Q1. The Doctrine of Severability was applied for the first time in which case?

a) A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras
b) R.M.D.C. v. Union of India
c) State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara
d) Champakam Dorairajan v. State of Madras

Answer: c) State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara
Explanation: The Court held that unconstitutional parts of a statute can be severed from the valid parts, allowing the rest to operate.

Q2. Which Article provides for the establishment of tribunals for administrative and service matters?

a) Article 323A and 323B
b) Article 227
c) Article 136
d) Article 311

Answer: a) Article 323A and 323B
Explanation: These Articles empower Parliament and State legislatures to establish tribunals for administrative, taxation, industrial, and service disputes.

Q3. The Doctrine of Pleasure in India is borrowed from which legal system?

a) American
b) British
c) French
d) Canadian

Answer: b) British
Explanation: The doctrine of pleasure originated in English constitutional law, under which civil servants hold office at the pleasure of the Crown.

Q4. Which case recognized that judicial review is part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution?

a) Shankari Prasad v. Union of India
b) Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala
c) Minerva Mills v. Union of India
d) S.R. Bommai v. Union of India

Answer: b) Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala
Explanation: The Court held that judicial review, being essential for upholding Fundamental Rights and constitutional supremacy, forms part of the Basic Structure.

Q5. In Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel (1985), the Supreme Court held that:

a) Principles of natural justice cannot be excluded under any circumstances
b) Principles of natural justice can be excluded in exceptional cases
c) Dismissal of government servants without inquiry is always invalid
d) Doctrine of pleasure has no place in Indian Constitution

Answer: b) Principles of natural justice can be excluded in exceptional cases
Explanation: The Court upheld dismissal of employees without inquiry in cases of security concerns, emphasizing exceptions to natural justice.

Q6. The Doctrine of Pith and Substance is used in India to:

a) Resolve conflicts between Fundamental Rights and DPSPs
b) Determine legislative competence between Union and States
c) Interpret constitutional amendments
d) Protect minority rights

Answer: b) Determine legislative competence between Union and States
Explanation: This doctrine ensures that incidental encroachment into another list does not invalidate a law if the substance of the legislation falls within the legislature’s domain.

Q7. The concept of “rule against retrospective criminal legislation” is embodied in which Article?

a) Article 19(1)(a)
b) Article 20(1)
c) Article 21
d) Article 22(4)

Answer: b) Article 20(1)
Explanation: Article 20(1) prohibits ex post facto criminal laws, ensuring no person is punished for an act that was not an offence at the time it was committed.

Q8. In State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights (2010), the Court held that:

a) Only States can order CBI investigations
b) Only the Union can authorize CBI to investigate
c) The High Court can direct a CBI probe under Article 226 without State consent
d) The Supreme Court cannot direct CBI investigations

Answer: c) The High Court can direct a CBI probe under Article 226 without State consent
Explanation: The Court upheld High Courts’ power to order CBI investigations to uphold fundamental rights, even without State consent.

Q9. Which case first introduced the “doctrine of proportionality” in the Indian constitutional context?

a) Om Kumar v. Union of India
b) A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras
c) Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India
d) Anwar Ali Sarkar v. State of West Bengal

Answer: a) Om Kumar v. Union of India
Explanation: In Om Kumar (2001), the Court formally recognized proportionality in reviewing administrative actions restricting Fundamental Rights.

Q10. The 44th Constitutional Amendment (1978) introduced which of the following major changes?

a) Deleted Right to Property from Fundamental Rights
b) Restored judicial review of constitutional amendments
c) Introduced Fundamental Duties
d) Abolished Privy Purses

Answer: a) Deleted Right to Property from Fundamental Rights
Explanation: The 44th Amendment moved the right to property from Fundamental Rights (Article 31) to a constitutional legal right under Article 300A.