Law Commission concluded that a Uniform Civil Code is neither feasible nor desirable.Q.Which of the following is not a correct match in respect to parts of the Constitution?a)Part I: Union and its Territoriesb)Part III: Citizenshipc)Part IV: Directive Principles of State Policyd)Part VI: State GovernmentsCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2024 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Read the following passage and answer the question as directed.In September 2019, the Supreme Court described {X} as a "shining example"with a Uniform Civil Code, and observed that the founders of the Constitution had "hoped and expected" a Uniform Civil Code for India but there has been no attempt at framing one.A Uniform Civil Code is one that would provide for one law for the entire country, applicable to all religious communities in their personal matters such as marriage, divorce, inheritance, adoption, etc. {Y} of the Constitution lays down that the state shall endeavour to secure a Uniform Civil Code for the citizens throughout the territory of India.{Y} is one of the directive principles. These, as defined in Article 37, are not justifiable (not enforceable by any court) but the principles laid down therein are fundamental in governance. Fundamental rights are enforceable in a court of law. While {Y} uses the words "state shall endeavour", other Articles in the Directive Principles chapter use words such as "in particular strive"; "shall in particular direct its policy"; "shall be obligation of the state", etc. Article 43 mentions "state shall endeavour by suitable legislation", while the phrase "by suitable legislation" is absent in {Y}. All this implies that the duty of the state is greater in other directive principles than in {Y}.There is no doubt that fundamental rights are more important. The Supreme Court held in Minerva Mills (1980): "Indian Constitution is founded on the bed-rock of the balance between Parts III (Fundamental Rights) and IV (Directive Principles). To give absolute primacy to one over the other is to disturb the harmony of the Constitution". Article 31C inserted by the 42ndAmendment in 1976, however, lays down that if a law is made to implement any directive principle, it cannot be challenged on the ground of being violative of the fundamental rights under Articles 14{1} and 19.Indian laws do follow a uniform code in most civil matters – however, they have made hundreds of amendments and therefore in certain matters, there is diversity even under these secular civil laws. Recently, several states refused to be governed by the uniform Motor Vehicles Act, 2019.If the framers of the Constitution had intended to have a Uniform Civil Code, they would have given exclusive jurisdiction to Parliament in respect of personal laws, by including this subject in the Union List. But "personal laws" are mentioned in the Concurrent List. Last year, the Law Commission concluded that a Uniform Civil Code is neither feasible nor desirable.Q.Which of the following is not a correct match in respect to parts of the Constitution?a)Part I: Union and its Territoriesb)Part III: Citizenshipc)Part IV: Directive Principles of State Policyd)Part VI: State GovernmentsCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Read the following passage and answer the question as directed.In September 2019, the Supreme Court described {X} as a "shining example"with a Uniform Civil Code, and observed that the founders of the Constitution had "hoped and expected" a Uniform Civil Code for India but there has been no attempt at framing one.A Uniform Civil Code is one that would provide for one law for the entire country, applicable to all religious communities in their personal matters such as marriage, divorce, inheritance, adoption, etc. {Y} of the Constitution lays down that the state shall endeavour to secure a Uniform Civil Code for the citizens throughout the territory of India.{Y} is one of the directive principles. These, as defined in Article 37, are not justifiable (not enforceable by any court) but the principles laid down therein are fundamental in governance. Fundamental rights are enforceable in a court of law. While {Y} uses the words "state shall endeavour", other Articles in the Directive Principles chapter use words such as "in particular strive"; "shall in particular direct its policy"; "shall be obligation of the state", etc. Article 43 mentions "state shall endeavour by suitable legislation", while the phrase "by suitable legislation" is absent in {Y}. All this implies that the duty of the state is greater in other directive principles than in {Y}.There is no doubt that fundamental rights are more important. The Supreme Court held in Minerva Mills (1980): "Indian Constitution is founded on the bed-rock of the balance between Parts III (Fundamental Rights) and IV (Directive Principles). To give absolute primacy to one over the other is to disturb the harmony of the Constitution". Article 31C inserted by the 42ndAmendment in 1976, however, lays down that if a law is made to implement any directive principle, it cannot be challenged on the ground of being violative of the fundamental rights under Articles 14{1} and 19.Indian laws do follow a uniform code in most civil matters – however, they have made hundreds of amendments and therefore in certain matters, there is diversity even under these secular civil laws. Recently, several states refused to be governed by the uniform Motor Vehicles Act, 2019.If the framers of the Constitution had intended to have a Uniform Civil Code, they would have given exclusive jurisdiction to Parliament in respect of personal laws, by including this subject in the Union List. But "personal laws" are mentioned in the Concurrent List. Last year, the Law Commission concluded that a Uniform Civil Code is