Constitution Law MCQ Quiz - Objective Question with Answer for Constitution Law - Download Free PDF

Key Points

• The Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955, is a significant piece of legislation in India aimed at eliminating untouchability and promoting equality.
• This Act provides for punishment for the practice of untouchability, which is a social evil where certain sections of society are discriminated against.
• The Act makes it a punishable offense to enforce any disability arising from untouchability, such as denial of access to places of public worship, education, and services.
• It is a key legal measure to safeguard the dignity and civil rights of individuals, particularly those belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

Additional Information

• Untouchability
  • Untouchability is a practice where certain groups of people, primarily those belonging to the Scheduled Castes, are ostracized and discriminated against.
  • This practice has deep-rooted historical and social origins in the caste system prevalent in India.
  • The Indian Constitution, under Article 17, abolishes untouchability and forbids its practice in any form.
• Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955
  • This Act was enacted by the Parliament of India to prescribe punishment for the preaching and practice of "untouchability" and for the enforcement of any disability arising therefrom.
  • The Act extends to the whole of India and provides for the punishment of anyone who enforces any disability arising from untouchability.
  • Punishments under this Act include imprisonment and fines, and the offenses are treated as cognizable and non-compoundable.
• Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
  • This is another important legislation aimed at preventing atrocities against members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
  • The Act provides for special courts for the trial of such offenses and the rehabilitation of victims.
  • It covers a wide range of offenses, including social discrimination, physical violence, and economic exploitation.

The correct answer is 'option 1.'

Key Points

• Protections available to an accused person:
  • Ex-post facto laws refer to laws that criminalize actions retroactively. Protections against such laws are typically found in criminal matters, ensuring individuals are not punished under laws that did not exist at the time of their actions.
  • Civil matters do not involve criminal sanctions, and thus the protection against ex-post facto laws does not apply in this context.
• Protections against arrest and detention:
  • Includes the right to consult and to be defended by a legal practitioner of one's choice, ensuring fair legal representation and a fair trial.
  • This protection is enshrined in Article 22 of the Indian Constitution.
• Right to personal liberty:
  • Includes the right to livelihood, recognizing that the ability to sustain oneself through work is essential to personal liberty.
  • This interpretation has been upheld by the Indian judiciary, emphasizing the link between the right to life and the right to livelihood.
• Right to Equality:
  • Includes the principle of natural justice, ensuring fairness in legal and administrative processes.
  • Natural justice principles include the right to a fair hearing and the rule against bias.

Additional Information

• Ex-post facto laws in criminal matters:
  • The protection against ex-post facto laws is critical in criminal law to prevent retrospective criminalization.
  • Article 20(1) of the Indian Constitution provides this protection, ensuring individuals are only subject to laws that were in effect at the time of their actions.
• Right to legal representation:
  • The right to be defended by a legal practitioner is fundamental for a fair trial, safeguarding the accused's interests.
  • This right is part of the broader right to a fair trial and due process under the law.
• Right to life and personal liberty:
  • The right to life and personal liberty is protected under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
  • The judiciary has interpreted this right expansively to include various facets essential for a dignified life, including the right to livelihood.
• Principle of natural justice:
  • Natural justice principles are fundamental to ensuring fairness and impartiality in legal and administrative proceedings.
  • These principles are integral to the right to equality before the law, ensuring that everyone is treated fairly and justly.

The correct answer is 'option 1.'

Key Points

• Peoples Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India:
  • This landmark case dealt with the issue of telephone tapping by the government.
  • The Supreme Court of India held that telephone tapping is a serious invasion of an individual's privacy.
  • The right to privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.
  • The court laid down specific guidelines for authorities to follow to ensure that telephone tapping is done lawfully and with proper safeguards.

