All Courses
Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity Get the App Login Join for Free
Sign in Open App
CLAT Exam  >  CLAT Questions  >  Read the following passage and answer the que... Start Learning for Free
Read the following passage and answer the question as directed.
{X} became the first state to challenge the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) before the Supreme Court. However, the legal route adopted by the state is different from the 60 petitions already pending before the court. The {X} government has moved the apex court under {Y} of the Constitution, the provision under which the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction to deal with any dispute between the Centre and a state; the Centre and a state on the one side and another state on the other side; and two or more states.
The Chhattisgarh government filed a suit in the Supreme Court under {Y}, challenging the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act on the ground that it encroaches upon the state's powers to maintain law and order.
For a dispute to qualify as a dispute under {Y}, it has to be necessarily between states and the Centre, and must involve a question of law or fact on which the existence of a legal right of the state or the Centre depends.
{Y} cannot be used to settle political differences between state and central governments headed by different parties.
The Centre has other powers to ensure that its laws are implemented. The Centre can issue directions to a state to implement the laws made by Parliament. If states do not comply with the directions, the Centre can move the court seeking a permanent injunction against the states to force them to comply with the law. Non-compliance of court orders can result in contempt of court, and the court usually hauls up the chief secretaries of the states responsible for implementing laws.
The other petitions challenging the CAA have been filed under Article 32 of the Constitution. A state government cannot move the court under this provision because only people and citizens can claim fundamental rights.
Under {Y}, the challenge is made when the rights and power of a state or the Centre are in question.
However, the relief that the state (under {Y}) and petitioners under Article 32 have sought in the challenge to the CAA is the same — declaration of the law as being unconstitutional.
Q. Statement I: Article 32 of the Constitution gives court the power to issue writs when fundamental rights are violated.
Statement II: {Y} cannot be used to settle political differences between state and central governments headed by different parties.
  • a)
    Both statement I and statement II are correct
  • b)
    Both statement I and statement II are incorrect
  • c)
    Statement I is correct and statement II is incorrect
  • d)
    Statement I is incorrect and statement II is correct
Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?
Clear all your CLAT doubts with EduRev
Verified Answer
Read the following passage and answer the question as directed.{X} bec...
Statement I: Article 32 of the Constitution of India confers power on the Supreme Court to issue direction or order or writ, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution.
Statement II: Article 131 can be used to settle political differences between state and central governments headed by different parties.
View all questions of this test
Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.Under the broad framework of judicial review under the Constitution, the Supreme Court and High Courts have the power to declare any law unconstitutional, either because it is ultra vires (or, contrary to any provision of the Constitution) or it violates any of the fundamental rights, invalid because it is repugnant to a central law on the same subject or has been enacted without legislative jurisdiction. However, interim orders staying or suspending laws enacted by the legislature are frowned upon by constitutional courts and legal scholars. The general argument is that unless there are compelling reasons such as flagrant lack of constitutional validity, or absence of legislative competence (that is, the legislative body concerned lacks the jurisdiction to enact the law in question), a law ought not to be stayed.Why is it considered unusual for a court to suspend a law or its operation?The main principle is that suspending a law made by the legislature goes against the concept of separation of powers. Courts are expected to defer to the legislature's wisdom at the threshold of a legal challenge to the validity of a law. The validity of a law ought to be considered normally only at the time of final adjudication, and not at the initial stage. The second principle is that there is a presumption that every law enacted by any legislature is constitutional and valid. The onus is on those challenging it to prove that it is not. Therefore, courts are circumspect when hearing petitions seeking suspension of a law pending a detailed adjudication.How did the SC justify its order on farm laws?This court cannot be said to be completely powerless to grant stay of any executive action under a statutory enactment, the Bench observed in its order. This means that it was apparently making a distinction between staying a law and staying its implementation or any action under it. Some may argue, however, that the effect remains the same, as the order operates as a stay on the government invoking its provisions.Q. A person approached the Supreme Court contending that a law passed by the Parliament takes away his fundamental right and prayed that the Court must stay the operation of law at first instance and then he would move forward to prove that law is unconstitutional as it violates fundamental rights of the petitioner. Decide.

