Polity Set 134
π
π Supreme Court Cases β’ Basic Structure
Q.1) The “Basic Structure” doctrine was propounded by the Supreme Court in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973). How many judges constituted the bench for this historic case?
Ans > C) 13
- The Land Dispute Origin: The case began when His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru challenged the Kerala Land Reforms Act, which imposed severe restrictions on the management of his religious property and estates.
- Formation of the Bench: A 13-judge Constitution bench, the largest ever in the Supreme Court’s history, was formed to hear the case because it needed to review and potentially overrule the earlier 11-judge bench decision of the I.C. Golaknath case (1967).
- The Landmark Doctrine: The judgment established the “Basic Structure Doctrine,” declaring that while Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution under Article 368, it cannot alter or destroy its foundational framework, such as secularism, democracy, and judicial review.
- Historical Impact: This ruling permanently shifted the balance of constitutional power. It ensured that the Constitution itself, rather than the Parliament, remains supreme in India.
π Supreme Court Cases β’ Basic Structure
Q.2) What was the majority verdict in the Kesavananda Bharati case?
Ans > B) 7-6
- A Divided Court: The verdict in the Kesavananda Bharati case was incredibly tight, passing with a razor-thin majority of 7-6. Chief Justice S.M. Sikri led the majority opinion.
- The Majority Stance: The seven judges ruled that Parliament’s amending power is wide but not absolute. They agreed that the fundamental identity and core philosophy of the Constitution must survive any amendment process intact.
- The Dissenting View: The six dissenting judges argued that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution was unrestricted and absolute.
- Enduring Legacy: Despite the narrow margin, the 7-6 decision solidified the judiciary’s power of judicial review over constitutional amendments.
π Supreme Court Cases β’ Preamble
Q.3) In which case did the Supreme Court hold that the Preamble IS a part of the Constitution and can be amended under Article 368 (subject to the basic structure doctrine)?
Ans > C) Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973)
- The Initial Misconception: In the 1960 Berubari Union case, the Supreme Court had previously declared that the Preamble was merely a “key to the minds of the makers” and not an actual, legally binding part.
- The Reversal in 1973: The Kesavananda Bharati case explicitly overruled this older stance. The 13-judge bench formally recognized the Preamble as an integral part of the Constitution.
- Amendability Established: By acknowledging it as a part of the Constitution, the Court confirmed that the Preamble could be amended under Article 368, subject to the limitation that its “basic features” cannot be destroyed.
- Real-World Application: This specific ruling paved the way for the 42nd Amendment in 1976, which successfully amended the Preamble to add the words “Socialist,” “Secular,” and “Integrity”.
π Supreme Court Cases β’ Directive Principles
Q.4) The Minerva Mills case (1980) is primarily known for establishing the unconstitutionality of which provision inserted by the 42nd Amendment Act?
Ans > B) The supremacy of all Directive Principles over Fundamental Rights
- The Constitutional Imbalance: During the 1975 Emergency, the 42nd Amendment Act sought to give unchecked supremacy to Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) over the Fundamental Rights (Articles 14, 19, and 31).
- The Court’s Intervention: In the Minerva Mills case (1980), the Supreme Court struck down this specific provision, declaring it unconstitutional.
- The Bedrock of Balance: Chief Justice Y.V. Chandrachud famously observed that the Indian Constitution is founded on the bedrock of a harmonious balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles.
- Reaffirming Basic Structure: The judgment strongly reinforced the Basic Structure Doctrine by explicitly stating that judicial review itself, along with the balance between Part III and Part IV, are unamendable core features.
π Supreme Court Cases β’ Reservations
Q.5) In which landmark judgment (1992) did the Supreme Court uphold the 27% reservation for OBCs but struck down the 10% reservation for poorer sections of higher castes?
Ans > C) Indra Sawhney case (Mandal Case)
- The Mandal Commission Catalyst: The Indra Sawhney case arose from the Union government’s controversial decision to implement the B.P. Mandal Commission’s recommendation for a 27% reservation to SEBCs/OBCs.
- Upholding OBC Quotas: The nine-judge Constitution Bench upheld the constitutional validity of the 27% reservation for OBCs.
