Day-585 | Daily MCQs | UPSC Prelims | POLITY

Answer: A
Explanation: Statement A is correct.
The Wednesbury principle, though not directly enshrined in the Indian Constitution, serves as a fundamental principle for judicial review of administrative actions, ensuring their reasonableness and non-arbitrariness. The Wednesbury principle has been adopted by Indian courts as a vital tool for reviewing the decisions of public authorities. It helps prevent arbitrary and unreasonable decisions by setting a baseline standard of logic and fairness.
While the Wednesbury principle plays a crucial role in preventing arbitrariness in administrative decision-making, it doesn’t directly guarantee fundamental rights. Its primary function is to ensure reasonableness and fairness in administrative actions, which indirectly upholds the principles enshrined in the Constitution. It acts as a check on unreasonable and perverse decisions but does not apply only to the violation of the fundamental rights.
The Wednesbury principle applies to all administrative decisions, regardless of the level of government or authority involved. Whether it’s a local panchayat or a central government ministry, any exercise of administrative power is subject to scrutiny under the principle of reasonableness. It sets a minimum standard for rationality; it protects citizens from arbitrary decisions and promotes good governance within the public sphere.
Origins of the Wednesbury Principle:
The Wednesbury Principle emerged from the 1948 English case Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v Wednesbury Corporation. In this case, the Court of Appeal established the principle that courts can only intervene in administrative decisions if they are “so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever come to it.” This set a crucial precedent for judicial review of administrative actions, emphasizing a balance between respecting public authority autonomy and ensuring responsible decision-making.
The Wednesbury Principle didn’t directly enter Indian jurisprudence through a singular case but rather through a gradual process of judicial borrowing and adaptation. Today, the Wednesbury Principle remains a core concept in Indian administrative law. It serves as a crucial tool for ensuring the reasonableness and fairness of administrative decisions, protecting citizens from arbitrary or irrational governmental actions.

Answer: A
Explanation:
The concept of liberty in India is depicted through the framework given as the question statement.
• Freedom of an individual (X): This refers to an Indian citizenwho enjoys fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution.
• Obstacle (A): These are the restrictions, limitations, or hindrances that can impede an individual’s freedom. They can come from various sources, including the state, societal norms, or even economic constraints.
• To do (B): This represents the desired action, thought, or expression that the individual seeks to pursue freely. It encompasses a wide range of activities, from personal decisions like choosing one’s religion to broader societal pursuits like political participation.
This framework plays out within the context of the Indian Constitution and in specific cases:
Constitutional Provisions:
• Part III of the Constitution: This section guarantees fundamental rights, including those relevant to liberty, such as:
o Article 19: Freedom of speech and expression, assembly, association, movement, and right to reside and settle in any part of India.
o Article 21: Right to life and personal liberty.
o Article 25: Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice, and propagation of religion.
• Right to Privacy: Though not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court has recognized it as an inherent part of Article 21, protecting individuals from unwarranted state intrusion into their personal lives.

Answer: A
Explanation:
Statement 1 is incorrect: A Money Bill can only be tabled in the Lok Sabha, the lower house of Parliament, and not in the Rajya Sabha, the upper house. According tothe Constitution of India, at the Union level, only in the Lok Sabha Money Billscan be introduced that too on the recommendation of the President. The Rajya Sabha can make recommendations on Money Bills, but it cannot reject or amend the Money Bill.
Statement 2 is incorrect: The Speaker of Lok Sabha holds the final authority to decide on whether a bill falls under the category of a Money Bill in the Indian Parliament. Article 110(3) of the Indian Constitution explicitly states that “If any question arises whether a Bill is a Money Bill or not, the decision of the Speaker of the House of the People thereon shall be final.” The Speaker does not consult with the Deputy Chairperson of the Rajya Sabha before certifying a Bill as Money Bill.
Statement 3 is correct: A Private Member can introduce a Money Bill as neither the Constitution, any statutes nor any rules of the Lok Sabha prevent such an introduction. If the previous recommendation of the President is obtained, then the member can introduce the Money Bill. But as the President acts on the aid and advice of the CoMs, it is highly unlikely that he gives previous recommendation for the introduction of a Private Member Money Bill.

Answer: B
Explanation:
Statement 1 is incorrect: In 2023, a 5-Judge Constitution Bench in Kaushal Kishor caseheld that the grounds to restrict Freedom of Speech under Article 19(2) are limited. The Bench held that the restrictions under Article 19(2) protect individuals and sections of society, prevent contempt of Court, and protect the security of the country. As these restrictions cover all necessary aspects, any restrictions beyond these are unconstitutional.
Statement 2 is correct: As per the Kaushal Kishor Judgment, a fundamental right under Article 19/21 can be enforced even against persons other than the State or its instrumentalities.
The original thinking of the apex court that the fundamental rights can be enforced only against the State, changed over a period of time. The reason for this change of stance is attributed to the change in the understanding as to what role is being performed. Initially, only government actors were bound by these rights and individuals could only seek legal remedies against them for violations. This thinking progressively changed, expanding the scope of entities subject to these rights and included directly controlled by the state, like public bodies or agencies. Later, the scope broadened to encompass entities with close ties to the government, even if not strictly under its control. Furthermore, entities not directly controlled by the state could still be subject to fundamental rights if they possessed significant government-like powers or functions.
Now the Court is focused on the nature of control the state exercises over an entity, even if not direct, as a factor in determining its accountability for respecting fundamental rights. Also, the court seems to emphasize the nature of the duties and functions performed by an entity as the key factor in determining whether it is subject to fundamental rights. This suggests a functional approach, focusing on the potential for harm to individual rights rather than the strict legal relationship with the state.
This evolution reflects a growing recognition that individual rights can be infringed upon not just by the state itself, but also by private entities acting with significant state-like powers or control. This expands the potential for legal redress and strengthens the protection of fundamental rights.

Answer: D
Explanation:
Statement 1 is incorrect: Under Entry 9 of List I (the Union List)of the Seventh Schedule, Parliament has the exclusive power to enact a law for preventive detention for the reasons connected with defence, foreign affairs, or security of India.
Under Entry 3 of List III (‘Concurrent List’) of the Seventh Schedule, both Parliament and State Legislature have powers to enact such laws for the reasons related to the maintenance of public order or the maintenance of supplies or services essential to the community and security of state.
Statement 2 is incorrect:Article 22(4) of the Constitution of India deals with protection against arrest and detention in certain cases and says “No law providing for preventive detention shall authorise the detention of a person for a longer period than three months unless- (a) an Advisory Board consisting of persons who are, or have been, or are qualified to be appointed as, Judges of a high court has reported before the expiration of the said period of three months that there is in its opinion sufficient cause for such detention.”
However, the Parliament can also pass a law which allows for persons to be detained for longer than three months without an Advisory Board hearing (Article 22(7)of the Constitution of India).
Statement 3 is incorrect: The states have power to make laws on preventive detention on matters in Concurrent List. There are no such provisions for states making rules under parliamentary statutes dealing with preventive detention. In fact, when states have power to make laws on preventive detention, the need to make rules under parliamentary statutes does not arise.