neither feasible nor desirable.Q.Which of the following is not a correct match in respect to parts of the Constitution?a)Part I: Union and its Territoriesb)Part III: Citizenshipc)Part IV: Directive Principles of State Policyd)Part VI: State GovernmentsCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Read the following passage and answer the question as directed.In September 2019, the Supreme Court described {X} as a "shining example"with a Uniform Civil Code, and observed that the founders of the Constitution had "hoped and expected" a Uniform Civil Code for India but there has been no attempt at framing one.A Uniform Civil Code is one that would provide for one law for the entire country, applicable to all religious communities in their personal matters such as marriage, divorce, inheritance, adoption, etc. {Y} of the Constitution lays down that the state shall endeavour to secure a Uniform Civil Code for the citizens throughout the territory of India.{Y} is one of the directive principles. These, as defined in Article 37, are not justifiable (not enforceable by any court) but the principles laid down therein are fundamental in governance. Fundamental rights are enforceable in a court of law. While {Y} uses the words "state shall endeavour", other Articles in the Directive Principles chapter use words such as "in particular strive"; "shall in particular direct its policy"; "shall be obligation of the state", etc. Article 43 mentions "state shall endeavour by suitable legislation", while the phrase "by suitable legislation" is absent in {Y}. All this implies that the duty of the state is greater in other directive principles than in {Y}.There is no doubt that fundamental rights are more important. The Supreme Court held in Minerva Mills (1980): "Indian Constitution is founded on the bed-rock of the balance between Parts III (Fundamental Rights) and IV (Directive Principles). To give absolute primacy to one over the other is to disturb the harmony of the Constitution". Article 31C inserted by the 42ndAmendment in 1976, however, lays down that if a law is made to implement any directive principle, it cannot be challenged on the ground of being violative of the fundamental rights under Articles 14{1} and 19.Indian laws do follow a uniform code in most civil matters – however, they have made hundreds of amendments and therefore in certain matters, there is diversity even under these secular civil laws. Recently, several states refused to be governed by the uniform Motor Vehicles Act, 2019.If the framers of the Constitution had intended to have a Uniform Civil Code, they would have given exclusive jurisdiction to Parliament in respect of personal laws, by including this subject in the Union List. But "personal laws" are mentioned in the Concurrent List. Last year, the Law Commission concluded that a Uniform Civil Code is neither feasible nor desirable.Q.Which of the following is not a correct match in respect to parts of the Constitution?a)Part I: Union and its Territoriesb)Part III: Citizenshipc)Part IV: Directive Principles of State Policyd)Part VI: State GovernmentsCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Read the following passage and answer the question as directed.In September 2019, the Supreme Court described {X} as a "shining example"with a Uniform Civil Code, and observed that the founders of the Constitution had "hoped and expected" a Uniform Civil Code for India but there has been no attempt at framing one.A Uniform Civil Code is one that would provide for one law for the entire country, applicable to all religious communities in their personal matters such as marriage, divorce, inheritance, adoption, etc. {Y} of the Constitution lays down that the state shall endeavour to secure a Uniform Civil Code for the citizens throughout the territory of India.{Y} is one of the directive principles. These, as defined in Article 37, are not justifiable (not enforceable by any court) but the principles laid down therein are fundamental in governance. Fundamental rights are enforceable in a court of law. While {Y} uses the words "state shall endeavour", other Articles in the Directive Principles chapter use words such as "in particular strive"; "shall in particular direct its policy"; "shall be obligation of the state", etc. Article 43 mentions "state shall endeavour by suitable legislation", while the phrase "by suitable legislation" is absent in {Y}. All this implies that the duty of the state is greater in other directive principles than in {Y}.There is no doubt that fundamental rights are more important. The Supreme Court held in Minerva Mills (1980): "Indian Constitution is founded on the bed-rock of the balance between Parts III (Fundamental Rights) and IV (Directive Principles). To give absolute primacy to one over the other is to disturb the harmony of the Constitution". Article 31C inserted by the 42ndAmendment in 1976, however, lays down that if a law is made to implement any directive principle, it cannot be challenged on the ground of being violative of the fundamental rights under Articles 14{1} and 19.Indian laws do follow a uniform code in most civil matters – however, they have made hundreds of amendments and therefore in certain matters, there is diversity even under these secular civil laws. Recently, several states refused to be governed by the uniform Motor Vehicles Act, 2019.If the framers of the Constitution had intended to have a Uniform Civil Code, they would have given exclusive jurisdiction to Parliament in respect of personal laws, by including this subject in the Union List. But "personal laws" are mentioned in the Concurrent List. Last year, the Law Commission concluded that a Uniform Civil Code is neither feasible nor desirable.Q.Which of the following is not a correct match in respect to parts of the Constitution?a)Part I: Union and its Territoriesb)Part III: Citizenshipc)Part IV: Directive Principles of State Policyd)Part VI: State GovernmentsCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Read the following passage and answer the question as directed.In September 2019, the Supreme Court described {X} as a "shining example"with a Uniform Civil Code, and observed that the founders of the Constitution had "hoped and expected" a Uniform Civil Code for India but there has been no attempt at framing one.A Uniform Civil Code is one that would provide for one law for the entire country, applicable to all religious communities in their personal matters such as marriage, divorce, inheritance, adoption, etc. {Y} of the Constitution lays down that the state shall endeavour to secure a Uniform Civil Code for the citizens throughout the territory of India.