Part 6 : The Constitution of India

Click here : Part - 5

Ques 95: According to Constitution of India, pre-constitutional laws inconsistent with the Fundamental Rights are

1. Required to be examined by the Courts.
2. Void
3. Voidable
4. None of these

[M.P.H.J.S 2012]

Pre-Constitutional laws : According to clause (1) of Article 13 all pre-Constitution or existing laws, i.e., laws which were in force immediately before the commencement of the constitution shall be void to the extent to which they are inconsistent with fundamental rights from the date of the commencement of the Constitution. 

Ques 96: Clause (4) of Article 13 of the Indian Constitution which was inserted by the 24th Amendment Act, 1971, states that a Constitution Amendment Act, passed according to Article 368 of the Indian Constitution is a law within the meaning of Article 13 and would, accordingly be void if it contravenes was declared void in which of the following cases.

1. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab
2. Edward mills Co. Ltd. V.State of Ajmer
3. Minerva Mills v. Union of India
4. Ghulam Sarwar v. Union of India

[Bihar (J) 2015]

Read Case : Golak Nath v. State of Punjab 

Ques 97: The leading case on Doctrine of Eclipse is:

1. RMDC v UOI
2. Jagannath Prasad v. State of U.P.
3. Bhikaji v. State of M.P.
4. Kameshwar Prasad v. State of Bihar

[Chattisgarh A.P.P 2008]

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 but becomes only unenforceable, i.e., remains in a morbid condition. "It is over shadowed by the fundamental right and remains dormant; but it is not dead".

In Bhikaji v. State of M.P. In that 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 coming into force of the Constitution in 1950 as they violated Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. However, in 1951, Clause (6) of Article 19 was amended by the Constitution (1st Amendment) Act, so as to authorise the Government to monopolise 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.

Ques 98: The objective of Article 13 of the Constitution of India is to:

1. Secure paramountcy to the fundamental rights
2. Limit the legislative power of the State
3. Defined the word 'law'
4. Expand the powers of the Courts

[Delhi A.P.P 2008]

Ques 99: Which of the following Articles of the Indian Constitution provides for power of Judicial review of legislative functions?

1. Article 13
2. Article 17 - Abolition of untouchability
3. Article 18 - Abolition of title
4. Article 245 - Extent of laws made by parliament and by the Legislatures of state.

[M.P.A.P.P.2008]

Power of Judicial review- Article 13 in fact provides for the 'judicial review' of all legislations in India, past as well as future. This power has been conferred on the High Courts and the Supreme Court of India (Article 226 , Article 32) which can declare a law unconstitutional if it is inconsistent with any of the provisions of Part III of the Constitution.

Ques 100: The power of Judicial Review in India is possessed by

1. Supreme Court alone
2. By all Courts
3. Supreme Courts as well as High Courts
4. None of the Courts

[U.P.P.C.S.(J) 2012]

Ques 101: Which of the following is an essential part of rule of law and independence of judiciary?

1. Judicial review
2. Impartial appointment of Judges
3. Impeachment 
4. Original Jurisdiction

[Bihar (J) 2015]

Article 32 and 226 : Judicial Review : Basic features Constitution cannot be curtailed by Act of Parliament and Constitutional provisions - Centre for P.I.L. v. Union of India, the two writ petitions were filed under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the appointment of the respondent an IAS, Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 against whom a criminal case was pending in the court of Special Judge for the offence under Section 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with section 120-B of IPC(in Polemolien import case). It was also alleged that the respondent had also played a big part in the cover up of the 2G Spectrum allocation which matter was sub-judice. The Supreme Court confined its judgement strictly on the legality of selection and recommendation of the appointment by High Powered Committee (HPC) and it clarified that any reference in the judgement should not be understood as observations on the merits of the case. Under Section 4

Ques 102:"The guarantee of equality before the law is an aspect of the rule of law in England".

This is the opinion of: 

1. Dicey
2. Jennings
3. Wheare
4. Salmond

[U.P Lower 2008]

Ques 103:"The principle of sovereign immunity will not apply to a proceeding for award of compensation for violation of fundamental rights."

In which case, the Supreme Court of India, held the above view?

1. Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa
2. Rudal Shah v. State of Bihar
3. Kasturi Law v. State of U.P
4. Ram Singh v. State of Punjab

[Bihar (J) 2018]

Compensation for violation of Art. 21 - In Rudra Shah v. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court has held that the Court has power to award monetary compensation in appropriate cases where there is violation of constitutional rights of citizens. In the present case the Supreme Court directed Bihar Government to pay "Compensation" of Rs. 30,000 to Rudal Shah who had to remain in the jail for 14 years because of the irresponsible behaviour of the State Officers even after his acquittal. He was acquitted by the Session Court on June 30, 1968 but was released from jail only on Oct. 16, 1982 when the Court intervened. Describing this state of affairs as "sordid and disturbing" the Court asked the Patna High Court to find out if there were any other detenues suffering a fate similar to Rudal Shah. Thus it is clear from this ruling that the Court can order payment of Compensation to victims of State violence.

Ques 104: Article 14 does not encompass:

1. Equality before law
2. Equal protection of laws
3. Protection against arbitrary action
4. Protection of life and liberty

[Delhi (J) 2011]

Ques 105: Article 14 permits classification but prohibits class legislation. But classification must not be arbitrary, artificial or evasive as held by the Supreme Court in

1. State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, A.I.R. 1952 SC 75
2. A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, AI..R. 1950 SC 27
3. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1978 SC 597
4. Kharak Singh v. State of U.P., A.I.R. 1963 SC 1295

[A.P.P (R.P.F) 2010]

Ques 106:"Prohibition of employment of any man under the age of twenty-five years and any women in any part of such premises in which any liquor or intoxicating drugs is consumed by the public is unconstitutional"

It was held in:

1. Anuj Garg v. Hotel Association of India
2. C.B Bharucha v. Excise Commissioner
3. K. Rajendran v. State of Tamil Nadu
4. Payal Sharma v. Nari Niketan

[U.P. Lower 2008]

Ques 107: In which one of the following cases did the Supreme Court uphold the law which has prohibited a person from contesting panchayat elections of he/she had more than two living children?

1. Javed v. State of Haryana
2. Jat Singh v. State of Rajasthan
3. Quareshi v. State of Bihar
4. Air India v. Nargesh Mirza

[Delhi A.P.P. 2008]

Ques 108: A law which disqualifies a person with more than two children from holding the post of Panch/ Sarpanch is valid and not violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. 

In which of the following recent case the Supreme Court gave such decision?

1. P.U.C.L v. Union of India
2. Javed v. State of Haryana
3. Indiara Jaysingh v. Registrar General 
4. Mohd. Aslam v. Union of India

[U.P.P.C.S.(J) 2003]

Ques 109: In which case it was held that the function of the Speaker, while applying the anti-defection law is like that of a Tribunal and therefore is open to judicial review?

1. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain
2. Kihota Hollohon v. Zachilhu
3. Union of India v. State of Rajasthan
4. Minerva Mills v. Union of India

[U.P. Lower 2009]

Ques 110: Which one of the following fundamental rights is available to all persons :

1. Right to form associations
2. Right to equality
3. Freedom of Speech and Expression
4. Right to move freely throughout the territory of India

[U.P.P.C.S 1999]

Right to Equality (14-18)

Article 14 to 18 guarantee the right to equality to every citizen of India.

Article 14: Equality before law 

Article 14 declares that 'the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.'  

Article 15: Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth

(1) The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them

(2) No citizen  shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them subject to any disability, liability, restriction or condition with regard to

(a) access to shops, public restaurants, hotels and palaces of public entertainment; or

(b) the use of wells, tanks, bathing ghats, roads and places of public resort maintained wholly or partly out of State funds or dedicated to the use of the general public

(3) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any special provision for women and children

(4) Nothing in this article or in clause (2) of Article 29 shall prevent the state from making any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes

Article 16: Equality of Opportunity in matters of public employment

(1) There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State.

(2) No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them, be ineligible for, or discriminated against in respect or, any employment or office under the State.

(3) Nothing in this article shall prevent Parliament from making any law prescribing, in regard to a class or classes of employment or appointment to an office under the Government of, or any local or other authority within, a State or Union territory, any requirement as to residence within that State or Union territory prior to such employment or appointment.

(4) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the services under the State.