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.Under the broad framework of judicial review under the Constitution, the Supreme Court and High Courts have the power to declare any law unconstitutional, either because it is ultra vires (or, contrary to any provision of the Constitution) or it violates any of the fundamental rights, invalid because it is repugnant to a central law on the same subject or has been enacted without legislative jurisdiction. However, interim orders staying or suspending laws enacted by the legislature are frowned upon by constitutional courts and legal scholars. The general argument is that unless there are compelling reasons such as flagrant lack of constitutional validity, or absence of legislative competence (that is, the legislative body concerned lacks the jurisdiction to enact the law in question), a law ought not to be stayed.Why is it considered unusual for a court to suspend a law or its operation?The main principle is that suspending a law made by the legislature goes against the concept of separation of powers. Courts are expected to defer to the legislature's wisdom at the threshold of a legal challenge to the validity of a law. The validity of a law ought to be considered normally only at the time of final adjudication, and not at the initial stage. The second principle is that there is a presumption that every law enacted by any legislature is constitutional and valid. The onus is on those challenging it to prove that it is not. Therefore, courts are circumspect when hearing petitions seeking suspension of a law pending a detailed adjudication.How did the SC justify its order on farm laws?This court cannot be said to be completely powerless to grant stay of any executive action under a statutory enactment, the Bench observed in its order. This means that it was apparently making a distinction between staying a law and staying its implementation or any action under it. Some may argue, however, that the effect remains the same, as the order operates as a stay on the government invoking its provisions.Q. Based on the author's argument in the last paragraph of the passage, which of the following statements is/are correct?

Directions: Read the passage carefully and answer the questions given beside.It has been repeatedly held that the PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act) is a sui generis legislation, enacted to tackle money laundering through white-collar crimes. According to Section 3 of the PMLA, the act of projecting or claiming proceeds of crime to be untainted property constitutes the offense of money laundering. Under the Schedule to the PMLA, a number of offenses under the Indian Penal Code and other special statutes have been included, which serve as the basis for the offense of money laundering. In other words, the existence of predicate offense is sine qua non to charge someone with money laundering. It is crucial to note that the investigation and prosecution of the predicate offense are done typically by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or the State Police.Section 50 of the PMLA provides powers of a civil court to the ED authorities for summoning persons suspected of money laundering and recording statements. However, the Supreme Court held that ED authorities are not police officers. It observed in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India (2022) that “the process envisaged by Section 50 of the PMLA is in the nature of an inquiry against the proceeds of crime and is not ‘investigation’ in strict sense of the term for initiating prosecution.” There are other dissimilarities between ED authorities and the police. While the police are required to register a First Information Report (FIR) for a cognizable offense before conducting an investigation, ED authorities begin with search procedures and undertake their investigation for the purpose of gathering materials and tracing the ‘proceeds of crime’ by issuing summons. Any statement made by an accused to the police is inadmissible as evidence in court, whereas a statement made to an ED authority is admissible. A copy of the FIR is accessible to the accused, whereas the Enforcement Case Information Report is seldom available.While the police investigating the predicate offense are empowered to arrest and seek custody of the accused, the ED is meant to focus on recovering the proceeds of crime in order to redistribute the same to victims. It is not clear whether the ED has managed to do this. Per contra, the Proceeds of Crime Act, 2002, the analogous legislation in the U.K., almost entirely concentrates on the confiscation of assets through dedicated civil proceedings. Unfortunately, of late, much of the ED’s powers have been discharged in effecting pretrial arrests, which used to be the prerogative of the police investigating the predicate offence. In the past, the CBI was used to impart fear among political opponents. In the process, the agency received the condemnation of various courts and earned the nickname “caged parrot”. Whether the ED will go down the same path or reorient its approach will entirely depend on the intervention of the country’s constitutional courts.Q.Which of the following is not the appropriate cause-and-effect relationship in the passages context?

