Laxmikanth Test: Judicial Review & Activism-1 - Free MCQ with solutions

The correct answer is Option C - Both 1 and 2

Statement 1 is correct with a qualification: judges enjoy judicial immunity for acts done in their judicial capacity, which protects them from civil suits and personal liability for bona fide judicial decisions; this immunity, however, does not extend to administrative or extra-judicial acts, nor to acts done mala fide or wholly beyond their jurisdiction.

Statement 2 is also correct with a qualification: under Article 300 the Union and States are recognised as juristic persons and, as a general rule, the State is liable in tort for wrongful acts of its servants committed in the course of their employment. Modern Indian jurisprudence has substantially limited the old doctrine of absolute sovereign immunity, so the State can be held responsible for torts by its employees, subject to narrow exceptions grounded in public policy or specific statutory immunities.

Accordingly, both statements are true when read with the stated qualifications: judicial immunity applies only to bona fide judicial acts, and State liability for torts applies generally but is subject to limited, well-defined exceptions.

The correct answer is Option A - 1 and 2 only

Statement 1 and Statement 2 are correct; Statement 3 is incorrect.

Article 14 permits equal treatment before the law but recognises that the State may make classifications if they are reasonable; such classifications must satisfy the judicial test of reasonable classification rather than amount to arbitrary discrimination.

By the established test, classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia-a clear and logical distinction that separates the class subjected to the law from others.

Further, the classification must bear a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the legislation; there must be a nexus between the basis of classification and the legislative goal.

The Supreme Court in Anwar Ali Sarkar v. State of West Bengal formulated this twin test-intelligible differentia and rational relation-as the requirement for reasonable classification under Article 14.

Class legislation-arbitrary or purely personal discrimination in favour of or against a class-is not sanctioned by Article 14; the Constitution allows laws based on reasonable classification but forbids arbitrary class legislation. Therefore, the proposition that classification should be based on class legislation is incorrect.

Hence, only the first two conditions meet the constitutional test of reasonable classification, making Option A (that is, 1 and 2 only) the correct choice.

The correct answer is Option B - it leads to the discovery of a fact

Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act permits proof of so much of the information given by an accused in police custody as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered; in other words, the part of the information that directly results in a concrete discovery may be proved.

Sections 25 and 26 ordinarily render confessions made to police officers inadmissible to establish guilt; Section 27 is therefore a narrowly drawn exception to that rule and does not make the whole confession admissible as proof of guilt.

The exception applies only when the information produces a new and specific discovery of fact (for example, recovery of a weapon or location of hidden material); if the police already knew the fact, the information cannot be treated as a discovery under Section 27.

General safeguards remain applicable: statements obtained by inducement, threat or promise are irrelevant under Section 24, and the voluntariness and reliability of the information must be scrutinised; the portion proved under Section 27 ordinarily requires corroboration before it can be used to establish guilt.

Accordingly, the option asserting that the confession leads to the discovery of a fact correctly states the statutory basis of the admissibility permitted by Section 27.

The correct answer is Option C - 1 and 3 only

Statement 1 is incorrect because the Supreme Court exercises judicial review over both legislative enactments and executive/administrative actions of the Union as well as the States; under Article 13 laws that contravene fundamental rights can be declared void by the courts.

Statement 2 is correct because the High Courts, by virtue of their writ jurisdiction under Article 226, can examine the constitutionality of executive actions and laws affecting persons and authorities within their territorial jurisdiction, and thus can review actions of both state authorities and Union authorities operating within the State.

Statement 3 is incorrect because the Ninth Schedule does not grant absolute immunity from judicial review; in I.R. Coelho (2007) the Supreme Court held that laws placed in the Ninth Schedule are open to judicial scrutiny if they violate fundamental rights or the basic structure, particularly for entries added after 24 April 1973.

Hence, the statements that are not correct are 1 and 3, which corresponds to Option C - 1 and 3 only.

The correct answer is Option C - Both 1 and 2

Statement 1 is correct because the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) recognises and treats bailable and non-bailable offences differently, prescribing different procedures and judicial powers for grant of bail in each category.

Statement 2 is correct because anticipatory bail is provided by Section 438 of the CrPC; the provision was introduced following recommendations of the 41st Law Commission Report (1969) to protect personal liberty against arbitrary arrest by allowing courts to grant pre-arrest relief.

Section 438 empowers the High Court and the Court of Session to grant anticipatory bail to a person who has reason to believe that they may be arrested for a non-bailable offence; such bail may be subject to conditions and can be varied or cancelled by the court that granted it or by a superior court.

The correct answer is Option D - 3 only

A writ of mandamus is an order issued by a superior court to compel a public authority to perform a mandatory or ministerial duty> that it is legally bound to perform.