- The Creamy Layer Concept: To ensure fairness, the Court introduced the “Creamy Layer” exclusion principle to mandate that socially and economically advanced individuals within the OBC category must be excluded.
- Striking Down Economic Quotas: The Court simultaneously struck down a government order attempting to provide a 10% reservation for poorer sections among the forward castes.
π Supreme Court Cases β’ Article 356
Q.6) In the S.R. Bommai case (1994), the Supreme Court ruled that secularism is a basic feature of the Constitution and laid down strict guidelines to prevent the misuse of:
Ans > C) Article 356 (President’s Rule)
- The Abuse of Executive Power: Prior to the 1994 Bommai judgment, Article 356 (President’s Rule) was frequently and aggressively misused by the central government to dismiss rival state governments.
- Secularism as a Core Pillar: The case was triggered partly by the dismissal of state governments following the Babri Masjid demolition. The Court decisively ruled that Secularism is a basic feature.
- Strict Guidelines for Dismissal: The landmark judgment laid down stringent legal guidelines to curb the arbitrary use of Article 356, making it subject to judicial review.
- The Floor Test Requirement: A crucial outcome was the mandate that a Chief Minister’s majority must strictly be tested on the floor of the Legislative Assembly, not based on the subjective opinion of the Governor.
π Supreme Court Cases β’ Women’s Rights
Q.7) In the Vishaka and Others v. State of Rajasthan case (1997), the Supreme Court laid down detailed guidelines concerning:
Ans > C) Sexual harassment of women at the workplace
- The Tragic Catalyst: The Vishaka case was filed via a Public Interest Litigation by women’s rights groups following the brutal gang rape of Bhanwari Devi, a social worker in Rajasthan.
- Filling the Legislative Vacuum: At the time, India had absolutely no specific domestic law addressing sexual harassment at the workplace. The SC created legally binding guidelines to fill this void.
- International Conventions Invoked: The Court heavily relied on international human rights frameworks, particularly the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).
- The Core Mandates: The Vishaka Guidelines placed a strict, enforceable legal obligation on all employers to provide a safe working environment and establish Internal Complaints Committees (ICC).
π Supreme Court Cases β’ Custodial Rights
Q.8) The detailed guidelines regarding the procedures to be followed by police during arrest, detention, and interrogation were laid down by the Supreme Court in the:
Ans > A) D.K. Basu case (1997)
- The Problem of Custodial Violence: The D.K. Basu case was initiated through a letter treated as a PIL by the Executive Chairman of Legal Aid Services in West Bengal.
- Establishing Accountability: The Supreme Court forcefully recognized that custodial torture represents an inexcusable infringement of the fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21.
- The 11-Point Guidelines: The Court issued a comprehensive set of 11 mandatory guidelines. These require arresting officers to wear visible name tags, prepare an immediate arrest memo, and more.
- Preventing State Abuse: These guidelines fundamentally shifted the balance of power during police procedures, protecting vulnerable citizens from illegal, undocumented detention.
π Supreme Court Cases β’ Right to Privacy
Q.9) In the K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India case (2017), a nine-judge bench unanimously ruled that which right is a constitutionally protected fundamental right?
Ans > B) Right to Privacy
- The Aadhaar Origins: The case originated from a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the government’s Aadhaar scheme.
- Overruling Past Precedents: A massive 9-judge Constitution Bench was formed, unanimously overruling older judgments (like MP Sharma and Kharak Singh cases).
- An Intrinsic Fundamental Right: The landmark verdict declared that the Right to Privacy is not a separate, new right, but an intrinsic part of the Right to Life and Personal Liberty guaranteed under Article 21.
- Modern Implications: It laid the vital legal groundwork for subsequent progressive judgments and set strict boundaries on data protection and state surveillance.
π Supreme Court Cases β’ Section 377
Q.10) In 2018, the Supreme Court struck down a 158-year-old colonial law that criminalized consensual same-sex relations. Which Section of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was partially struck down?
Ans > C) Section 377
- The Colonial Legacy: Section 377 of the IPC, introduced by the British in 1860, criminalized “carnal intercourse against the order of nature.”