Top Courses for CLATView all

Top Courses for CLAT

Read the following passage and answer the question as directed.{X} became the first state to challenge the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) before the Supreme Court. However, the legal route adopted by the state is different from the 60 petitions already pending before the court. The {X} government has moved the apex court under {Y} of the Constitution, the provision under which the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction to deal with any dispute between the Centre and a state; the Centre and a state on the one side and another state on the other side; and two or more states.The Chhattisgarh government filed a suit in the Supreme Court under {Y}, challenging the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act on the ground that it encroaches upon the states powers to maintain law and order.For a dispute to qualify as a dispute under {Y}, it has to be necessarily between states and the Centre, and must involve a question of law or fact on which the existence of a legal right of the state or the Centre depends.{Y} cannot be used to settle political differences between state and central governments headed by different parties.The Centre has other powers to ensure that its laws are implemented. The Centre can issue directions to a state to implement the laws made by Parliament. If states do not comply with the directions, the Centre can move the court seeking a permanent injunction against the states to force them to comply with the law. Non-compliance of court orders can result in contempt of court, and the court usually hauls up the chief secretaries of the states responsible for implementing laws.The other petitions challenging the CAA have been filed under Article 32 of the Constitution. A state government cannot move the court under this provision because only people and citizens can claim fundamental rights.Under {Y}, the challenge is made when the rights and power of a state or the Centre are in question.However, the relief that the state (under {Y}) and petitioners under Article 32 have sought in the challenge to the CAA is the same — declaration of the law as being unconstitutional.Q. Statement I:Article 32 of the Constitution gives court the power to issue writs when fundamental rights are violated.Statement II:{Y} cannot be used to settle political differences between state and central governments headed by different parties.a)Both statement I and statement II are correctb)Both statement I and statement II are incorrectc)Statement I is correct and statement II is incorrectd)Statement I is incorrect and statement II is correctCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
Read the following passage and answer the question as directed.{X} became the first state to challenge the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) before the Supreme Court. However, the legal route adopted by the state is different from the 60 petitions already pending before the court. The {X} government has moved the apex court under {Y} of the Constitution, the provision under which the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction to deal with any dispute between the Centre and a state; the Centre and a state on the one side and another state on the other side; and two or more states.The Chhattisgarh government filed a suit in the Supreme Court under {Y}, challenging the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act on the ground that it encroaches upon the states powers to maintain law and order.For a dispute to qualify as a dispute under {Y}, it has to be necessarily between states and the Centre, and must involve a question of law or fact on which the existence of a legal right of the state or the Centre depends.{Y} cannot be used to settle political differences between state and central governments headed by different parties.The Centre has other powers to ensure that its laws are implemented. The Centre can issue directions to a state to implement the laws made by Parliament. If states do not comply with the directions, the Centre can move the court seeking a permanent injunction against the states to force them to comply with the law. Non-compliance of court orders can result in contempt of court, and the court usually hauls up the chief secretaries of the states responsible for implementing laws.The other petitions challenging the CAA have been filed under Article 32 of the Constitution. A state government cannot move the court under this provision because only people and citizens can claim fundamental rights.Under {Y}, the challenge is made when the rights and power of a state or the Centre are in question.However, the relief that the state (under {Y}) and petitioners under Article 32 have sought in the challenge to the CAA is the same — declaration of the law as being unconstitutional.Q. Statement I:Article 32 of the Constitution gives court the power to issue writs when fundamental rights are violated.Statement II:{Y} cannot be used to settle political differences between state and central governments headed by different parties.a)Both statement I and statement II are correctb)Both statement I and statement II are incorrectc)Statement I is correct and statement II is incorrectd)Statement I is incorrect and statement II is correctCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2025 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.{X} became the first state to challenge the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) before the Supreme Court. However, the legal route adopted by the state is different from the 60 petitions already pending before the court. The {X} government has moved the apex court under {Y} of the Constitution, the provision under which the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction to deal with any dispute between the Centre and a state; the Centre and a state on the one side and another state on the other side; and two or more states.The Chhattisgarh government filed a suit in the Supreme Court under {Y}, challenging the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act on the ground that it encroaches upon the states powers to maintain law and order.For a dispute to qualify as a dispute under {Y}, it has to be necessarily between states and the Centre, and must involve a question of law or fact on which the existence of a legal right of the state or the Centre depends.