Additional Information

• State of Maharashtra v. Murali Deora:
  • This case addressed the issue of smoking in public places.
  • The Supreme Court banned smoking in public places to protect non-smokers from passive smoking.
  • It did not deal with the right to privacy or telephone tapping.
• Govind v. State of Madhya Pradesh:
  • This case involved the constitutionality of certain police regulations that affected the right to privacy.
  • The Supreme Court recognized the right to privacy as a fundamental right but upheld the regulations with some modifications.
  • It was not specifically about telephone tapping.
• Mr. X v. Hospital Z:
  • This case dealt with the right to privacy in the context of medical confidentiality.
  • The Supreme Court held that a patient's right to privacy must be balanced with the right to information, particularly in cases involving infectious diseases.
  • It did not address telephone tapping.

The correct answer is 'option 4.'

Key Points

• Sodan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee:
  • In this landmark case, the Supreme Court of India held that the right to carry on trade or business on pavements is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
  • The court recognized that pavement hawkers contribute to the economic life of the city and have a right to earn their livelihood, although this right is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6).
  • It was emphasized that the state and municipal authorities have the duty to regulate street trading in a way that reconciles the rights of the hawkers with the rights of the general public.

Additional Information

• P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra:
  • This case dealt with the regulation and control of private unaided educational institutions in India and the extent of their autonomy.
  • It did not concern the rights of pavement traders.
• Fertilizer Corporation Workers Union, Syndri v. Union of India:
  • This case revolved around the rights of workers and the closure of industrial units.
  • The focus was on labor laws and workers' rights, not on street vendors' rights.
• Sukumar Mukherjee v. State of Bengal:
  • This case was related to medical negligence and the rights of patients.
  • It did not address the issue of pavement trading or the rights of street vendors.

The correct answer is 'A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27'

Key Points

• A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras:
  • In this landmark case, the Supreme Court of India held that Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) is controlled by Article 19 (Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc.).
  • The Court concluded that personal liberty under Article 21 could be restricted if it was in accordance with the procedure established by law, and thus Article 19's freedoms could be curtailed by this procedure.
  • It was a pivotal decision that had a significant impact on the interpretation of fundamental rights and their interrelationship in the Indian Constitution.

Additional Information

• Mrs. Meneka Gandhi v. UOI:
  • This case was instrumental in expanding the interpretation of Article 21. The Supreme Court held that the "procedure established by law" must be "just, fair and reasonable," and not arbitrary, thus broadening the scope of Article 21.
  • It established that Article 21 is not controlled by Article 19 but is wide enough to encompass other rights and freedoms.
• Keshvananda Bharati v. State of Kerala:
  • This case is famous for establishing the "Basic Structure Doctrine" of the Constitution, which holds that certain fundamental features of the Constitution cannot be altered by any amendments.
  • While it did touch upon fundamental rights, it did not specifically address the relationship between Articles 19 and 21.
• Daryao v. State of U.P.:
  • This case dealt with the principle of res judicata (a matter that has been adjudicated by a competent court and therefore may not be pursued further by the same parties).
  • It was not concerned with the interplay between Article 19 and Article 21.

The correct answer is the Right to property

• The right to property ceased to be a fundamental Right via the Constitution 44th Amendment Act, 1978.
• It was instead made a constitutional right under Article 300A which states - that " No person can be deprived of his property except by authority of law."

Key Points

• The fundamental rights are mentioned in part three of the Indian constitution.
• These rights are enforceable and justifiable.
• The citizen can directly move to the supreme court in case of violation of fundamental rights.
• There are a total of six types of fundamental rights namely -

1. Right to equality
2. Right to freedom
3. Right against exploitation
4. Right to freedom of religion
5. Cultural and educational rights
6. Right to constitutional remedies

• "Right to property" was removed by the 44th constitutional amendment.
• At present, it is inserted in article 300-A of the Indian constitution. 

The correct answer is option 1.Key Points

• Article 215 of Indian Constitution deals with High Courts to be courts of record.
• It says every High Court shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court including the power to punish for contempt of itself.
• Article 214 of Indian Constitution deals with High Courts for States.
• It says there shall be a High Court for each State.

Additional Information

• ​Importance of Article 215:
  • Judicial Authority: It underscores the authority of the High Courts in the judicial system of India.
  • Judicial Independence: By allowing High Courts to punish for contempt, it helps ensure that the judiciary can function independently without interference or disrespect.
  • Legal Consistency: The High Court's role as a court of record ensures consistency in the application of law, as its decisions serve as authoritative guides for lower courts.