- The Long Legal Battle: The Delhi High Court initially read it down in 2009 (Naz Foundation), but the Supreme Court shockingly reinstated it in 2013 (Suresh Kumar Koushal), leading ultimately to the Navtej Singh Johar curative petition.
- The Historic Verdict: In 2018, a five-judge Constitution bench unanimously struck down the portion of Section 377 that criminalized consensual same-sex acts between adults in private.
- A Shift in Jurisprudence: Chief Justice Dipak Misra emphasized the triumph of “constitutional morality” over “social morality.”
π Amendments β’ Ninth Schedule
Q.11) Which Constitutional Amendment Act is officially known as the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951? It added which crucial Schedule to the Constitution?
Ans > B) Ninth Schedule
- The Agrarian Challenge: Shortly after the Constitution was adopted, state governments faced legal hurdles when implementing vital land reform and zamindari abolition laws.
- Creation of the Ninth Schedule: To protect these crucial socio-economic agrarian reforms from judicial scrutiny, the provisional Parliament passed the First Amendment in 1951.
- The “Protective Umbrella”: Any central or state law placed inside this specific schedule (Article 31B) becomes completely immune to legal challenges claiming it violates Fundamental Rights.
- Later Judicial Limitations: In the I.R. Coelho case (2007), the Supreme Court ruled that laws placed in the Ninth Schedule after April 24, 1973, are no longer entirely immune to judicial review.
π Amendments β’ States Reorganisation
Q.12) The 7th Constitutional Amendment Act (1956) was primarily enacted to implement the recommendations of the:
Ans > C) States Reorganisation Commission
- The Linguistic Demand: Following independence, there was immense political pressure to reorganize state boundaries based on linguistic and cultural lines.
- The Fazl Ali Commission: The Government appointed the States Reorganisation Commission (SRC) under the chairmanship of Fazl Ali to evaluate these demands.
- Abolishing the Old System: The 7th Amendment completely abolished the complex and unequal four-tier classification of states (Part A, B, C, and D states).
- The New Federal Structure: The Amendment reorganized the entire nation into 14 unified States and 6 Union Territories.
π Amendments β’ Mini-Constitution
Q.13) The 42nd Amendment Act (1976), enacted during the Internal Emergency, is often referred to as the:
Ans > B) Mini-Constitution
- The Emergency Context: The 42nd Amendment Act of 1976 was aggressively pushed through Parliament during the controversial period of the Internal Emergency declared by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi.
- Massive Overhaul: It earned the nickname “Mini-Constitution” because it was the most comprehensive and extensive amendment ever enacted, altering over 40 different constitutional articles.
- Altering the Core Philosophy: It inserted the words “Socialist,” “Secular,” and “Integrity” into the Preamble, and introduced Part IVA detailing Fundamental Duties.
- Curbing the Judiciary: The amendment severely curtailed the powers of the Supreme Court and High Courts regarding judicial review and writ jurisdictions.
π Amendments β’ 44th Amendment
Q.14) Which Amendment Act restored the original term of the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies from 6 years back to 5 years?
Ans > B) 44th Amendment Act (1978)
- Reversing the Emergency Excesses: The 44th Amendment Act, passed in 1978 by the Morarji Desai-led Janata Party government, was designed to dismantle the authoritarian provisions introduced by the 42nd Amendment.
- Restoring Electoral Timelines: It reversed the extension of legislative terms, restoring the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies to their original five-year terms.
- Protecting Fundamental Rights: It removed the Right to Property from the list of Fundamental Rights and guaranteed that Articles 20 and 21 cannot be suspended even during an emergency.
- Tightening Emergency Provisions: The amendment changed the grounds for declaring a national emergency from “internal disturbance” to “armed rebellion”.
π Amendments β’ Panchayats
Q.15) The 73rd and 74th Amendment Acts (1992) gave constitutional status to Panchayats and Municipalities, respectively. During which Prime Minister’s tenure were they passed?
Ans > C) P.V. Narasimha Rao
- The Vision of Democratic Decentralization: Previous legislative attempts by governments under Rajiv Gandhi and V.P. Singh had failed largely due to a lack of a two-thirds majority in the Rajya Sabha.
- P.V. Narasimha Rao’s Triumph: It was during the tenure of Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao that the 73rd and 74th Amendment Acts finally passed both houses.
