Daily Prelims Test (Day-2)
Quiz-summary
0 of 10 questions completed
Questions:
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
Information
Daily Prelims Test (Day-2)
You have already completed the quiz before. Hence you can not start it again.
Quiz is loading...
You must sign in or sign up to start the quiz.
You have to finish following quiz, to start this quiz:
Results
0 of 10 questions answered correctly
Your time:
Time has elapsed
You have reached 0 of 0 points, (0)
Categories
- Not categorized 0%
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Answered
- Review
-
Question 1 of 10
1. Question
With reference to the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs) contained in Part IV of the Constitution of India, consider the following statements:
1. They are intended to serve as guiding principles for the State in the formulation of laws and policies.
2. They aim to establish social, economic and political justice in the country.
3. They are primarily concerned with securing individual rights and enforceable freedoms against the State.
Which of the statements given above are correct?
Correct
Answer: A
Explanation:
Statement 1 is correct: Under Article 37, the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs) are explicitly stated to be “fundamental in the governance of the country.” It is the duty of the State to apply these principles when making laws and formulating policies. They serve as an “Instrument of Instructions” to the legislature and the executive.
Statement 2 is correct: The primary objective of DPSPs is to realize the high ideals of justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity outlined in the Preamble. They aim to establish a Welfare State by ensuring social, economic, and political justice (Article 38). While Fundamental Rights provide political justice, DPSPs are the foundation for social and economic justice.
Statement 3 is incorrect: DPSPs are not concerned with enforceable individual freedoms; that is the role of Fundamental Rights (Part III). Unlike Fundamental Rights, DPSPs are non-justiciable, meaning they are not legally enforceable by the courts for their violation. They represent collective goals and social aspirations rather than individual rights that can be claimed against the State.
Incorrect
Answer: A
Explanation:
Statement 1 is correct: Under Article 37, the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs) are explicitly stated to be “fundamental in the governance of the country.” It is the duty of the State to apply these principles when making laws and formulating policies. They serve as an “Instrument of Instructions” to the legislature and the executive.
Statement 2 is correct: The primary objective of DPSPs is to realize the high ideals of justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity outlined in the Preamble. They aim to establish a Welfare State by ensuring social, economic, and political justice (Article 38). While Fundamental Rights provide political justice, DPSPs are the foundation for social and economic justice.
Statement 3 is incorrect: DPSPs are not concerned with enforceable individual freedoms; that is the role of Fundamental Rights (Part III). Unlike Fundamental Rights, DPSPs are non-justiciable, meaning they are not legally enforceable by the courts for their violation. They represent collective goals and social aspirations rather than individual rights that can be claimed against the State.
-
Question 2 of 10
2. Question
With reference to the Preamble of the Constitution of India, consider the following statements:
1. The Preamble can be amended by Parliament through the procedure laid down under Article 368, but not by an ordinary legislative process.
2. The Preamble forms a part of the Constitution.
3. The Preamble embodies the fundamental values, objectives and philosophy underlying the Constitution.
Which of the statements given above are correct?
Correct
Answer: D
Explanation:
Statement 1 is correct: In the landmark Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), the Supreme Court held that the Preamble can be amended under Article 368, provided the “basic structure” of the Constitution remains intact. It cannot be altered through an ordinary law or legislative process; it requires a constitutional amendment, as seen in the 42nd Amendment Act of 1976, which added the words Socialist, Secular, and Integrity.
Statement 2 is correct: While the Supreme Court initially ruled otherwise in the Berubari Union case (1960), it reversed its stance in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), explicitly stating that the Preamble is a part of the Constitution. This was further reaffirmed in the LIC of India case (1995).
Statement 3 is correct: The Preamble serves as the “identity card” of the Constitution. It embodies the philosophy and the fundamental values (sovereignty, socialism, secularism, democracy, republicanism) and the objectives (justice, liberty, equality, fraternity) that the framers intended for the Indian State.
Incorrect
Answer: D
Explanation:
Statement 1 is correct: In the landmark Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), the Supreme Court held that the Preamble can be amended under Article 368, provided the “basic structure” of the Constitution remains intact. It cannot be altered through an ordinary law or legislative process; it requires a constitutional amendment, as seen in the 42nd Amendment Act of 1976, which added the words Socialist, Secular, and Integrity.
Statement 2 is correct: While the Supreme Court initially ruled otherwise in the Berubari Union case (1960), it reversed its stance in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), explicitly stating that the Preamble is a part of the Constitution. This was further reaffirmed in the LIC of India case (1995).
