INSIGHTS STATIC QUIZ 2020 - 21
Quiz-summary
0 of 5 questions completed
Questions:
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
Information
You have already completed the quiz before. Hence you can not start it again.
Quiz is loading...
You must sign in or sign up to start the quiz.
You have to finish following quiz, to start this quiz:
Results
0 of 5 questions answered correctly
Your time:
Time has elapsed
You have reached 0 of 0 points, (0)
Categories
- Not categorized 0%
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Answered
- Review
-
Question 1 of 5
1. Question
Consider the following statements regarding Fundamental Rights.
- They promote the idea of social and economic democracy.
- They are sacrosanct and permanent.
- Most of them are directly enforceable while a few are enforced by a law made by the parliament and state legislatures.
Which of the above statements is/are incorrect?
Correct
Solution: d)
Fundamental Rights are not absolute and subject to reasonable restrictions. Further, they are not sacrosanct and can be curtailed or repealed by the Parliament through a constitutional amendment act.
They promote the idea of political democracy. DPSP promote the idea of social and economic democracy.
Most of them are directly enforceable (self-executory) while a few of them can be enforced on the basis of a law made for giving effect to them. Such a law can be made only by the Parliament and not by state legislatures so that uniformity throughout the country is maintained (Article 35).
Incorrect
Solution: d)
Fundamental Rights are not absolute and subject to reasonable restrictions. Further, they are not sacrosanct and can be curtailed or repealed by the Parliament through a constitutional amendment act.
They promote the idea of political democracy. DPSP promote the idea of social and economic democracy.
Most of them are directly enforceable (self-executory) while a few of them can be enforced on the basis of a law made for giving effect to them. Such a law can be made only by the Parliament and not by state legislatures so that uniformity throughout the country is maintained (Article 35).
-
Question 2 of 5
2. Question
Consider the following statements regarding Fundamental Rights.
- Fundamental Rights acts as limitations on the tyranny of the executive and arbitrary laws of the legislature.
- The aggrieved person can directly go to the Supreme Court for the restoration of his rights.
Which of the above statements is/are correct?
Correct
Solution: c)
The Fundamental Rights operate as limitations on the tyranny of the executive and arbitrary laws of the legislature. They are justiciable in nature, that is, they are enforceable by the courts for their violation. The aggrieved person can directly go to the Supreme Court which can issue the writs of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, certiorari and quo warranto for the restoration of his rights.
Incorrect
Solution: c)
The Fundamental Rights operate as limitations on the tyranny of the executive and arbitrary laws of the legislature. They are justiciable in nature, that is, they are enforceable by the courts for their violation. The aggrieved person can directly go to the Supreme Court which can issue the writs of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, certiorari and quo warranto for the restoration of his rights.
-
Question 3 of 5
3. Question
With reference to Right to Constitutional Remedies guaranteed under Article 32, consider the following statements:
- The Supreme Court has ruled that Article 32 is a basic feature of the constitution.
- Fundamental rights and other statutory rights can be enforced under Article 32.
- The Supreme Court has both exclusive and original jurisdiction in case of enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
- Article 32 cannot be invoked to determine the constitutionality of an executive order or a legislation unless it directly infringes on any Fundamental Rights.
Which of the above statements is/are correct?
Correct
Solution: a)
- Statement 1 – The Supreme Court has ruled that Article 32 is a basic feature of the Constitution. Hence, it cannot be abridged or taken away even by way of an amendment to the Constitution.
- Statement 2 – Only the Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the Constitution can be enforced under Article 32 and not any other right like non-fundamental constitutional rights, statutory rights, customary rights and so on.
- Statement 3 – In case of the enforcement of Fundamental Rights, the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is original but not exclusive. It is concurrent with the jurisdiction of the high court under Article 226.
- Statement 4 – Article 32 cannot be invoked simply to determine the constitutionality of an executive order or a legislation unless it directly infringes any of the fundamental rights.
