Part 5 : The Constitution of India

lawbhumi May 06, 2025
Click here : Part - 4


NOTE: Before you proceed to read part-5 of constitutional law you should go for previous parts to fully understand the topic.

Ques-75: Which one of the following is 'State' under Article 12 of the Indian Constitution for the purpose of enforcement of fundamental Rights?

  1. A partnership firm

  2. A company established under the Companies Act.

  3. A co-operative society

  4. The Life Insurance Co-operative of India
[M.P.A.P.P.2008]

Article 12 defines State as State includes:

  1. Government and Parliament of India i.e the Executive and Legislature of the Union.

  2. Government and Legislature of each State i.e the Executive and Legislature of the various States of India.

  3. All local or other authorities within the territory of India.

  4. All local and other authorities who are under the control of the Government of India.

Ques-76: In the light of the definition of "State" which of the following in not a State?

  1. Indian Statistical Institution

  2. Institution of Constitution and Parliamentary studies

  3. Council of Scientific and Industrial Research

  4. Prathama Bank
[Bihar A.P.P.2010]

Ques-77: No person has fundamental right to:

  1. Basic education

  2. Practise a profession

  3. Form association

  4. Approach the high court for enforcement of his fundamental rights.
[Delhi A.P.P 2010]

Enforcement of fundamental rights : Article 32(1) guarantees the right to move to Supreme Court by ''appropriate proceedings" for the enforcement of the fundamental right conferred by part III of the constitution.
Article 32(2) confers power on the Supreme Court to issue appropriate directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo-warranto, and certiorari for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution.  

Ques-78: In which one of the following cases the SC held that establishment and management of an education institution is a part of the fundamental rights?

  1. St. John Teachers Training Institution v. State of Tamil Nadu

  2. T.M.A Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka

  3. L.N.M. Institute of Economic Development and Social Change v. State of Bihar

  4. S.P. Mittal v. Union of India
[U.P.P.C.S 2010]

T.M.A Pai Foundation v. state of Karnataka




Ques-79: Which one of the following rights is not available to an Indian citizen as a fundamental right:

  1. Right to Freedom

  2. Right to Property

  3. Right to Equality

  4. Right to life
[U.P.P.C.S 2010]

Explanation: Right to property was a fundamental right but it was removed after 44th Amendment of 1978. A new provision, Article 300-A, was added to the constitution, which provided that "no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law."

Ques-80: Which one of the following is not a Fundamental right:

  1. Right to Equality

  2. Right to form association or union

  3. Right to strike

  4. Right against exploitation
[U.P.Lower 1998]

Explanation : Right to equality(Article 14-18) , Right to form association or union(Article 19(1)(c)) and Right against exploitation (Article 23 and 24) are Fundamental rights but right to trike is not a fundamental right.

Ques-81: In the event of infringement of a fundamental right the SC may refuse to give relief on the following ground

  1. Laches

  2. Res-judicata

  3. Both

  4. None of the above
[U.P.P.C.S 2001]

Explanation: Res-Judicata which is defined in Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code has been evolved from a Latin maxim, which stands that the thing has been judged which means if an issue is brought in the court and it has already been decided by another court, between the same parties and which has the same cause of action then the court will dismiss the case before it as being useless. The concept of res Judicata has high significance both in Civil and Criminal system.

Res-Judicata




Ques-82: The doctrine of eclipse applies to:

  1. Only to pre-constitutional laws

  2. To post-constitutional law but only in respect of non-citizens.

  3. To post-constitutional laws but only in respect of citizens

  4. To all laws-pre constitutional as well as post-constitutional.
[M.P H.J.S 2011]

Doctrine of Eclipse

The doctrine of eclipse is based on the principle that a law which violates Fundamental Rights is not nullity or void ab initio becomes only unenforceable, i.e., remains in a moribund condition. "It is over-shadowed by the fundamental rights and remains dormant; but it is not deal".

Ques-83: Which of the following has been described by Justice Gajendragadkar as the 'very foundation and corner stone of the democratic way of life ushered in this country by the constitution'

  1. Preamble

  2. Fundamental Rights

  3. Fundamental Duties

  4. Directive Principles of State Policy
[U.P.P.C.S(J) 2018]

Ques-84: In which one of the following cases it was held by the Supreme Court that fundamental rights cannot be waived?

  1. Behram Khursid Pesikaka v. State of Bombay - Click : To Read

  2. Basheshar Nath v. Income-tax Commissioner

  3. Oliga tellis v. Bombay Muncipal Corporation - Click : To Read

  4. All the above
[U.P.P.C.S. 2010]
U.P. Lower(Special) 2008

Doctrine of waiver - The doctrine of waiver has no application to the provision of law enshrined in Part III of the constitution. It is not open to an accused person to waive or give up his constitutional rights and get convicted.
The question of waiver directly arose in Bashesher Nath v. Income Tax-Commissioner. The petitioner whose case was referred to the Income-Tax Commissioner under Section 5(1) of the Act was found to have concealed large amount of income. He, thereupon, agreed at a settlement in 1954 to pay Rs. 3 lakh in monthly instalments by way of arrears and tax penalty. In 1955, the Supreme Court in Muthiah v. IT Commissioner held that section 5(1) of the Taxation of Income (Investigation commission) Act was Ultra vires of Article 14. The petitioner then challenged the settlement between him and the Income tax Investigation Commission. The respondent contended that even if section 5(1) was invalid, the petitioner by entering into an agreement to pay the tax had waived his fundamental right guaranteed under Article 14.
The court held that , it is not open to a citizen to waive any of the fundamental rights. These rights have been put in the constitution not merely for the benefit of the individual but as a matter of public policy for the benefit of the general public.