Statement 3 is correct: The Preamble serves as the “identity card” of the Constitution. It embodies the philosophy and the fundamental values (sovereignty, socialism, secularism, democracy, republicanism) and the objectives (justice, liberty, equality, fraternity) that the framers intended for the Indian State.
-
Question 3 of 10
3. Question
With reference to the concept of “Due Process of Law” in the Indian constitutional framework, consider the following statements:
1. The expression “due process of law” is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution of India, but its substance has been judicially inferred.
2. The scope of this doctrine was significantly expanded by the Supreme Court in the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India.
3. The doctrine implies judicial scrutiny of actions of both the Executive and the Legislature to ensure fairness, reasonableness and non-arbitrariness.
Which of the statements given above are correct?
Correct
Answer: D
Explanation:
Statement 1 is correct: The phrase “due process of law” is not explicitly mentioned in any of the clauses of the Constitution of India. Instead, Article 21 uses the expression “procedure established by law”, which was a deliberate choice by the Constituent Assembly to avoid judicial overreach. However, the substance and principles of “due process” have been judicially inferred and read into the Constitution over time.
Statement 2 is correct: The scope of this doctrine was significantly expanded in the landmark case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978). The Supreme Court ruled that the “procedure established by law” under Article 21 must not be arbitrary, fanciful, or oppressive; it must be “just, fair, and reasonable”. This effectively introduced the American concept of substantive due process into Indian jurisprudence.
Statement 3 is correct: The due process doctrine implies judicial scrutiny of the actions of both the Executive and the Legislature. While “procedure established by law” originally only protected individuals against arbitrary executive action, the evolved due process standard allows the judiciary to invalidate laws passed by the legislature if they are found to be substantively unfair, unjust, or unreasonable.
Incorrect
Answer: D
Explanation:
Statement 1 is correct: The phrase “due process of law” is not explicitly mentioned in any of the clauses of the Constitution of India. Instead, Article 21 uses the expression “procedure established by law”, which was a deliberate choice by the Constituent Assembly to avoid judicial overreach. However, the substance and principles of “due process” have been judicially inferred and read into the Constitution over time.
Statement 2 is correct: The scope of this doctrine was significantly expanded in the landmark case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978). The Supreme Court ruled that the “procedure established by law” under Article 21 must not be arbitrary, fanciful, or oppressive; it must be “just, fair, and reasonable”. This effectively introduced the American concept of substantive due process into Indian jurisprudence.
Statement 3 is correct: The due process doctrine implies judicial scrutiny of the actions of both the Executive and the Legislature. While “procedure established by law” originally only protected individuals against arbitrary executive action, the evolved due process standard allows the judiciary to invalidate laws passed by the legislature if they are found to be substantively unfair, unjust, or unreasonable.
-
Question 4 of 10
4. Question
With reference to the Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Duties under the Constitution of India, consider the following statements:
1. Fundamental Rights are justiciable and can be directly enforced by courts, whereas Fundamental Duties are non-justiciable and cannot be directly enforced.
2. Fundamental Rights are absolute in nature, while Fundamental Duties are subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by the State.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Correct
Answer: A
Explanation:
Statement 1 is correct: Fundamental Rights (Part III) are justiciable, meaning an individual can move the Supreme Court (under Article 32) or High Courts (under Article 226) directly for their enforcement if they are violated. In contrast, Fundamental Duties (Part IVA) are non-justiciable. There is no direct constitutional provision for their enforcement by courts, and a citizen cannot be punished by the court solely for a violation of these duties unless there is a specific law enacted by Parliament (like the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act) providing for such punishment.
Statement 2 is incorrect: Fundamental Rights are NOT absolute. They are subject to reasonable restrictions (such as public order, morality, sovereignty, and security of the state) as mentioned in Article 19 and other provisions. On the other hand, the concept of “reasonable restrictions” is a legal doctrine applied to rights, not duties. Since Fundamental Duties are non-justiciable and serve as moral and civic obligations, the state does not “restrict” them; rather, it may “enforce” them through separate legislation.
Incorrect
Answer: A
Explanation:
Statement 1 is correct: Fundamental Rights (Part III) are justiciable, meaning an individual can move the Supreme Court (under Article 32) or High Courts (under Article 226) directly for their enforcement if they are violated. In contrast, Fundamental Duties (Part IVA) are non-justiciable. There is no direct constitutional provision for their enforcement by courts, and a citizen cannot be punished by the court solely for a violation of these duties unless there is a specific law enacted by Parliament (like the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act) providing for such punishment.