Mandamus is ordinarily available to enforce the performance of administrative functions by public officials or subordinate authorities when they refuse or neglect to discharge a duty imposed by law.

Mandamus cannot be used to control the exercise of judicial functions; a court will not direct another court or judicial tribunal how to decide a case in the exercise of its adjudicatory discretion, although it may compel the performance of purely ministerial acts by a court.

Mandamus also cannot be used to compel a legislature or legislative body in the performance of its legislative functions, because law-making and policy decisions are not judicially controllable by writ directing the substance of legislation.

Hence, among the three categories listed, a writ of mandamus is properly issued only in respect of administrative (ministerial) functions.

The correct answer is Option C - 1 and 3 only

Statement 1 is correct: under Article 32 the Supreme Court may issue writs specifically for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights, while under Article 226 a High Court can issue writs both for enforcement of Fundamental Rights and for enforcement of other legal rights; thus the High Court's writ jurisdiction is broader in scope than the Supreme Court's Article 32 jurisdiction.

Statement 2 is incorrect: the Supreme Court's writ jurisdiction extends to the whole of India, but a High Court can issue writs only within its own territorial jurisdiction (the state or territory over which it is established) and not across the entire territory of India.

Statement 3 is correct: the remedy under Article 32 is a constitutional right to approach the Supreme Court for enforcement of Fundamental Rights and is ordinarily enforceable by the Court, whereas the power under Article 226 is discretionary and a High Court may decline to exercise it in appropriate circumstances (for example, where an adequate alternative remedy exists).

Therefore, Statements 1 and 3 are true and Statement 2 is false, which makes Option C (1 and 3 only) the correct choice.

The correct answer is Option B - 2 and 3 only

Statement 1 is incorrect. Article 310 relates to the tenure of office of persons serving the Union or a State and does not provide for creation of a new all-India service.

The constitutional provision relevant to creating All-India services is Article 312, which permits the Rajya Sabha, by a resolution supported by not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting, to authorize Parliament to create an All-India Service by law.

Statement 2 is correct. Proposals for an All India Judicial Service envisage centralised recruitment at the national level, modelled on the pattern used for All-India Services and the UPSC, with candidates selected centrally and allocated or empanelled for service in states.

Statement 3 is correct as stated in official proposals and Law Commission reports: one of the objectives of an AIJS is to broaden the recruitment base and promote greater representation and diversity of judicial officers across regions, genders, castes and communities, thereby better reflecting the country's social composition.

However, the actual improvement in representation would depend on the specific recruitment rules, reservation provisions and training and posting frameworks adopted if an AIJS is established; the proposal itself lists increased uniformity, standardized training and potential gains in diversity as intended benefits.

The correct answer is Option B - 1, 2 and 4 only

• Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain - This judgment applied and reinforced the basic structure doctrine by holding that Parliament could not use a constitutional amendment (notably the 39th Amendment) to place certain actions beyond judicial review; the Court affirmed the limits on amending powers and upheld the doctrine of judicial review.

• S.R. Bommai v. Union of India - The decision clarified limits on the use of Article 356 and stressed that federalism and related checks form part of the basic structure, thereby placing constitutional constraints on dismissal of state governments.

• Bhim Singhji v. Union of India - This case is not recognised as a leading decision on the basic structure doctrine; it did not establish or develop the basic-structure principles in the manner of Kesavananda, Minerva Mills, Indira, S.R. Bommai or the judges-appointment cases, and therefore the statement linking it to the basic structure is incorrect.

• Fourth Judges case (the challenge to the 99th Amendment and the NJAC) - The Court struck down the amendment and the NJAC as violative of the independence of the judiciary, holding that this independence is part of the basic structure; thus this case is directly connected to the doctrine.

The correct answer is Option A - Only one

Only the third statement is correct.

Under the Constitution, the remedy of writs is provided by Article 32 (Supreme Court) and Article 226 (High Courts); recognised writs include habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, certiorari and quo warranto.

The first statement is incorrect because a writ of mandamus is not absolutely barred against private entities; it ordinarily lies against the State or bodies discharging public functions, but where a private body performs a public function or is under sufficient statutory/state control so as to be treated as part of the State, courts have held that mandamus may be issued.

The second statement is incorrect because the remedy of habeas corpus is meant to prevent unlawful detention and is available to challenge detention irrespective of the detainee's citizenship; however, it is not available in cases where detention is lawful under valid statutory authority, so it is not available "in all cases".

The third statement is correct because certiorari is used to quash orders passed in excess of jurisdiction or in violation of law and can be issued against inferior judicial bodies as well as tribunals and administrative/quasi-judicial authorities where those bodies have committed jurisdictional error or acted illegally.

Therefore, only one of the three statements is correct, which matches the given option.