{Y} cannot be used to settle political differences between state and central governments headed by different parties.The Centre has other powers to ensure that its laws are implemented. The Centre can issue directions to a state to implement the laws made by Parliament. If states do not comply with the directions, the Centre can move the court seeking a permanent injunction against the states to force them to comply with the law. Non-compliance of court orders can result in contempt of court, and the court usually hauls up the chief secretaries of the states responsible for implementing laws.The other petitions challenging the CAA have been filed under Article 32 of the Constitution. A state government cannot move the court under this provision because only people and citizens can claim fundamental rights.Under {Y}, the challenge is made when the rights and power of a state or the Centre are in question.However, the relief that the state (under {Y}) and petitioners under Article 32 have sought in the challenge to the CAA is the same — declaration of the law as being unconstitutional.Q. Statement I:Article 32 of the Constitution gives court the power to issue writs when fundamental rights are violated.Statement II:{Y} cannot be used to settle political differences between state and central governments headed by different parties.a)Both statement I and statement II are correctb)Both statement I and statement II are incorrectc)Statement I is correct and statement II is incorrectd)Statement I is incorrect and statement II is correctCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Read the following passage and answer the question as directed.{X} became the first state to challenge the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) before the Supreme Court. However, the legal route adopted by the state is different from the 60 petitions already pending before the court. The {X} government has moved the apex court under {Y} of the Constitution, the provision under which the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction to deal with any dispute between the Centre and a state; the Centre and a state on the one side and another state on the other side; and two or more states.The Chhattisgarh government filed a suit in the Supreme Court under {Y}, challenging the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act on the ground that it encroaches upon the states powers to maintain law and order.For a dispute to qualify as a dispute under {Y}, it has to be necessarily between states and the Centre, and must involve a question of law or fact on which the existence of a legal right of the state or the Centre depends.{Y} cannot be used to settle political differences between state and central governments headed by different parties.The Centre has other powers to ensure that its laws are implemented. The Centre can issue directions to a state to implement the laws made by Parliament. If states do not comply with the directions, the Centre can move the court seeking a permanent injunction against the states to force them to comply with the law. Non-compliance of court orders can result in contempt of court, and the court usually hauls up the chief secretaries of the states responsible for implementing laws.The other petitions challenging the CAA have been filed under Article 32 of the Constitution. A state government cannot move the court under this provision because only people and citizens can claim fundamental rights.Under {Y}, the challenge is made when the rights and power of a state or the Centre are in question.However, the relief that the state (under {Y}) and petitioners under Article 32 have sought in the challenge to the CAA is the same — declaration of the law as being unconstitutional.Q. Statement I:Article 32 of the Constitution gives court the power to issue writs when fundamental rights are violated.Statement II:{Y} cannot be used to settle political differences between state and central governments headed by different parties.a)Both statement I and statement II are correctb)Both statement I and statement II are incorrectc)Statement I is correct and statement II is incorrectd)Statement I is incorrect and statement II is correctCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for Read the following passage and answer the question as directed.{X} became the first state to challenge the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) before the Supreme Court. However, the legal route adopted by the state is different from the 60 petitions already pending before the court. The {X} government has moved the apex court under {Y} of the Constitution, the provision under which the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction to deal with any dispute between the Centre and a state; the Centre and a state on the one side and another state on the other side; and two or more states.The Chhattisgarh government filed a suit in the Supreme Court under {Y}, challenging the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act on the ground that it encroaches upon the states powers to maintain law and order.For a dispute to qualify as a dispute under {Y}, it has to be necessarily between states and the Centre, and must involve a question of law or fact on which the existence of a legal right of the state or the Centre depends.{Y} cannot be used to settle political differences between state and central governments headed by different parties.The Centre has other powers to ensure that its laws are implemented. The Centre can issue directions to a state to implement the laws made by Parliament. If states do not comply with the directions, the Centre can move the court seeking a permanent injunction against the states to force them to comply with the law. Non-compliance of court orders can result in contempt of court, and the court usually hauls up the chief secretaries of the states responsible for implementing laws.The other petitions challenging the CAA have been filed under Article 32 of the Constitution. A state government cannot move the court under this provision because only people and citizens can claim fundamental rights.Under {Y}, the challenge is made when the rights and power of a state or the Centre are in question.However, the relief that the state (under {Y}) and petitioners under Article 32 have sought in the challenge to the CAA is the same — declaration of the law as being unconstitutional.Q. Statement I:Article 32 of the Constitution gives court the power to issue writs when fundamental rights are violated.Statement II:{Y} cannot be used to settle political differences between state and central governments headed by different parties.a)Both statement I and statement II are correctb)Both statement I and statement II are incorrectc)Statement I is correct and statement II is incorrectd)Statement I is incorrect and statement II is correctCorrect answer is option 'C'. 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.