(5) Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any law which provides that the incumbent of an office in connection with the affairs of any religious or denominational institution or any member of the governing body thereof shall be a person professing a particular religion or belonging to a particular denomination.

Article 17: Abolition of Untouchability : - Untouchability is abolished and its practice and its practice in any form is forbidden the enforcement of any disability arising out of Untouchability shall be an offence punishable accordance with law.

Article 18 : Abolition of titles :  No titles, not being a military or academic distinction, shall be conferred by the State No citizen of India shall accept any title from any State No person who is not a citizen of India shall, while he holds any office of profit or trust under the State, accept without the consent of the President any title from any foreign State No person holding any office of profit or trust under the State shall, without the consent of the President, accept any present; emolument, or office of any kind from or under any foreign State to Freedom

Ques 111: In which of the following judgements of the Supreme Court, Triple Talaq was declared unconstitutional?

1. Shayara Bano v. Union of India
2. Gulshan Parveen v. Union of India
3. Both (a) and (b)
4. None of the above

[Bihar (J) 2018]

Shayara Bano v. Union of India - The SC by a majority of 3 to 2 declared Triple Talaq or Talaq-e-biddat being instant and irrevocable unconstitutional. Talaq-e-biddat is a kind of Talaq effected by one definitive pronouncement of Talaq such as "I Talaq you irrevocably"or three simultaneous pronouncement like "Talaq Talaq Talaq", uttered at the same time. 

Gulshion Parveen v. Union of india : After shayara bano , Gulshion of Rampur UP has filed a petition in SC asking for abolishing  the practice of triple talaq. Her husband sent her a talaqnama after subjecting her to domestic violence for dowry for over two years.

Ques 112: Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment: 

1. Is guaranteed to all citizens of India
2. Is guaranteed to all residents of India 
3. Is available to persons of India origin irrespective of citizenship
4. Is not provided for in the Constitution

[Delhi (J) 2011]

[M.P.(J) 2015]

Article 16 of Indian Constitution gives every citizen of India equal opportunity in matters of public employment.

Ques 113: The expression 'equal protection of laws' in Article 14 of Indian Constitution has been taken from :

1. British Constitution 
2. American Constitution
3. Australian Constitution
4. None of these

[U.P.P.C.S.(J) 2015]

[M.P.A.P.P.2008]

Ques 114: According to A.V. Dicey, in India the 'rule of law' is embodies in

1. Article 12 of the Constitution of India
2. Article 13 of the Constitution of India
3. Article 14 of the Constitution of India
4. Article 21 of the Constitution of India

[Bihar (J) 2018]

The guarantee of equality before the law is an aspect of what Dicey calls the rule of law in England. It means that no man is above the law and that every person whatever be his rank or conditions, is subject to the jurisdiction of ordinary courts. 

Professor Dicey gave three meaning of the Rule of Law thus -

1. Absence of Arbitrary Power or Supremacy of the law.
2. Equality before the law
3. The Constitution is the result of the ordinary law of the land

Ques 115: In which case, Chief Justice Ray said that "the Constitution is the rule of law and that no one can rise above the rule of law in the Constitution?"

1. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala
2. ADM, Jabalpur v. S.K. Shukla
3. S.P Gupta v. Union of India
4. Bhagat Raja v. Union of India

[Bihar (J) 2018]

In ADM Jabalpur v S. Shukla, popularly  Known as the habeas corpus case, it was held that Article 21 was the sole repository of the right to life and personal liberty and if the right to move to any court for the enforcement of that right was suspended by the presidential Order under Art. 359 the detenue had no locus standi to file a writ petition for challenging the legality of their detention.

Locus Standi : The maxim refers to the right of a party to appear and be heard before a court of law or to institute a suit or an action before the court.

Ques 116: Which of the following cases is not related with rule of law?

1. Indira Gandhi v., Raj Narain
2. ADM, Jabalpur v. S.K. Shukla
3. S.P Gupta v. union of India
4. Jaisinghani v union of India

[Bihar (J) 2018]

Ques 117: 'Rule of law' means

1. Rule of Nature
2. Rule of Procedure
3. Rule of Man
4. Pervasiveness of the spirit of law and to avoid arbitrariness

[Bihar (J) 2018]

Ques 118: Discrimination by law in the marriageable of a boy (21 years) and a girl (18 years)

1. Offends Article 14 of the Constitution
2. Does not offend Article 14 of the Constitution
3. Is against Rule of Law
4. Violates Human Rights

[U.P.P.C.S.(J) 2013]

Ques 119: In which one of the following cases it has been held that prohibition on sale of eggs within Municipal area of Rishikesh is not violative of Article 19(1)(g)?