Incorrect
Solution: a)
- Statement 1 – The Supreme Court has ruled that Article 32 is a basic feature of the Constitution. Hence, it cannot be abridged or taken away even by way of an amendment to the Constitution.
- Statement 2 – Only the Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the Constitution can be enforced under Article 32 and not any other right like non-fundamental constitutional rights, statutory rights, customary rights and so on.
- Statement 3 – In case of the enforcement of Fundamental Rights, the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is original but not exclusive. It is concurrent with the jurisdiction of the high court under Article 226.
- Statement 4 – Article 32 cannot be invoked simply to determine the constitutionality of an executive order or a legislation unless it directly infringes any of the fundamental rights.
-
Question 4 of 5
4. Question
Apart from the Minerva Mills case, which of the following cases deal with the primacy of fundamental rights vis-à-vis directive principles or vice versa?
- Champakam Dorairajan (1951)
- Golak Nath case (1967)
- Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973)
- ADM Jabalpur case (1976)
Select the correct answer code:
Correct
Solution: c)
In the Champakam Dorairajan case (1951), the Supreme Court ruled that in case of any conflict between the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles, the former would prevail. It declared that the Directive Principles have to conform to and run as subsidiary to the Fundamental Rights.
The above situation underwent a major change in 1967 following the Supreme Court’s judgement in the Golaknath case (1967). In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that the Parliament cannot take away or abridge any of the Fundamental Rights, which are ‘sacrosanct’ in nature. In other words, the Court held that the Fundamental Rights cannot be amended for the implementation of the Directive Principles.
In the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), the Supreme Court declared a particular provision of Article 31C as unconstitutional and invalid on the ground that judicial review is a basic feature of the Constitution and hence, cannot be taken away.
(ADM Jabalpur v Shivakant Shukla Case) – 1976: In this landmark judgment, the Supreme Court declared that the rights of citizens to move the court for violation of Articles 14, 21 and 22 would remain suspended during emergencies.
Incorrect
Solution: c)
In the Champakam Dorairajan case (1951), the Supreme Court ruled that in case of any conflict between the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles, the former would prevail. It declared that the Directive Principles have to conform to and run as subsidiary to the Fundamental Rights.
The above situation underwent a major change in 1967 following the Supreme Court’s judgement in the Golaknath case (1967). In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that the Parliament cannot take away or abridge any of the Fundamental Rights, which are ‘sacrosanct’ in nature. In other words, the Court held that the Fundamental Rights cannot be amended for the implementation of the Directive Principles.
In the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), the Supreme Court declared a particular provision of Article 31C as unconstitutional and invalid on the ground that judicial review is a basic feature of the Constitution and hence, cannot be taken away.
(ADM Jabalpur v Shivakant Shukla Case) – 1976: In this landmark judgment, the Supreme Court declared that the rights of citizens to move the court for violation of Articles 14, 21 and 22 would remain suspended during emergencies.
-
Question 5 of 5
5. Question
Consider the following statement regarding Fundamental Rights.
- Fundamental Rights in our Constitution are more elaborate than those found in the Constitution of any other country in the world, including the USA.
- Fundamental Rights are named so because they are guaranteed and protected by the Parliament, the supreme law-making body in India.
Which of the above statements is/are correct?
Correct
Solution: a)
Part III of the Constitution is rightly described as the Magna Carta of India. It contains a very long and comprehensive list of ‘justiciable’ Fundamental Rights. In fact, the Fundamental Rights in our Constitution are more elaborate than those found in the Constitution of any other country in the world, including the USA.
The Fundamental Rights are named so because they are guaranteed and protected by the Constitution, which is the fundamental law of the land.
Incorrect
Solution: a)
Part III of the Constitution is rightly described as the Magna Carta of India. It contains a very long and comprehensive list of ‘justiciable’ Fundamental Rights. In fact, the Fundamental Rights in our Constitution are more elaborate than those found in the Constitution of any other country in the world, including the USA.
The Fundamental Rights are named so because they are guaranteed and protected by the Constitution, which is the fundamental law of the land.
