Question 1

Consider the following statements regarding the doctrine of Judicial Review:
1. The doctrine of judicial review in India is conferred by the Constitution, whereas in the USA it was established through a judicial pronouncement.
2. The power of judicial review in India extends to legislative enactments of both the Parliament and the State Legislatures.
3. The Supreme Court has declared judicial review as a basic feature of the Constitution, making it immune from being curtailed by a constitutional amendment.
Which of the statements given above are correct?

Accepted Answer

1, 2 and 3. All three statements are correct. The Indian Constitution itself grants the power of judicial review, unlike in the USA where it evolved from the Marbury v. Madison case. This power applies to both Central and State laws. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has affirmed that judicial review is part of the Constitution's basic structure and cannot be removed, even through an amendment.

Question 2

With reference to the classification of judicial review by Justice Syed Shah Mohamed Quadri, consider the following areas:
1. Judicial review of constitutional amendments.
2. Judicial review of legislation of the Parliament and State Legislatures.
3. Judicial review of administrative actions of the Union and State.
4. Judicial review of the advice tendered by the Council of Ministers to the President.
How many of the above were included in his classification?

Accepted Answer

Only three. Justice Syed Shah Mohamed Quadri classified judicial review into three categories: review of constitutional amendments, review of legislation (central and state), and review of administrative actions. The review of advice tendered by the Council of Ministers was not mentioned as part of this specific three-part classification.

Question 3

Consider the following statements:
Statement I: The power of judicial review in India is vested in both the Supreme Court and the High Courts.
Statement II: The Constitution of India itself is the source of the power of judicial review for the judiciary.

Accepted Answer

Both Statement I and Statement II are correct but Statement II is not the correct explanation for Statement I.. Both statements are independently correct. The power of judicial review is indeed exercised by both the Supreme Court and High Courts. The Constitution is also the source of this power. However, Statement II explains the origin of the power, not why it is distributed between both the Supreme Court and High Courts. Therefore, it is not the correct explanation for Statement I.

Question 4

Consider the following statements about judicial review:
1. A legislative enactment found to be violative of the Constitution can be declared ultra vires by the judiciary.
2. The power of judicial review can be excluded for certain subjects by a constitutional amendment.
3. The doctrine of judicial review originated and was first propounded in India.
Which of the statements given above is/are NOT correct?

Accepted Answer

2 and 3 only. Statement 1 is correct; if a law violates the Constitution, it is declared ultra vires. Statement 2 is incorrect because judicial review is a 'basic feature' of the Constitution and cannot be curtailed or excluded even by a constitutional amendment. Statement 3 is incorrect as the doctrine of judicial review originated and developed in the USA, famously in the Marbury v. Madison case (1803). Therefore, statements 2 and 3 are not correct.

Question 5

The Supreme Court has used its power of judicial review in various landmark cases. Consider the following:
1. Golaknath case
2. Bank Nationalisation case
3. Kesavananda Bharati case
4. Minerva Mills case
5. National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) case
How many of the cases listed above are explicitly cited as examples in the provided content?

Accepted Answer

All five. The provided text explicitly mentions all five cases as examples where the Supreme Court exercised its power of judicial review. It lists the Golaknath case (1967), the Bank Nationalisation case (1970), the Privy Purses Abolition case (1971), the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), the Minerva Mills case (1980), and the 2015 judgment declaring the NJAC Act unconstitutional.

Question 6

With reference to the importance of Judicial Review in the Indian constitutional framework, consider the following statements:
1. It is essential for upholding the principle of the supremacy of the Constitution.
2. It serves to maintain the federal equilibrium between the Centre and the states.
3. It is a mechanism to protect the Fundamental Rights of the citizens.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Accepted Answer

1, 2 and 3. Judicial review is considered crucial for three primary reasons: to ensure that the Constitution remains the supreme law of the land, to maintain the balance of power between the central government and state governments in a federal system, and to safeguard the Fundamental Rights guaranteed to citizens from legislative and executive overreach.

Question 7

Consider the following pairs:
1. Article 131 : Appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in constitutional cases.
2. Article 143 : Power of the President to seek the opinion of the Supreme Court.
3. Article 226 : Power of superintendence of High Courts over subordinate courts.
4. Article 254 : Central law prevails in case of conflict with a state law.
How many of the pairs given above are correctly matched?

Accepted Answer

Only two pairs. Pair 1 is incorrect: Article 131 deals with the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, not appellate. Pair 2 is correct: Article 143 provides for the advisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Pair 3 is incorrect: Article 226 empowers High Courts to issue writs; Article 227 deals with the power of superintendence. Pair 4 is correct: Article 254 establishes the doctrine of repugnancy, where a central law overrides a conflicting state law on a concurrent subject. Therefore, only two pairs are correctly matched.