1. B.R. Enterprises v. State of U.P.
2. Om Prakash v. State of U.P.
3. C.K. Jain v. Stat of U.P.
4. Shreenivas General Tranders v. state of U.P

[U.P.P.C.S 2004]

Om Prakash v. State of U.P : the appellants challenged the validity of Gazette Notification under section 298(2) of the U.P. Municipalities Act as amended prohibiting the sale of eggs within the municipal limits of Rishikesh on the ground that it imposed unreasonable restrictions on their rights to carry on business under Article 19(1)(g) of the constitution. It was said that "eggs" was not included in Section 241 or Section 298(2), List I, Heading F. The Supreme Court held - The Notification is valid as it imposes reasonable restriction on the right to trade of the appellants and is not violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the constitution.The reasonableness of complete restriction imposed on trade of non-vegetarian foods item has to be viewed from the cultural and religious background of the three municipal towns The members of several communities in India are strictly vegetarian, such people in great number regularly and periodically visit Haridwar, rishikesh and Har Ke Pation pilgrimage. Tourists and pilgrims are major source of revenue for the local Municipalities and the inhabitants of three towns. Trade in and all kinds of food items vegetarian or non-vegetarian in adjoining these towns and villages outside the municipal limits of three town remain unrestricted.Mere omission to mention 'eggs' in Sec 298(2), list 1, heading F does not make the amended law invalid. The bye law was in the larger interest of people.

Ques 120: Indicate the incorrect answers: 

The benefit of Article 14 of Constitution is: 

1. Available to a foreigner residing in India
2. Available to a private company 
3. Available against a private company 
4. Available against the Union of India

[U.P.P.C.S 1999]

Ques 121: Consider the following statements and identify the answer using the code given below:

Statement I: The principle of equality before law and equal protection of laws means that equals means that equals must be treated equally

Statement II: All persons are not equal by nature, attainment or circumstances

Code:

1. Both the statements are individually true and statement II is the correct explanation of statement I
2. Both the statements are individually true but statement II is not the correct explanation of statement I
3. Statement I is true but statement II is false
4. Statement I is false but but statement II is true

[Delhi A.P.P. 2010]

Ques 122: The right to equality prevents the State from

1. Making any provision for women and children
2. Making 3% reservation for physically handicapped persons
3. Making special provision for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes of citizens
4. Giving reservations in public employment to scheduled tribes irrespective of any consideration to efficiency of administration

[U.P. Lower 1998]

Ques 123: In which of the following cases the Supreme Court held that sexual harassment of working women amounts to violation of rights of gender equality and right to life and personal liberty :

1. Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa
2. Hussainara v. State of Bihar
3. Vishaka and others v. state of Rajasthan and Others
4. Srimati Gyan Kaur v. State of Punjab

[UP Lower. 1998]

Guidelines to prevent sexual harassment of working women - In Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan : In this case the Petition was filed by a social worker under Article 14, 19 and 21 of Indian Constitution for realising true concept of 'gender equality'. Gender equality includes protection from sexual harassment and right to work with dignity, which id universally recognised basin human right. The Court has laid down the following guidelines :-

All employers or persons incharge of work place in the public and private sector. should take appropriate steps to prevent sexual harassment without prejudice to the generality of his obligation he should take the following steps :-  

(a) Express prohibition of sexual harassment, which include physical contact and advances, a demand or request for sexual favours, sexually coloured remarks, showing pornographic or any unwelcome physical, verbal or non verbal conduct of sexual nature should be noticed, published and circulated in appropriate ways.

(b) The rule and regulation of government and public sector bodies relating to conduct and discipline should include rules prohibiting sexual harassment and provide for penalties for appropriate penalties against the offender.

(c) As regard to private employees, the above prohibitions should be included in the Standing Order under the Indian Employment (standing Orders) Act, 1946.