Ques-85: which of the following cases relates to doctrine of severability?

  1. Ram jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab

  2. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India

  3. Romesh Thapur v. State of Madras.

  4. Vishaka v. state of Rajasthan
[U.P.P.C.S. 2010]

Romesh Thapur v. State of Madras.




Ques-86: Which one of the following cases is not related to the doctrine of severability

  1. Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu

  2. R.M.D.C. v. Union of India

  3. Minerva Mills v. Union of India

  4. A.K Gopalan v. State of Madras
[Bihar(J) 2018]

All the three cases are completely based on the Doctrine of Severability or Separability, probably you will also find that Minerva Mills v. Union of India is also using doctrine of separability. There is no need to read all three cases but if you are interested in increasing your knowledge then click here: Doctrine of Severability with cases.

Ques-87: One can wave:

  1. Any of the fundamental rights

  2. Any of the fundamental rights except those which form part of the basic structure.

  3. None of the fundamental rights

  4. All those fundamental rights which are meant to protect individual interests only
[U.P.P.C.S. 2001]

Ques-88: Which of the following doctrine is not related to Article 13 of the Constitution.

  1. Doctrine of severability

  2. Doctrine of waiver

  3. Doctrine of Pith and Substance

  4. Doctrine of Eclipse
[U.P.P.C.S. 1999, 2001]

Doctrine of Pith and Substance


Ques-89: The test of reasonableness is not a wholly... test and its contours are fairly indicated by the Constitution.

  1. Subjective

  2. Objective

  3. Descriptive

  4. Summative
[Bihar(J) 2015]

Ques-90: The doctrine of prospective over-rulings was first evolved by Chief Justice Subba Rao in:

  1. Golaknath v. State of Punjab

  2. Sajjan singh v. State of Rajasthan

  3. Keshvanand Barti v. State of Kerala

  4. Maneka Gandhi v. union of India.
[U.P.P.C.S. 2002]

Doctrine of prospective over-ruling : The concept of Prospective Overruling is a deviation from the principle of retroactive operation of a decision and thus, a deviation from the traditional blackstonian principle too. This principle is borrowed from the American constitution, found its application first in the famous case of Golaknath v. State of Punjab. 
It was in the case of Golaknath v. State of punjab, that the then Chief Justice Subba Rao has first invoked the doctrine of prospective overruling. In the words of Canfield(American Jurist) A court should recognize a duty to announce a new and better rule for future transactions whenever the court has reached the conviction that an old rule (as established by precedents) is unsound even though feeling compelled by stare decisis to apply the old and condemned rule to the instant case and to transactions which had already taken place".

Ques-91: Under which of the following Articles laws inconsistent or abridging fundamental rights are declared void?



  1. Article 12

  2. Article 13

  3. Article 11

  4. Article 21
[M.P.A.P.P. 2002]

Ques-92: Regarding judicial Review, it would be correct to say that


  1. It tends to elevate the judiciary to the rank of super-legislature.
  2. Its scope is limited as it emphasize on the procedure established by law' rather than 'due process of law'.
  3. It includes judicial competence to review execution enforcement of legislative enactments.
  4. It is indispensable to a federal system of government.
Select the correct answer using the codes given below : 
(a) 1,2,3,4
(b) 1,2,3
(c) 1,2
(d) 1,2,3

[Bihar A.P.P 2010]

Ques-93: Which one of the following is not included in the term 'law' stated in Article 13(2) of the Constitution:

  1. An act of parliament

  2. Custom

  3. Regulation

  4. Amendment of Constitution.
[U.P.P.C.S.1999]

Article 13(2) : The State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the rights conferred by this part and any law made in contravention (Violation) of this clause shall, to the extent of the contravention, be void.

Ques-94: Which one of the following cases related to doctrine of eclipse?

  1. Bhikaji v. State of M.P

  2. Keshava Madhav Menon v. state of Bombay

  3. State of Bihar v. Syed Asad Raza

  4. Harbans Singh v. State of U.P.
[U.P.P.C.S. 2010]

Bhikaji Narain Vs State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 1995 SC 781)

 In this case provision of C.P. and Berar Motor vehicles Amendment Act, 1947 authorized the State Government to make up the entire motor transport business in the province to the exclusion of motor transport operators. This provision, though valid when enacted, became void on the be coming into force of the Constitution in 1950 as they violated Article 19 (1) (G) of the Constitution. However, 1951, clause (6) of Article 19 was amended by the constitution first Amendment Act, as so to authorize the Government to monopolies any business. The Supreme Court held that "the effect of the amendment was to remove the shadow and to make the impugned Act free from all blemish or infirmity".
            It became enforceable against citizens as well as non-citizens after the constitutional impediment was removed. This law was merely Eclipsed for the time being by the fundamental rights. As soon as the eclipse is removed the law begins to operate from the date of such removal.
Tags
lawbhumi

Posted by lawbhumi

Post a Comment

0 Comments