Question 8

Consider the following statements regarding the role of the judiciary in India:
1. The Supreme Court has described its role as a 'sentinel on the qui vive' with respect to Fundamental Rights.
2. The judiciary's power of judicial review is explicitly mentioned and defined under a single article in the Constitution of India.
3. The Supreme Court has opined that rights without remedies are like words 'writ in water'.
Which of the statements given above is/are NOT correct?

Accepted Answer

2 only. Statement 1 is correct, as the Supreme Court has used the phrase 'sentinel on the qui vive' for its role in protecting Fundamental Rights. Statement 3 is also correct, reflecting a judicial observation on the necessity of remedies for rights to be meaningful. Statement 2 is incorrect; the phrase 'Judicial Review' is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution, although its power is conferred through several articles like 13, 32, and 226.

Question 9

Consider the following constitutional provisions:
1. Article 32
2. Article 136
3. Article 227
4. Article 246
How many of the above provisions explicitly confer or are related to the power of judicial review on the Supreme Court or the High Courts?

Accepted Answer

All four. All four provisions are related to the power of judicial review. Article 32 provides the right to constitutional remedies. Article 136 allows the Supreme Court to grant special leave to appeal. Article 227 gives High Courts the power of superintendence over other courts and tribunals. Article 246, which deals with the subject matter of laws, is subject to judicial review to ensure legislatures do not transgress their domains. All these provisions form a part of the framework for judicial review.

Question 10

Statement I: The Constitution of India is the supreme lex, and every organ of the government, including the judiciary, derives its authority from it and must act within its limits.
Statement II: The founding fathers incorporated the provisions of judicial review in the Constitution to maintain the balance of federalism and protect Fundamental Rights.

Accepted Answer

Both Statement I and Statement II are correct but Statement II is not the correct explanation for Statement I.. Statement I correctly asserts the principle of constitutional supremacy, where every government organ is subordinate to the Constitution. Statement II correctly states the purpose for which the framers included judicial review. While both statements are correct and related to the same broad topic, Statement II explains the *purpose* of judicial review, whereas Statement I describes the *principle* of constitutional supremacy that judicial review upholds. Statement II is not a direct explanation for why the Constitution is the supreme law.

Question 11

Consider the following statements:
Statement I: The scope of judicial review in India is narrower than what exists in the USA.
Statement II: The Indian Constitution provides for ‘procedure established by law’, while the American Constitution allows for ‘due process of law’.

Accepted Answer

Both Statement I and Statement II are correct and Statement II is the correct explanation for Statement I.. The text explicitly states that the scope of judicial review in India is narrower than in the USA. It attributes this difference to the Indian Constitution's adoption of 'procedure established by law' as opposed to the American 'due process of law', which grants wider powers to the judiciary to examine a law's reasonableness.

Question 12

With reference to the Indian constitutional system, consider the following statements:
1. The Indian system is a synthesis of the American principle of judicial supremacy and the British principle of parliamentary supremacy.
2. The sovereignty of the Indian Parliament is absolute and unlimited, similar to the British Parliament.
3. The written character of the Constitution is one of the limitations on the sovereignty of Parliament in India.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Accepted Answer

1 and 3 only. Statement 1 is correct as the text describes the Indian system as a synthesis of both principles. Statement 2 is incorrect because the text clearly states there are 'many limitations on the sovereignty of Parliament in our country'. Statement 3 is correct as the text lists the 'written character of the Constitution' as one of these limitations.

Question 13

The constitutional validity of a legislative enactment can be challenged in the Supreme Court or High Courts on
which of the following grounds?
1. It infringes upon the Fundamental Rights.
2. It is outside the competence of the authority which has framed it.
3. It is repugnant to other constitutional provisions.
4. It is considered unreasonable or has adverse policy implications.
How many of the above grounds are correct?

Accepted Answer

Only three. The text lists three specific grounds for challenging a law: (a) infringement of Fundamental Rights, (b) being outside the competence of the framing authority, and (c) being repugnant to constitutional provisions. The fourth ground, concerning reasonableness or policy implications, is associated with the 'due process of law' concept, which the Indian Supreme Court is not expected to delve into, as it follows 'procedure established by law'. Therefore, only the first three grounds are correct.

Question 14

With reference to the scope of judicial review in India, consider the following statements:
1. The Supreme Court can declare a law void on substantive grounds of being unlawful.
2. The Supreme Court is expected to examine the reasonableness and suitability of a law.
3. The American Supreme Court has been described as a 'super-legislature' due to its wide power of judicial review.
Which of the statements given above is/are NOT correct?

Accepted Answer

2 only. Statement 2 is incorrect. The text explicitly states that the Indian Supreme Court, while determining constitutionality, 'is not expected to go into the question of its reasonableness, suitability or policy implications'. Statement 1 is correct as the court examines the 'substantive question' of whether the law is within the authority's powers. Statement 3 is also correct as the text mentions this description for the American Supreme Court.