- Creation of a Three-Tier System: The 73rd Amendment established a uniform three-tier Panchayati Raj system (Village, Block, and District levels).
- Empowerment and Reservation: These mandated regular local elections every five years and a one-third reservation of seats for women.
π Amendments β’ Co-operatives
Q.16) The 97th Constitutional Amendment Act (2011) relates to:
Ans > C) Co-operative Societies
- The Cooperative Movement Push: Co-operative societies are crucial to India’s rural economy, but frequently suffered from political interference and financial mismanagement.
- Constitutional Protection: The 97th Amendment Act elevated the right to form cooperative societies to a Fundamental Right by adding it to Article 19(1)(c).
- Adding a New Directive: The amendment introduced a new Directive Principle of State Policy in Article 43B to promote voluntary formation and democratic control of cooperative societies.
- Establishing Uniform Rules: It inserted Part IXB into the Constitution, laying out uniform statutory guidelines for board elections and mandatory audit processes.
π Amendments β’ GST
Q.17) The 101st Constitutional Amendment Act (2016) paved the way for the introduction of:
Ans > C) Goods and Services Tax (GST)
- Decades in the Making: The Goods and Services Tax (GST) represents the most significant indirect tax reform in independent India’s history.
- Overcoming Constitutional Hurdles: A massive constitutional amendment was mandatory to allow both the Centre and the States to levy taxes concurrently on the same supply of goods and services.
- Creating a Unified Market: The 101st Amendment abolished a complex web of distinct indirect taxes, aiming to create a single national economic market (“One Nation, One Tax”).
- The GST Council Formation: Crucially, the amendment inserted Article 279A, establishing the GST Council chaired by the Union Finance Minister.
π Constituent Assembly β’ Objectives Resolution
Q.18) The historic ‘Objectives Resolution’, which formed the basis of the Preamble to the Constitution, was adopted by the Constituent Assembly on:
Ans > B) January 22, 1947
- The Visionary Draft: The ‘Objectives Resolution’ was drafted and presented by Jawaharlal Nehru on December 13, 1946.
- A Declaration of Sovereignty: It proclaimed India as an Independent Sovereign Republic, affirming that all power is derived directly from the people.
- Guarantees of Justice: It laid down the promise to secure justice (social, economic, and political) and equality of status and opportunity for all citizens.
- Transformation into the Preamble: Adopted unanimously by the Assembly on January 22, 1947, its core principles were ultimately incorporated as the Preamble.
π Constituent Assembly β’ First Meeting
Q.19) Who served as the Temporary Chairman (Interim President) of the Constituent Assembly for its very first meeting on December 9, 1946?
Ans > B) Sachchidananda Sinha
- The Historic First Gathering: The Constituent Assembly of India met for the very first time on December 9, 1946. The Muslim League notoriously boycotted this inaugural session.
- Following the French Practice: The Assembly deliberately adopted the established French parliamentary convention of choosing the absolute oldest participating member to serve as the temporary chairperson.
- Honoring a Veteran Leader: Dr. Sachchidananda Sinha, an eminent lawyer and the oldest member present, was unanimously requested to take the chair.
- A Brief but Vital Role: Under his temporary leadership, members signed the register. On December 11, Dr. Rajendra Prasad was formally elected as the permanent President.
π Constituent Assembly β’ Leadership
Q.20) Who were elected as the two Vice-Presidents of the Constituent Assembly?
Ans > A) H.C. Mukherjee and V.T. Krishnamachari
- The Need for Deputies: Given the immense legislative workload and the frequent absences of members, having strong vice-presidential leadership was essential.
- Representation of Diverse Interests: H.C. Mukherjee, a highly respected Christian leader, was elected as the first Vice-President, underscoring a commitment to minority representation.
- The Addition of a Second Deputy: Later, to ensure representation of the Princely States, V.T. Krishnamachari, the Dewan of Jaipur State, was elected as the second Vice-President.
- Crucial Background Support: Together, they played vital roles in managing extensive committee work and chairing heated sessions.
π Constituent Assembly β’ Drafting Committee
Q.21) Who among the following was NOT a member of the 7-member Drafting Committee chaired by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar?
