UPSC Static Quiz – Polity : 7 July 2026

Solution: D

• Constitutionalism is a political philosophy that rejects arbitrary governance and insists that state power must be legally constrained. While a written constitution defines the structure and organs of government, its mere existence does not guarantee that these institutions will respect the limits on their authority. Many authoritarian states possess written constitutions that outline government structures without placing real limits on their power. Therefore, Statement I is incorrect because a written constitution is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for constitutionalism.
• Statement II is correct as it defines the core principle of constitutionalism: establishing institutional and legal checks—such as the separation of powers and judicial review—to limit the exercise of political authority.

Solution: A

• The concept of a republic outlines how state authority is derived and organized, distinguishing it from monarchies.
• Statement 1 is correct because a republican form of government vests political sovereignty in the citizenry rather than a monarch.
• Statement 2 is correct as the term republic signifies the absence of hereditary privilege, meaning all public offices are accessible to every citizen without discrimination.
• Statement 3 is incorrect because the head of state in a republic does not have to be elected directly. In many republics, including India, the President is elected indirectly through an electoral college consisting of elected representatives.

Solution: C

• In the Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) case, the Supreme Court took a view different from its earlier stance in the Berubari Union case (1960).
• The Court, in Kesavananda Bharati, held that the Preamble is a part of the Constitution. It observed that the Preamble is of extreme importance and the Constitution should be read and interpreted in the light of the grand and noble vision expressed in the Preamble. This case is also famous for propounding the doctrine of the ‘basic structure’ of the Constitution.
• In the Berubari Union case (1960), the Supreme Court had opined that the Preamble was not a part of the Constitution, though it acknowledged its significance as a key to the minds of the framers.
• The Golaknath case dealt primarily with the amendability of Fundamental Rights.
• The Minerva Mills case further clarified aspects of the basic structure doctrine.

Solution: D

Statement 1 is correct. The Supreme Court in the Kesavananda Bharati case also held that the Preamble can be amended by Parliament under its amending power under Article 368, provided that such amendment does not alter or destroy the ‘basic features’ or ‘basic structure’ of the Constitution. The Preamble contains some of these basic features.

Statement 2 is correct. The Preamble to the Indian Constitution has been amended only once so far. This was done by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976, which added three new words – ‘Socialist’, ‘Secular’, and ‘Integrity’ – to the Preamble.

Solution: A

• The Central Administrative Tribunal was established under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, enacted by Parliament pursuant to the enabling power conferred by Constitution of India. The Tribunal adjudicates disputes relating to the recruitment and conditions of service of persons employed in public services under the Union.
• Statement 1 is correct. Article 323A empowers Parliament alone to establish administrative tribunals for service matters. Exercising this power, Parliament enacted the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, leading to the establishment of the CAT in 1985.
• Statement 2 is correct. The CAT has traditionally consisted of members from both judicial and administrative backgrounds. Judicial Members contribute legal expertise and adjudicatory experience, while Administrative Members bring practical knowledge of public administration and service matters. This mixed composition was intended to ensure informed and specialized adjudication of service disputes.

Statement 3 is incorrect. In the landmark judgment L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that the power of judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution forms part of the basic structure and therefore cannot be excluded. Consequently, decisions of the Central Administrative Tribunal are subject to scrutiny by the jurisdictional High Courts, and thereafter by the Supreme Court under Article 136. They are not immune from writ jurisdiction.