Statement 2 is incorrect: Fundamental Rights are NOT absolute. They are subject to reasonable restrictions (such as public order, morality, sovereignty, and security of the state) as mentioned in Article 19 and other provisions. On the other hand, the concept of “reasonable restrictions” is a legal doctrine applied to rights, not duties. Since Fundamental Duties are non-justiciable and serve as moral and civic obligations, the state does not “restrict” them; rather, it may “enforce” them through separate legislation.
-
Question 5 of 10
5. Question
With reference to the amending power of Parliament under the Constitution of India, consider the following statements:
Statement–I: The Basic Structure Doctrine acts as a limitation on Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.
Statement–II: The Basic Structure Doctrine is a judicially evolved principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala.
Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above statements?
Correct
Answer: A
Explanation:
Statement–I is correct: While Article 368 gives Parliament the power to amend the Constitution, this power is not absolute. The Basic Structure Doctrine serves as a vital constitutional limitation, ensuring that Parliament cannot use its amending power to alter or destroy the “essential features” or the “basic identity” of the Constitution (such as secularism, federalism, or judicial review).
Statement–II is correct: The Basic Structure Doctrine is indeed a judicially evolved principle. It is not explicitly written in the text of the Constitution but was established by a 13-judge bench of the Supreme Court in the landmark Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) case.
Statement–II explains why and how the limitation mentioned in Statement–I exists. The reason the Basic Structure Doctrine acts as a limitation on Parliament is precisely because the Supreme Court, through its interpretative power in the Kesavananda Bharati case, ruled that the word “amend” in Article 368 does not include the power to abrogate the Constitution’s core philosophy.
Incorrect
Answer: A
Explanation:
Statement–I is correct: While Article 368 gives Parliament the power to amend the Constitution, this power is not absolute. The Basic Structure Doctrine serves as a vital constitutional limitation, ensuring that Parliament cannot use its amending power to alter or destroy the “essential features” or the “basic identity” of the Constitution (such as secularism, federalism, or judicial review).
Statement–II is correct: The Basic Structure Doctrine is indeed a judicially evolved principle. It is not explicitly written in the text of the Constitution but was established by a 13-judge bench of the Supreme Court in the landmark Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) case.
Statement–II explains why and how the limitation mentioned in Statement–I exists. The reason the Basic Structure Doctrine acts as a limitation on Parliament is precisely because the Supreme Court, through its interpretative power in the Kesavananda Bharati case, ruled that the word “amend” in Article 368 does not include the power to abrogate the Constitution’s core philosophy.
-
Question 6 of 10
6. Question
With reference to the concept of Secularism under the Constitution of India, consider the following statements:
1. The Indian State does not recognise any official religion and accords equal respect to all religions.
2. Secularism in India implies a strict and complete separation of religion from all aspects of public life.
3. Secularism has been recognised by the Supreme Court as a part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution.
Which of the statements given above are correct?
Correct
Answer: B
Explanation:
Statement 1 is correct: Unlike a theocratic state, the Indian State has no official religion. It maintains “principled distance” and follows the concept of Sarva Dharma Sambhava (equal respect for all religions). The State ensures that no person is discriminated against on the basis of religion and that all individuals have the right to profess, practice, and propagate their faith.
Statement 2 is incorrect: This statement describes the Western (specifically French/American) model of secularism, which demands a “wall of separation” between the Church and the State. In contrast, Indian Secularism does not mean a strict or complete separation. The Indian State can and does interfere in religious matters to bring about social reform (e.g., abolishing Untouchability, regulating temple administration, or legislating on personal laws).
Statement 3 is correct: The Supreme Court of India, in the landmark S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) case, explicitly ruled that Secularism is a part of the “Basic Structure” of the Constitution. This means that even a constitutional amendment cannot destroy the secular character of the Indian polity.
Incorrect
Answer: B
Explanation:
Statement 1 is correct: Unlike a theocratic state, the Indian State has no official religion. It maintains “principled distance” and follows the concept of Sarva Dharma Sambhava (equal respect for all religions). The State ensures that no person is discriminated against on the basis of religion and that all individuals have the right to profess, practice, and propagate their faith.
Statement 2 is incorrect: This statement describes the Western (specifically French/American) model of secularism, which demands a “wall of separation” between the Church and the State. In contrast, Indian Secularism does not mean a strict or complete separation. The Indian State can and does interfere in religious matters to bring about social reform (e.g., abolishing Untouchability, regulating temple administration, or legislating on personal laws).
Statement 3 is correct: The Supreme Court of India, in the landmark S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) case, explicitly ruled that Secularism is a part of the “Basic Structure” of the Constitution. This means that even a constitutional amendment cannot destroy the secular character of the Indian polity.