The correct answer is No person shall be deprived of his property.

• Article 300A of the Indian Constitution guarantees that no person shall be deprived of his property.
• The right to property is a constitutional right.

Additional Information

• The right to property was deleted from the list of Fundamental Rights by the 44th Amendment Act, 1978.
• Article 19 provided to all citizens the right to acquire, hold, and dispose of the property whereas Article 31 provides that "no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law."
• Later, in 44thAmendment of 1978 deleted the right to property from the list of fundamental rights. 

The correct answer is option 2.Key Points

•  The words "socialist" and "secular" were added to the Preamble of the Indian Constitution by the 42nd Amendment in 1976.
• This amendment was enacted during the Emergency period under Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's administration.
  • Socialist: This term indicates the Indian state's commitment to achieving social and economic equality for all its citizens. It emphasizes the reduction of income disparities, the provision of welfare measures, and the equitable distribution of wealth.
  • Secular: This term signifies that India does not favor any particular religion and treats all religions with equal respect. It underscores the state's commitment to ensuring religious freedom and harmony among its diverse population.

The correct answer is a,b,d are true.

• Article 51 of the Indian constitution states that-
  • For the Promotion of international peace and security, The State shall endeavor to
    1. ​​Promote international peace and security;
    2. Maintain just and honorable relations between nations;
    3. Foster respect for international law and treaty obligations in the dealings of organized people with one another; and encourage settlement of international disputes by arbitration.

Additional Information 

• In the Constitution of India, fundamental duties are mentioned in Article 51A.
  • There was no list of fundamental duties in the original constitution.
  • Fundamental duties were added into the Indian constitution by the 42nd constitutional amendment act 1976.
  • the 42nd constitutional amendment added part IV A and Article 51A to the Indian constitution.
  • Fundamental duties were added into the Indian constitution on the recommendation of the Swaran Singh Committee.
  • Initially, there were only 10 fundamental duties in the constitution.
  • The 86th constitutional amendment act 2002 added one more fundamental duty to the constitution.
  • Currently, there are 11 fundamental duties in the Indian constitution.
  • The idea of fundamental duties was borrowed from the Russian constitution.
  • Fundamental duties are non-justiciable in nature.
• Article 49 of the Indian constitution deals with the protection of monuments, places, and objects of national importance.
• Article 50 of the Indian constitution deals with the separation of the judiciary from the executive.

The correct answer is Option 4

Key Points

• 'Due Process of Law' is a legal principle that ensures fair treatment through the normal judicial system, especially as a citizen's entitlement.
• 'Procedure established by Law' means that a law that is duly enacted by the legislature or the concerned body is valid if it has followed the correct procedure.
• In 'Due Process of Law', the focus is on both the law and the procedures it is enacted through being fair and just.
• 'Procedure established by Law' does not require the law to be fair, only that it must have been properly enacted.

Additional Information

•  'Due Process of Law' actually emphasizes the protection of individual rights and fairness in the application of law and legal proceedings.
• 'Procedure established by Law' focuses on the adherence to the legal procedures established by the government.
• Neither statement (i) nor statement (ii) is correct as per the definitions provided above.
• This is not a valid option according to the question's structure.

The correct answer is option 2

Key Points

• The Anti-defection Law was included in the Constitution by the 52nd Constitutional Amendment Act in 1985.
• The main aim of the law was to curb political defections by the legislators.
• It is specified in the Tenth Schedule of the Indian Constitution.
• If a member of a house belonging to any political party voluntarily gives up his membership of such political party, he is disqualified.

Important Points

• The 52nd Amendment Act of 1985 added the Tenth Schedule to the Indian Constitution.
• The Tenth Schedule contains provisions regarding disqualification on the ground of defection by the members of Parliament and the State Legislatures.
• The Anti-defection Law was not reinforced specifically in the year 2002, but the 91st Constitutional Amendment Act of 2003 further strengthened the provisions of the law.
• According to the law, if an independently elected member joins any political party, he or she is disqualified from being a member of the house.