(d) Appropriate work conditions should be provided in respect of work, leisure, health and hygiene to further ensure that there is no hostile environment towards women at work place and no employee should have reasonable ground to believe that she is disadvantaged in connection with he employment. 

(2) Where such conduct amounts to specific offences, under the IPC or under any other law, the employer shall initiate appropriate action in accordance with law making a  complaint with appropriate authority.

(3) The victims of sexual harassment should have option to seek transfer of the perpetrator or their own transfer.

Ques 124: Right to equality are in Article :

1. Articles 14-18
2. Articles 18-19
3. Articles 20-21
4. Articles 32

[M.P. A.P.P. 2008]

Article 14 : Equality before law or equal protection of law 

Article 15 : Prohibition on discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth.

Article 16 : Equal opportunity in matters of public employment

Article 17 : Abolition of Untouchability.

Article 18 : Abolition of titles.

Ques 125: Match List I with List II and select the correct answer using the code given below the lists

List I

A. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab                                                         1) Minority Educational Institutions

B. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Muncipal Corporation                                2) Prospective overruling

C. T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka                                 3) Doctrine of eclipse

D. Keshavan Madhava Menon v. State of Bombay                             4) Right to livelihood

Code : 

     A           B           C           D

(a) 3            4            1           2 

(b) 3            1            4           2

(c) 2            4             1          3

(d) 2            1             4          3

[Delhi A.P.P. 2008]

Ques 126: Assertion (A) : Alien-enemies have been given the fundamental right of equality before law.

Reason (R) : Protection of Article 14 is available to non citizens also

Select the correct answer from the codes given below :

Codes: 

1. Both (A) and (R) are true and (R) is the correct explanation of (A) 
2. Both (A) and (R) are true, but (R) is not the correct explanation of (A)
3. (A) is true, but (R) is false
4. (A) is false, but (R) is true

[U.P.P.C.S. 2011]

Ques 127: Which of the following is not a Fundamental Right?

1. Right against exploitation
2. Right to equality
3. Right to free legal aid to all citizens
4. Right to freedom of religion

[M.P. A.P.P. 2008]

Ques 128: In which case has the Supreme Court held that no reservation under "OBC" category can be made to creamy layer for admissions in education institutions?

1. Indra Sawhne v. Union of India
2. M.Nagraj v. Union of India
3. Ashok Kumar Thakur v. Union of India
4. State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas

[Delhi A.P.P. 2008]

O.B.C. Reservation in Higher Institutions 

Ashok Kumar Thakur v. Union of India : A five judge bench of the Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan held the constitution (93rd amendment) Act, 2006 providing 27 percent reservation in admission to OBC candidates in higher educational institutions like, IITs and IIMs constitutional. However, the Court left open the question of reservation to these category of citizens to private educational institutions. The amendment provided that without touching the present strength of General category candidates, the OBC candidates can be given reservation. The Court, however, held that the benefit of reservation could not be made available to creamy layer candidates. The reservation must be reviewed in after every 5 years. The creamy layer requirement would not apply to SCs/STs candidates who would be given reservation every year.

Ques 129:Give the correct response :

Article 15(1) prohibits that the state shall not discriminate against any citizen on ground only of:

1. Religion, race, sex and place of birth
2. Religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth and descent
3. Religion, race, caste, creed, sex or place of birth
4. Religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them

[M.P. A.P.P. 2002]

Ques 130: Article 15 of the Constitution of India does not permit the State to make special provision for one of the following which one is that?

1. Socially and educationally backward classes
2. A class of specific religion
3. Only scheduled caste and scheduled tribes
4. None of the above

[M.P.(J) 2012]

Ques 131: Article 15 of the Constitution prohibits discrimination between citizens on the basis of 

1. Religion and caste only
2. Religion, race and caste only
3. Religion, caste and sex only
4. Religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them

[U.P.P.C.S. (J). 2015]

Ques 132: In which one of the following cases Section 499 and Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 have been recently declared Constitutional by the Supreme Court ?

1. Subramanium Swamy v. Union of India
2. Rajkumar Gupta v. Union of India
3. Janet jaypaul v. SRM University
4. Abhay Singh v. Singh of U.P

[U.P.P.C.S. (J). 2006]

Ques 133: After which one of the following Supreme Court decisions was the special provision for socially and educationally backward classes, introduction by an Amendment of the Constitution of India?