{X} became the first state to challenge the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) before the Supreme Court. However, the legal route adopted by the state is different from the 60 petitions already pending before the court. The {X} government has moved the apex court under {Y} of the Constitution, the provision under which the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction to deal with any dispute between the Centre and a state; the Centre and a state on the one side and another state on the other side; and two or more states.The Chhattisgarh government filed a suit in the Supreme Court under {Y}, challenging the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act on the ground that it encroaches upon the states powers to maintain law and order.For a dispute to qualify as a dispute under {Y}, it has to be necessarily between states and the Centre, and must involve a question of law or fact on which the existence of a legal right of the state or the Centre depends.{Y} cannot be used to settle political differences between state and central governments headed by different parties.The Centre has other powers to ensure that its laws are implemented. The Centre can issue directions to a state to implement the laws made by Parliament. If states do not comply with the directions, the Centre can move the court seeking a permanent injunction against the states to force them to comply with the law. Non-compliance of court orders can result in contempt of court, and the court usually hauls up the chief secretaries of the states responsible for implementing laws.The other petitions challenging the CAA have been filed under Article 32 of the Constitution. A state government cannot move the court under this provision because only people and citizens can claim fundamental rights.Under {Y}, the challenge is made when the rights and power of a state or the Centre are in question.However, the relief that the state (under {Y}) and petitioners under Article 32 have sought in the challenge to the CAA is the same — declaration of the law as being unconstitutional.Q. Statement I:Article 32 of the Constitution gives court the power to issue writs when fundamental rights are violated.Statement II:{Y} cannot be used to settle political differences between state and central governments headed by different parties.a)Both statement I and statement II are correctb)Both statement I and statement II are incorrectc)Statement I is correct and statement II is incorrectd)Statement I is incorrect and statement II is correctCorrect answer is option 'C'. 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.{X} became the first state to challenge the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) before the Supreme Court. However, the legal route adopted by the state is different from the 60 petitions already pending before the court. The {X} government has moved the apex court under {Y} of the Constitution, the provision under which the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction to deal with any dispute between the Centre and a state; the Centre and a state on the one side and another state on the other side; and two or more states.The Chhattisgarh government filed a suit in the Supreme Court under {Y}, challenging the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act on the ground that it encroaches upon the states powers to maintain law and order.For a dispute to qualify as a dispute under {Y}, it has to be necessarily between states and the Centre, and must involve a question of law or fact on which the existence of a legal right of the state or the Centre depends.{Y} cannot be used to settle political differences between state and central governments headed by different parties.The Centre has other powers to ensure that its laws are implemented. The Centre can issue directions to a state to implement the laws made by Parliament. If states do not comply with the directions, the Centre can move the court seeking a permanent injunction against the states to force them to comply with the law. Non-compliance of court orders can result in contempt of court, and the court usually hauls up the chief secretaries of the states responsible for implementing laws.The other petitions challenging the CAA have been filed under Article 32 of the Constitution. A state government cannot move the court under this provision because only people and citizens can claim fundamental rights.Under {Y}, the challenge is made when the rights and power of a state or the Centre are in question.However, the relief that the state (under {Y}) and petitioners under Article 32 have sought in the challenge to the CAA is the same — declaration of the law as being unconstitutional.Q. Statement I:Article 32 of the Constitution gives court the power to issue writs when fundamental rights are violated.Statement II:{Y} cannot be used to settle political differences between state and central governments headed by different parties.a)Both statement I and statement II are correctb)Both statement I and statement II are incorrectc)Statement I is correct and statement II is incorrectd)Statement I is incorrect and statement II is correctCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Read the following passage and answer the question as directed.{X} became the first state to challenge the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) before the Supreme Court. However, the legal route adopted by the state is different from the 60 petitions already pending before the court. The {X} government has moved the apex court under {Y} of the Constitution, the provision under which the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction to deal with any dispute between the Centre and a state; the Centre and a state on the one side and another state on the other side; and two or more states.The Chhattisgarh government filed a suit in the Supreme Court under {Y}, challenging the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act on the ground that it encroaches upon the states powers to maintain law and order.For a dispute to qualify as a dispute under {Y}, it has to be necessarily between states and the Centre, and must involve a question of law or fact on which the existence of a legal right of the state or the Centre depends.