Ans > D) Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel
- The Core Engine of the Assembly: The Drafting Committee was appointed on August 29, 1947, to thoroughly scrutinize reports and prepare the legal text of the draft Constitution.
- A Gathering of Legal Titans: Chaired by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, members included N. Gopalaswamy Ayyangar, Alladi Krishnaswamy Ayyar, Dr. K.M. Munshi, Syed Mohammad Saadullah, N. Madhava Rau, and T.T. Krishnamachari.
- Sardar Patel’s Different Focus: Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel was deliberately not on this technical committee; instead, he chaired crucial committees like the Advisory Committee on Fundamental Rights and the Provincial Constitution Committee.
- The Architectural Output: This team successfully produced the final document that became the supreme law of the Republic of India.
π Sources of Constitution β’ Article 14
Q.22) Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees “Equality before the law and equal protection of laws.” The concept of “Equality before the law” is of British origin, whereas “Equal protection of laws” is borrowed from the Constitution of:
Ans > C) USA
- The Dual Nature of Article 14: Provides a two-pronged guarantee against state discrimination. “Equality before the law” is a negative concept, while “Equal protection of laws” is a positive, proactive concept.
- The British Influence: “Equality before the law” directly stems from the English common law tradition meaning no individual is above the law.
- The American Borrowing: “Equal protection of laws” was directly inspired by the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution.
- Justifying Reasonable Classification: The American concept is crucial because it allows the state to practice reasonable classification through affirmative action to achieve substantive equality.
π Sources of Constitution β’ Article 21
Q.23) The phrase “Procedure established by law,” found in Article 21, is borrowed from the Constitution of:
Ans > C) Japan
- The Article 21 Guarantee: Article 21 forms the very heart of the Indian Constitution, stating no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to a specific legal framework.
- Rejecting “Due Process”: The Assembly avoided the American phrase “Due Process of Law” on the advice of B.N. Rau and US Justice Felix Frankfurter to prevent unchecked judicial overreach.
- The Japanese Inspiration: Instead, they adopted the phrase “Procedure established by law,” directly borrowing it from the post-WWII Constitution of Japan (Article 31).
- The Maneka Gandhi Shift: The Supreme Court later revolutionized this interpretation in the 1978 Maneka Gandhi case, bringing “Due Process” back in effectively through judicial interpretation.
π Sources of Constitution β’ Directive Principles
Q.24) The Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV) were borrowed heavily from the Constitution of:
Ans > C) Ireland
- The Blueprint for a Welfare State: Part IV contains comprehensive economic, social, and political guidelines to establish a just welfare state.
- The Irish Connection: The framers were deeply impressed by the Irish Constitution of 1937, which had successfully incorporated “Directive Principles of Social Policy.”
- The Spanish Roots: The lineage of these principles goes back further into European history, as the Irish had copied it from the Constitution of the Spanish Republic.
- Non-Justiciable but Fundamental: Unlike Fundamental Rights, DPSP are fundamentally non-justiciable but remain absolutely “fundamental in the governance of the country.”
π Sources of Constitution β’ Federalism
Q.25) The federal scheme of the Indian Constitution, featuring a strong centre, was borrowed from:
Ans > B) Canada
- Choosing the Right Federal Model: The Assembly decisively rejected the traditional American model, which features strong, highly autonomous states.
- The Canadian Blueprint: They opted for the Canadian model of federalism, which establishes a unique federal system heavily tilted in favor of the national government.
- Securing National Unity: Given the trauma of the 1947 partition and over 500 princely states, the framers realized India needed a powerful center to hold the diverse nation together.
- Key Borrowed Features: Vesting residuary powers in the Center, the appointment of state Governors by the Union, and the advisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
π Sources of Constitution β’ Parliament
Q.26) The institution of the Speaker and their role in the legislative house is a feature borrowed from the parliamentary system of:
Ans > A) Britain (UK)
- The Parliamentary Backbone: India adopted the Westminster model of parliamentary democracy, heavily influenced by British colonial administrative history.
- The Role of the Speaker: The esteemed institution of the Speaker of the Lok Sabha is a direct import from the British House of Commons.