-
Question 7 of 10
7. Question
With reference to Article 33 of the Constitution of India, consider the following statements:
1. Parliament is empowered to restrict or abrogate the Fundamental Rights of members of the armed forces to ensure proper discharge of their duties and maintenance of discipline.
2. The power to make laws under Article 33 is vested exclusively in Parliament.
3. The objective of Article 33 is to balance individual rights with the requirements of national security and discipline in the forces.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Correct
Answer: D
Explanation:
Statement 1 is correct: Article 33 empowers Parliament to restrict or abrogate the Fundamental Rights of members of the Armed Forces, Paramilitary Forces, Police, Intelligence agencies, and analogous services. The specific constitutional purpose is to ensure the “proper discharge of their duties and the maintenance of discipline among them.” For example, their right to form associations, freedom of speech, or right to strike can be legally curtailed.
Statement 2 is correct: The power to make laws under Article 33 is vested exclusively in Parliament. State Legislatures have no power to make laws under this Article, even if the law pertains to state police forces. This ensures a uniform standard of discipline across the security apparatus of the country.
Statement 3 is correct: The fundamental objective of Article 33 is to create a balance. While the Constitution generally protects individual liberties, the unique nature of military and security service requires a higher degree of discipline and secrecy. Therefore, national security interests are prioritized over the absolute exercise of certain individual rights for these specific categories of personnel.
Incorrect
Answer: D
Explanation:
Statement 1 is correct: Article 33 empowers Parliament to restrict or abrogate the Fundamental Rights of members of the Armed Forces, Paramilitary Forces, Police, Intelligence agencies, and analogous services. The specific constitutional purpose is to ensure the “proper discharge of their duties and the maintenance of discipline among them.” For example, their right to form associations, freedom of speech, or right to strike can be legally curtailed.
Statement 2 is correct: The power to make laws under Article 33 is vested exclusively in Parliament. State Legislatures have no power to make laws under this Article, even if the law pertains to state police forces. This ensures a uniform standard of discipline across the security apparatus of the country.
Statement 3 is correct: The fundamental objective of Article 33 is to create a balance. While the Constitution generally protects individual liberties, the unique nature of military and security service requires a higher degree of discipline and secrecy. Therefore, national security interests are prioritized over the absolute exercise of certain individual rights for these specific categories of personnel.
-
Question 8 of 10
8. Question
With reference to the amendability of the Preamble under the Constitution of India, consider the following statements:
1. The issue of whether the Preamble could be amended under Article 368 was first examined by the Supreme Court in the In Re: Berubari Union case.
2. The Supreme Court in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala held that the Preamble is part of the Constitution and can be amended, subject to the Basic Structure doctrine.
3. The words “Socialist”, “Secular” and “Integrity” were inserted into the Preamble by the Constitution (44th Amendment) Act, 1978.
Which of the statements given above are correct?
Correct
Answer: A
Explanation:
Statement 1 is correct: The question of whether the Preamble could be amended under Article 368 was first addressed by the Supreme Court in the In Re: Berubari Union case (1960). In this case, however, the Court held that the Preamble was not a part of the Constitution and, therefore, could not be amended under Article 368.
Statement 2 is correct: In the landmark Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) case, the Supreme Court overruled its earlier decision. It held that the Preamble is an integral part of the Constitution and can be amended under Article 368, provided that the amendment does not alter or destroy the “Basic Structure” of the Constitution.
Statement 3 is incorrect: While the words “Socialist”, “Secular”, and “Integrity” were indeed added to the Preamble, they were inserted by the 42nd Amendment Act of 1976, not the 44th Amendment Act of 1978. The 44th Amendment was primarily enacted to undo several changes made during the Emergency by the 42nd Amendment, but it did not remove these specific words from the Preamble.
Incorrect
Answer: A
Explanation:
Statement 1 is correct: The question of whether the Preamble could be amended under Article 368 was first addressed by the Supreme Court in the In Re: Berubari Union case (1960). In this case, however, the Court held that the Preamble was not a part of the Constitution and, therefore, could not be amended under Article 368.
Statement 2 is correct: In the landmark Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) case, the Supreme Court overruled its earlier decision. It held that the Preamble is an integral part of the Constitution and can be amended under Article 368, provided that the amendment does not alter or destroy the “Basic Structure” of the Constitution.