Additional Information

• 52nd Constitutional Amendment Act: This amendment added the Tenth Schedule to the Indian Constitution, which contains the Anti-defection Law.
• Tenth Schedule: The Tenth Schedule was inserted by the 52nd Amendment Act of 1985 and lays down the process by which legislators may be disqualified on grounds of defection.
• 91st Constitutional Amendment Act: Enacted in 2003, this act made provisions to limit the size of the Council of Ministers to curb the possibility of defection for ministerial berths.
• Disqualification for Independently Elected Members: According to the Anti-defection Law, if an independently elected member joins a political party after the election, they are disqualified from being a member of the house.

The correct answer is 2 and 3.

Key Points

• Statement 1: This doctrine was first propounded by Supreme Court in Shankari Prasad Vs Union of India Case – This is incorrect. The Doctrine of Basic Structure was not propounded in the Shankari Prasad case. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that Parliament had the power to amend any part of the Constitution, including the Fundamental Rights.
• Statement 2: In Sajjan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan Case, Supreme Court held that Parliament could amend any part of the Constitution – This is correct. In the Sajjan Singh case (1965), the Supreme Court held that Parliament had the power to amend any part of the Constitution, including the Fundamental Rights.
• Statement 3: In Golaknath Vs the State of Punjab Case, Supreme Court ruled that Art. 368 only lays down the procedure to amend the Constitution but does not give an absolute power to Parliament to amend any part of the Constitution – This is correct. In the Golaknath case (1967), the Supreme Court ruled that Parliament cannot amend the Fundamental Rights, as Article 368 only lays down the procedure and not the absolute power to amend.
• Statement 4: In the case of Waman Rao Vs Union of India, Supreme Court set aside the basic structure doctrine – This is incorrect. In the Waman Rao case (1981), the Supreme Court upheld the Doctrine of Basic Structure and also reaffirmed that Parliament cannot alter or destroy the basic structure of the Constitution.
• Therefore, the correct statements are 2 and 3.

Additional Information

• Shankari Prasad v. Union of India: In this 1951 case, the Supreme Court held that Parliament had the power to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights.
• Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan: This 1965 case upheld the amendment power of Parliament, affirming that the Constitution could be amended, including Fundamental Rights.
• Golaknath v. State of Punjab: This 1967 case ruled that Fundamental Rights could not be abridged or diluted by constitutional amendments, marking a departure from previous judgments.
• Waman Rao v. Union of India: This 1981 case reaffirmed the Basic Structure doctrine, ensuring that amendments post-April 24, 1973, would be subject to judicial review to protect the Constitution's core principles.

The correct answer is the Right to property

• The right to property ceased to be a fundamental Right via the Constitution 44th Amendment Act, 1978.
• It was instead made a constitutional right under Article 300A which states - that " No person can be deprived of his property except by authority of law."

Key Points

• The fundamental rights are mentioned in part three of the Indian constitution.
• These rights are enforceable and justifiable.
• The citizen can directly move to the supreme court in case of violation of fundamental rights.
• There are a total of six types of fundamental rights namely -

1. Right to equality
2. Right to freedom
3. Right against exploitation
4. Right to freedom of religion
5. Cultural and educational rights
6. Right to constitutional remedies

• "Right to property" was removed by the 44th constitutional amendment.
• At present, it is inserted in article 300-A of the Indian constitution. 

Key Points

Certiorari:
This writ is issued by a higher court to a lower court or tribunal either to transfer a case pending with the latter to itself or to quash the order of the latter in a case. It is primarily used by superior courts to correct the jurisdictional errors made by inferior courts, where it is perceived that the lower court or tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction or has not been able to exercise it properly.
Certiorari is used to revise the decision of the highest tribunal of a State, ensuring judicial decisions are made properly within the scope of their authority.
In summary, Certiorari is the appropriate writ for revising the decision of the highest tribunal of a State as it specifically deals with reviewing and potentially quashing decisions of lower courts or tribunals when there have been errors in jurisdiction, making it the correct choice for ensuring judicial accountability and correctness.