Question 15

Consider the following pairs:
1. Due Process of Law : Gives wide scope to the judiciary to examine the reasonableness of a law.
2. Procedure Established by Law : Confines judicial review to whether the law is within the powers of the authority concerned.
3. Judicial Supremacy : A principle fully recognized and adopted in the Indian constitutional system.
How many of the above pairs are correctly matched?

Accepted Answer

Only two pairs. Pair 1 is correctly matched as 'due process of law' allows courts to check for reasonableness. Pair 2 is correctly matched as 'procedure established by law' focuses on the substantive question of the authority's power. Pair 3 is incorrectly matched because the text specifies that the American principle of judicial supremacy is recognized in the Indian constitutional system 'but to a limited extent', not fully.

Question 16

With reference to the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution, consider the following statements:
1. The Supreme Court in the I.R. Coelho case (2007) ruled that there can be no blanket immunity from judicial review for laws included in the Ninth Schedule.
2. All laws placed under the Ninth Schedule after April 24, 1973, are open to challenge if they violate any of the Fundamental Rights.
3. The Supreme Court first propounded the doctrine of 'basic structure' in the I.R. Coelho case.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Accepted Answer

1 only. Statement 1 is correct. The I.R. Coelho case ended the blanket immunity for Ninth Schedule laws. Statement 2 is incorrect; such laws are open to challenge if they violate the 'basic structure' of the Constitution, particularly the principles underlying Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21, not just any Fundamental Right. Statement 3 is incorrect; the 'basic structure' doctrine was first propounded in the Kesavananda Bharati case on April 24, 1973.

Question 17

Statement I: Article 31B, along with the Ninth Schedule, was added to the Constitution by the First Constitutional Amendment Act of 1951.
Statement II: The primary objective of the First Amendment in adding the Ninth Schedule was to protect laws related to agrarian reform from judicial scrutiny.

Accepted Answer

Both Statement I and Statement II are correct and Statement II is the correct explanation for Statement I.. Statement I is a correct factual statement. The First Amendment (1951) introduced Article 31B and the Ninth Schedule. Statement II is also correct, as the text mentions that the initial acts included dealt with land reforms and the abolition of the zamindari system. Statement II provides the correct historical context and reason for the action described in Statement I.

Question 18

Consider the following statements regarding the judicial review of laws in the Ninth Schedule:
1. A law placed in the Ninth Schedule cannot be challenged even if it abrogates the basic structure of the Constitution.
2. If the Supreme Court has already upheld the validity of a Ninth Schedule law, it cannot be challenged again on the principles declared in the I.R. Coelho judgment.
3. All transactions finalized under a Ninth Schedule law that is later found to be violative of the basic structure are open to challenge.
Which of the statements given above is/are NOT correct?

Accepted Answer

1 and 3 only. Statement 1 is incorrect; the I.R. Coelho judgment explicitly states that laws (added after April 24, 1973) can be challenged if they violate the basic structure. Statement 2 is correct; the judgment grants finality to laws already upheld by the Court. Statement 3 is incorrect; the judgment specifies that 'Action taken and transactions finalized as a result of the impugned Acts shall not be open to challenge.' Therefore, statements 1 and 3 are not correct.

Question 19

Consider the following Constitutional Amendments:
1. Twenty-Ninth Amendment
2. Thirty-Fourth Amendment
3. Fortieth Amendment
4. Forty-Seventh Amendment
How many of the amendments listed above added laws to the Ninth Schedule *after* the critical date of April 24, 1973, as established by the Kesavananda Bharati case?

Accepted Answer

Only three. The critical date for the judicial review of Ninth Schedule laws is April 24, 1973. The Twenty-Ninth Amendment was enacted in 1972, which is before this date. The Thirty-Fourth (1974), Fortieth (1976), and Forty-Seventh (1984) Amendments were all enacted after this date. Therefore, three of the listed amendments added laws to the Ninth Schedule after the specified date.

Question 20

Consider the following pairs:
Constitutional Amendment : Number of Acts added to Ninth Schedule
1. First Amendment (1951) : 13
2. Fourth Amendment (1955) : 7
3. Twenty-Ninth Amendment (1972) : 44
4. Seventy-Eighth Amendment (1995) : 27
How many of the pairs given above are correctly matched?

Accepted Answer

Only three pairs. Based on the provided data: Pair 1 is correct (First Amendment added 13 acts). Pair 2 is correct (Fourth Amendment added 7 acts). Pair 3 is incorrect (Twenty-Ninth Amendment added 2 acts, not 44; the Seventh Amendment added 44 acts). Pair 4 is correct (Seventy-Eighth Amendment added 27 acts). Thus, three pairs are correctly matched.

Judicial Review

Unlock All Questions