{Y} cannot be used to settle political differences between state and central governments headed by different parties.The Centre has other powers to ensure that its laws are implemented. The Centre can issue directions to a state to implement the laws made by Parliament. If states do not comply with the directions, the Centre can move the court seeking a permanent injunction against the states to force them to comply with the law. Non-compliance of court orders can result in contempt of court, and the court usually hauls up the chief secretaries of the states responsible for implementing laws.The other petitions challenging the CAA have been filed under Article 32 of the Constitution. A state government cannot move the court under this provision because only people and citizens can claim fundamental rights.Under {Y}, the challenge is made when the rights and power of a state or the Centre are in question.However, the relief that the state (under {Y}) and petitioners under Article 32 have sought in the challenge to the CAA is the same — declaration of the law as being unconstitutional.Q. Statement I:Article 32 of the Constitution gives court the power to issue writs when fundamental rights are violated.Statement II:{Y} cannot be used to settle political differences between state and central governments headed by different parties.a)Both statement I and statement II are correctb)Both statement I and statement II are incorrectc)Statement I is correct and statement II is incorrectd)Statement I is incorrect and statement II is correctCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Read the following passage and answer the question as directed.{X} became the first state to challenge the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) before the Supreme Court. However, the legal route adopted by the state is different from the 60 petitions already pending before the court. The {X} government has moved the apex court under {Y} of the Constitution, the provision under which the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction to deal with any dispute between the Centre and a state; the Centre and a state on the one side and another state on the other side; and two or more states.The Chhattisgarh government filed a suit in the Supreme Court under {Y}, challenging the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act on the ground that it encroaches upon the states powers to maintain law and order.For a dispute to qualify as a dispute under {Y}, it has to be necessarily between states and the Centre, and must involve a question of law or fact on which the existence of a legal right of the state or the Centre depends.{Y} cannot be used to settle political differences between state and central governments headed by different parties.The Centre has other powers to ensure that its laws are implemented. The Centre can issue directions to a state to implement the laws made by Parliament. If states do not comply with the directions, the Centre can move the court seeking a permanent injunction against the states to force them to comply with the law. Non-compliance of court orders can result in contempt of court, and the court usually hauls up the chief secretaries of the states responsible for implementing laws.The other petitions challenging the CAA have been filed under Article 32 of the Constitution. A state government cannot move the court under this provision because only people and citizens can claim fundamental rights.Under {Y}, the challenge is made when the rights and power of a state or the Centre are in question.However, the relief that the state (under {Y}) and petitioners under Article 32 have sought in the challenge to the CAA is the same — declaration of the law as being unconstitutional.Q. Statement I:Article 32 of the Constitution gives court the power to issue writs when fundamental rights are violated.Statement II:{Y} cannot be used to settle political differences between state and central governments headed by different parties.a)Both statement I and statement II are correctb)Both statement I and statement II are incorrectc)Statement I is correct and statement II is incorrectd)Statement I is incorrect and statement II is correctCorrect answer is option 'C'. 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.{X} became the first state to challenge the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) before the Supreme Court. However, the legal route adopted by the state is different from the 60 petitions already pending before the court. The {X} government has moved the apex court under {Y} of the Constitution, the provision under which the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction to deal with any dispute between the Centre and a state; the Centre and a state on the one side and another state on the other side; and two or more states.The Chhattisgarh government filed a suit in the Supreme Court under {Y}, challenging the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act on the ground that it encroaches upon the states powers to maintain law and order.For a dispute to qualify as a dispute under {Y}, it has to be necessarily between states and the Centre, and must involve a question of law or fact on which the existence of a legal right of the state or the Centre depends.{Y} cannot be used to settle political differences between state and central governments headed by different parties.The Centre has other powers to ensure that its laws are implemented. The Centre can issue directions to a state to implement the laws made by Parliament. If states do not comply with the directions, the Centre can move the court seeking a permanent injunction against the states to force them to comply with the law. Non-compliance of court orders can result in contempt of court, and the court usually hauls up the chief secretaries of the states responsible for implementing laws.The other petitions challenging the CAA have been filed under Article 32 of the Constitution. A state government cannot move the court under this provision because only people and citizens can claim fundamental rights.Under {Y}, the challenge is made when the rights and power of a state or the Centre are in question.However, the relief that the state (under {Y}) and petitioners under Article 32 have sought in the challenge to the CAA is the same — declaration of the law as being unconstitutional.Q. Statement I:Article 32 of the Constitution gives court the power to issue writs when fundamental rights are violated.Statement II:{Y} cannot be used to settle political differences between state and central governments headed by different parties.a)Both statement I and statement II are correctb)Both statement I and statement II are incorrectc)Statement I is correct and statement II is incorrectd)Statement I is incorrect and statement II is correctCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.
Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Top Courses for CLAT

Explore Courses
SaveJoin the Discussion on the App for FREE
Signup for Free!
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days! Learn & Practice with 1000+ FREE Notes, Videos & Tests.
10M+ students study on EduRev
Get App
© EduRev
Education Revolution
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days!
Access 1000+ FREE Docs, Videos and Tests
Takes less than 10 seconds to signup