{Y} is one of the directive principles. These, as defined in Article 37, are not justifiable (not enforceable by any court) but the principles laid down therein are fundamental in governance. Fundamental rights are enforceable in a court of law. While {Y} uses the words "state shall endeavour", other Articles in the Directive Principles chapter use words such as "in particular strive"; "shall in particular direct its policy"; "shall be obligation of the state", etc. Article 43 mentions "state shall endeavour by suitable legislation", while the phrase "by suitable legislation" is absent in {Y}. All this implies that the duty of the state is greater in other directive principles than in {Y}.There is no doubt that fundamental rights are more important. The Supreme Court held in Minerva Mills (1980): "Indian Constitution is founded on the bed-rock of the balance between Parts III (Fundamental Rights) and IV (Directive Principles). To give absolute primacy to one over the other is to disturb the harmony of the Constitution". Article 31C inserted by the 42ndAmendment in 1976, however, lays down that if a law is made to implement any directive principle, it cannot be challenged on the ground of being violative of the fundamental rights under Articles 14{1} and 19.Indian laws do follow a uniform code in most civil matters – however, they have made hundreds of amendments and therefore in certain matters, there is diversity even under these secular civil laws. Recently, several states refused to be governed by the uniform Motor Vehicles Act, 2019.If the framers of the Constitution had intended to have a Uniform Civil Code, they would have given exclusive jurisdiction to Parliament in respect of personal laws, by including this subject in the Union List. But "personal laws" are mentioned in the Concurrent List. Last year, the Law Commission concluded that a Uniform Civil Code is neither feasible nor desirable.Q.Which of the following is not a correct match in respect to parts of the Constitution?a)Part I: Union and its Territoriesb)Part III: Citizenshipc)Part IV: Directive Principles of State Policyd)Part VI: State GovernmentsCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Read the following passage and answer the question as directed.In September 2019, the Supreme Court described {X} as a "shining example"with a Uniform Civil Code, and observed that the founders of the Constitution had "hoped and expected" a Uniform Civil Code for India but there has been no attempt at framing one.A Uniform Civil Code is one that would provide for one law for the entire country, applicable to all religious communities in their personal matters such as marriage, divorce, inheritance, adoption, etc. {Y} of the Constitution lays down that the state shall endeavour to secure a Uniform Civil Code for the citizens throughout the territory of India.{Y} is one of the directive principles. These, as defined in Article 37, are not justifiable (not enforceable by any court) but the principles laid down therein are fundamental in governance. Fundamental rights are enforceable in a court of law. While {Y} uses the words "state shall endeavour", other Articles in the Directive Principles chapter use words such as "in particular strive"; "shall in particular direct its policy"; "shall be obligation of the state", etc. Article 43 mentions "state shall endeavour by suitable legislation", while the phrase "by suitable legislation" is absent in {Y}. All this implies that the duty of the state is greater in other directive principles than in {Y}.There is no doubt that fundamental rights are more important. The Supreme Court held in Minerva Mills (1980): "Indian Constitution is founded on the bed-rock of the balance between Parts III (Fundamental Rights) and IV (Directive Principles). To give absolute primacy to one over the other is to disturb the harmony of the Constitution". Article 31C inserted by the 42ndAmendment in 1976, however, lays down that if a law is made to implement any directive principle, it cannot be challenged on the ground of being violative of the fundamental rights under Articles 14{1} and 19.Indian laws do follow a uniform code in most civil matters – however, they have made hundreds of amendments and therefore in certain matters, there is diversity even under these secular civil laws. Recently, several states refused to be governed by the uniform Motor Vehicles Act, 2019.If the framers of the Constitution had intended to have a Uniform Civil Code, they would have given exclusive jurisdiction to Parliament in respect of personal laws, by including this subject in the Union List. But "personal laws" are mentioned in the Concurrent List. Last year, the Law Commission concluded that a Uniform Civil Code is neither feasible nor desirable.Q.Which of the following is not a correct match in respect to parts of the Constitution?a)Part I: Union and its Territoriesb)Part III: Citizenshipc)Part IV: Directive Principles of State Policyd)Part VI: State GovernmentsCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Read the following passage and answer the question as directed.In September 2019, the Supreme Court described {X} as a "shining example"with a Uniform Civil Code, and observed that the founders of the Constitution had "hoped and expected" a Uniform Civil Code for India but there has been no attempt at framing one.A Uniform Civil Code is one that would provide for one law for the entire country, applicable to all religious communities in their personal matters such as marriage, divorce, inheritance, adoption, etc. {Y} of the Constitution lays down that the state shall endeavour to secure a Uniform Civil Code for the citizens throughout the territory of India.