Statement 3 is incorrect: While the words “Socialist”, “Secular”, and “Integrity” were indeed added to the Preamble, they were inserted by the 42nd Amendment Act of 1976, not the 44th Amendment Act of 1978. The 44th Amendment was primarily enacted to undo several changes made during the Emergency by the 42nd Amendment, but it did not remove these specific words from the Preamble.
-
Question 9 of 10
9. Question
With reference to the constitutional provisions relating to writ jurisdiction under the Constitution of India, consider the following statements:
1. The power to issue writs in India has been derived primarily from the constitutional system of the United States.
2. Prior to the commencement of the Constitution in 1950, the Presidency High Courts at Calcutta, Bombay and Madras were empowered to issue certain writs.
3. The writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is broader in scope than that of the High Courts.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Correct
Answer: B
Explanation:
Statement 1 is incorrect: The power to issue writs in India is derived from English Law, where they are known as “Prerogative Writs.” They were called so because they were issued by the King (the fountain of justice) in the exercise of his prerogative power. While the US Constitution influenced other aspects of the Indian Constitution, the specific mechanism of writs like Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, etc., is a legacy of the British legal system.
Statement 2 is correct: Before the Constitution was enacted in 1950, only the three Presidency High Courts (Calcutta, Bombay, and Madras) had the power to issue these writs. Other High Courts did not possess this power. The Constitution, through Article 226, extended this power to all High Courts in India.
Statement 3 is incorrect: In terms of scope, the writ jurisdiction of the High Courts is actually broader than that of the Supreme Court.
-
- The Supreme Court(under Article 32) can issue writs only for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
- The High Courts(under Article 226) can issue writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights as well as for “any other purpose” (meaning ordinary legal rights).
Incorrect
Answer: B
Explanation:
Statement 1 is incorrect: The power to issue writs in India is derived from English Law, where they are known as “Prerogative Writs.” They were called so because they were issued by the King (the fountain of justice) in the exercise of his prerogative power. While the US Constitution influenced other aspects of the Indian Constitution, the specific mechanism of writs like Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, etc., is a legacy of the British legal system.
Statement 2 is correct: Before the Constitution was enacted in 1950, only the three Presidency High Courts (Calcutta, Bombay, and Madras) had the power to issue these writs. Other High Courts did not possess this power. The Constitution, through Article 226, extended this power to all High Courts in India.
Statement 3 is incorrect: In terms of scope, the writ jurisdiction of the High Courts is actually broader than that of the Supreme Court.
-
- The Supreme Court(under Article 32) can issue writs only for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
- The High Courts(under Article 226) can issue writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights as well as for “any other purpose” (meaning ordinary legal rights).
-
Question 10 of 10
10. Question
Consider the following statements regarding the Charter Act of 1833:
Statement I: The Charter Act of 1833 marked the beginning of complete centralisation of legislative powers in British India.
Statement II: The Act abolished the legislative powers of the Presidencies of Bombay and Madras and vested such powers exclusively in the Governor-General in Council.
Statement III: The Act introduced a federal structure in India by granting greater autonomy to provincial governments.
Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above statements?
Correct
Answer: C
Explanation:
Statement I is correct: The Charter Act of 1833 is widely recognized as the final step toward centralization in British India. It created a unified “Government of India” with authority over the entire territorial area possessed by the British.
Statement II is correct: To achieve this centralization, the Act deprived the Governors of Bombay and Madras of their legislative powers. It vested exclusive legislative authority for the entire British India in the Governor-General of India in Council. This specific provision (Statement II) is the core reason why the Act is said to have centralized legislative powers (Statement I).
Statement III is incorrect: The Act did not introduce a federal structure or grant provincial autonomy. In fact, it did the opposite by subordinating the provincial governments and concentrating all financial, legislative, and military powers at the center. A federal structure and provincial autonomy were not introduced until much later, primarily through the Government of India Act of 1935
Incorrect
Answer: C
Explanation:
Statement I is correct: The Charter Act of 1833 is widely recognized as the final step toward centralization in British India. It created a unified “Government of India” with authority over the entire territorial area possessed by the British.
Statement II is correct: To achieve this centralization, the Act deprived the Governors of Bombay and Madras of their legislative powers. It vested exclusive legislative authority for the entire British India in the Governor-General of India in Council. This specific provision (Statement II) is the core reason why the Act is said to have centralized legislative powers (Statement I).
Statement III is incorrect: The Act did not introduce a federal structure or grant provincial autonomy. In fact, it did the opposite by subordinating the provincial governments and concentrating all financial, legislative, and military powers at the center. A federal structure and provincial autonomy were not introduced until much later, primarily through the Government of India Act of 1935