1. D.P. Joshi v. State of Madhya Bharat
2. M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore
3. State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan
4. T.Devadasan v. Union of India

[U.P.P.C.S. (J). 2006]

Ques 134: In which one of the following cases 27% reservation for admission in Higher Educational Institutions made by the Government in favour of the candidates belonging to O.B.C categories has been held as valid by the Supreme Court?

1. Ashok Kumar Thakur v. Union of India
2. Indira Sawhney v. Union of India
3. Union of India v. Tulsi Ram Patel
4. Dr. Narayan Sharma v. Dr. Pankaj Kumar

[U.P.U.D.A 2006]

Ques 135: Reservation of seats in educational institutions in favour of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes is governed by

1. Article 15(4) of the Constitution
2. Article 16(4) of the Constitution
3. Article 29(2) of the Constitution
4. Article 14 of the Constitution

[U.P.P.C.S. (J). 2012, 2018]

Ques 136: In which one of the following cases the Supreme Court has declared Article 15(5) as constitutional?

1. Indira Sawhney v. Union of India
2. Ashok Kumar Thakur v. Union of India
3. State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan
4. T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka

[U.P.P.C.S. (J). 2015]

Ques 137: "Creamy Layer" rule excluding the well placed members of a caste from reservation was first laid down in the case of:

1. Ashok Kumar Thakur v. State of Bihar
2. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India
3. Indra Sawhney v. Union of India
4. Minerva Mills v. Union of India

[U.P.P.C.S. (J). 2006]

Ques 138: In which one of the following cases reservation in appointment for posts in Women's College for women was held to be valid?

1. Vijay Lakshmi v. Punjab University
2. Saurabh Chaudhari v. Union of India
3. T.M.A Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka
4. Islamic Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka

[U.P.P.C.S. (J). 2004]

Ques 139: Assertion (A): In C.B. Muthamma v. UOI, the Supreme Court struck down the provision in service rules requiring a female employee to obtain the permission of the Government in writing before her marriage is solemnized.

Reasoning (R) : Such provision is discriminatory against women and violates Article 16 and hence unconstitutional

Code: 

1. Both (A) and (R) are true
2. Both (A) and (R) are true but (R) is not correct explanation of (A)
3. (A) is true but (R) is false
4. (A) is false but (R) is true

Ques 140: Match List-I with List - II and select the correct answer using the codes given below the lists: 

                            List - I                                                                             List - II

A. Equality of opportunity in public employment                                     1.  Article-23

B. No discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, etc.                   2. Article-28

C. Prohibition of religious instructions in State aided institutions            3. Article-16

D. Prohibition of traffic in human beings                                                  4. Article-15

Codes :        (A)       (B)        (C)        (D)

(a)                  3           4           3           1  

(b)                  1            2          4           3

(c)                   2           3          1           4  

(d)                   4           3          2           1

Ques 141: Which of the following is not correctly in attached?

(a) Freedom of speech and Expression   : includes freedom of press

(b) Freedom of Conscience                      : includes right to wear and carry Kirpans

(c) Right to personal Liberty                 : includes right to carry or business 

(d) Right to Equality                                : includes principles of natural justice

[Bihar A.P.P. 2010]  

Ques 142: Which of the following Fundamental Rights mentioned in the Indian Constitution is available to Indian citizen only :

1. Protection from discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth
2. Right against exploitation
3. Equality before law
4. Freedom of religion

[U.P.P.C.S. 2001] 

Ques 143: Racial discrimination is abolished under the Indian Constitution through Articles

1. Article 15, 16 and 17
2. Article 13, 14 and 19
3. Article 12, 13 and 21
4. Article 3, 2 ans 22

[A.P.P (RPF) 2010]

144: Which of the following is not a requirement to be satisfied by the State to exercise their discretion while providing for reservation in promotions in favour of SCs and STs?

1. Backwardness of the class
2. Not crossing of 50% ceiling in a particular year
3. Inadequacy of representation in Public Employment 
4. Efficiency in administration

[Delhi (J) 2014]

145: Rajeev kumar Gupta v. Union of India (2016) deals with the reservations in State services for 

1. Persons with disability
2. Women 
3. Other Backward Classes
4. Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

[U.P.P.C.S.J. 2016]