{Y} is one of the directive principles. These, as defined in Article 37, are not justifiable (not enforceable by any court) but the principles laid down therein are fundamental in governance. Fundamental rights are enforceable in a court of law. While {Y} uses the words "state shall endeavour", other Articles in the Directive Principles chapter use words such as "in particular strive"; "shall in particular direct its policy"; "shall be obligation of the state", etc. Article 43 mentions "state shall endeavour by suitable legislation", while the phrase "by suitable legislation" is absent in {Y}. All this implies that the duty of the state is greater in other directive principles than in {Y}.There is no doubt that fundamental rights are more important. The Supreme Court held in Minerva Mills (1980): "Indian Constitution is founded on the bed-rock of the balance between Parts III (Fundamental Rights) and IV (Directive Principles). To give absolute primacy to one over the other is to disturb the harmony of the Constitution". Article 31C inserted by the 42ndAmendment in 1976, however, lays down that if a law is made to implement any directive principle, it cannot be challenged on the ground of being violative of the fundamental rights under Articles 14{1} and 19.Indian laws do follow a uniform code in most civil matters – however, they have made hundreds of amendments and therefore in certain matters, there is diversity even under these secular civil laws. Recently, several states refused to be governed by the uniform Motor Vehicles Act, 2019.If the framers of the Constitution had intended to have a Uniform Civil Code, they would have given exclusive jurisdiction to Parliament in respect of personal laws, by including this subject in the Union List. But "personal laws" are mentioned in the Concurrent List. Last year, the Law Commission concluded that a Uniform Civil Code is neither feasible nor desirable.Q.Which of the following is not a correct match in respect to parts of the Constitution?a)Part I: Union and its Territoriesb)Part III: Citizenshipc)Part IV: Directive Principles of State Policyd)Part VI: State GovernmentsCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Read the following passage and answer the question as directed.In September 2019, the Supreme Court described {X} as a "shining example"with a Uniform Civil Code, and observed that the founders of the Constitution had "hoped and expected" a Uniform Civil Code for India but there has been no attempt at framing one.A Uniform Civil Code is one that would provide for one law for the entire country, applicable to all religious communities in their personal matters such as marriage, divorce, inheritance, adoption, etc. {Y} of the Constitution lays down that the state shall endeavour to secure a Uniform Civil Code for the citizens throughout the territory of India.{Y} is one of the directive principles. These, as defined in Article 37, are not justifiable (not enforceable by any court) but the principles laid down therein are fundamental in governance. Fundamental rights are enforceable in a court of law. While {Y} uses the words "state shall endeavour", other Articles in the Directive Principles chapter use words such as "in particular strive"; "shall in particular direct its policy"; "shall be obligation of the state", etc. Article 43 mentions "state shall endeavour by suitable legislation", while the phrase "by suitable legislation" is absent in {Y}. All this implies that the duty of the state is greater in other directive principles than in {Y}.There is no doubt that fundamental rights are more important. The Supreme Court held in Minerva Mills (1980): "Indian Constitution is founded on the bed-rock of the balance between Parts III (Fundamental Rights) and IV (Directive Principles). To give absolute primacy to one over the other is to disturb the harmony of the Constitution". Article 31C inserted by the 42ndAmendment in 1976, however, lays down that if a law is made to implement any directive principle, it cannot be challenged on the ground of being violative of the fundamental rights under Articles 14{1} and 19.Indian laws do follow a uniform code in most civil matters – however, they have made hundreds of amendments and therefore in certain matters, there is diversity even under these secular civil laws. Recently, several states refused to be governed by the uniform Motor Vehicles Act, 2019.If the framers of the Constitution had intended to have a Uniform Civil Code, they would have given exclusive jurisdiction to Parliament in respect of personal laws, by including this subject in the Union List. But "personal laws" are mentioned in the Concurrent List. Last year, the Law Commission concluded that a Uniform Civil Code is neither feasible nor desirable.Q.Which of the following is not a correct match in respect to parts of the Constitution?a)Part I: Union and its Territoriesb)Part III: Citizenshipc)Part IV: Directive Principles of State Policyd)Part VI: State GovernmentsCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.

Explore Courses for CLAT exam