- The Concept of Neutrality: While Indian Speakers don’t formally resign from their parties like in Britain, they are constitutionally mandated to remain completely neutral.
- Additional British Borrowings: System of single citizenship, cabinet responsibility to the lower house, legislative procedure, and parliamentary privileges.
π Constitutional Writs β’ Article 32
Q.27) What is the fundamental difference between the writ of Mandamus and the writ of Prohibition?
Ans > A) Mandamus directs activity (do this), while Prohibition directs inactivity (do not do this).
- The Nature of Mandamus: An affirmative judicial order commanding a public authority or inferior court to perform a mandatory statutory public duty.
- The Nature of Prohibition: An entirely negative order issued by a higher court specifically to prevent a lower court from exceeding its jurisdiction.
- Action vs. Inaction: Mandamus commands action (“do this”), while Prohibition commands inaction (“stop doing this”).
- Scope of Target Authorities: Mandamus has a broad scope against any public official; Prohibition only applies to judicial or quasi-judicial authorities.
π Constitutional Writs β’ Quo-Warranto
Q.28) Which writ translates to “by what authority” and is used to prevent illegal usurpation of a public office by a person?
Ans > B) Quo-Warranto
- The Meaning of the Term: The Latin phrase literally translates to “by what authority or warrant.”
- Preventing Usurpation: Its primary objective is to ensure that a person who does not have the legal right or necessary qualifications is ousted from a substantive public office.
- Conditions for Issuance: The office must be a permanent public office created by statute or the Constitution, and duties must be of a public nature.
- Who Can File: A petition for Quo-Warranto can be filed by any interested citizen, even if they haven’t suffered a direct personal injury.
π Constitutional Writs β’ Supreme Court Power
Q.29) The Supreme Court’s power to issue writs (Article 32) is restricted strictly to the enforcement of Fundamental Rights. Under which Article does Parliament have the power to authorize the Supreme Court to issue writs for other purposes?
Ans > C) Article 139
- The Supreme Court’s Core Writ Power: Under Article 32, original jurisdiction to issue five specific writs is restricted to the enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
- The Contrast with High Courts: High Courts under Article 226 can issue writs not just for Fundamental Rights, but also for “any other purpose.”
- Parliamentary Empowerment: Article 139 explicitly authorizes the Parliament to pass a law conferring on the SC the power to issue writs for other purposes.
- Current Legal Status: The Indian Parliament has not yet enacted any law to expand the Supreme Court’s writ jurisdiction beyond Fundamental Rights under this Article.
π Directive Principles β’ Welfare State
Q.30) Which Article of the Constitution embodies the philosophical principle of the “Welfare State,” directing the State to strive to promote the welfare of the people by securing a social order permeated by justiceβsocial, economic, and political?
Ans > B) Article 38
- The Heart of the Directives: Article 38 is considered the foundational philosophy of a modern “Welfare State,” departing from the colonial era’s “Police State” model.
- Defining the Social Order: It explicitly mandates the State to secure and foster a social order in which Justiceβsocial, economic, and politicalβshall inform all institutions of national life.
- Minimizing Deep Inequalities: The 44th Amendment Act (1978) added clause (2) directing the State to minimize inequalities in income, status, and opportunities.
- The Guiding Light for Legislation: Though non-justiciable, it acts as the supreme guiding light for socio-economic legislation like land reforms and taxation.
π Quick Summary β Polity Set 134
- SC Cases: 13 judges sat for Kesavananda Bharati (1973), propounding the ‘Basic Structure’ doctrine in a 7-6 verdict.
- Preamble: Ruled as an amendable part of the Constitution in Kesavananda Bharati.
- Minerva Mills (1980): Struck down DPSP supremacy over Fundamental Rights to maintain constitutional balance.
- Indra Sawhney (1992): Upheld 27% OBC reservation but established the ‘Creamy Layer’ exclusion.
- S.R. Bommai (1994): Curbed the misuse of Article 356 (President’s Rule) and declared secularism a basic feature.
- Vishaka (1997): Established critical workplace sexual harassment guidelines before legislative action.
- D.K. Basu (1997): Laid down 11 mandatory guidelines to prevent police custodial torture.
- Right to Privacy (2017): Puttaswamy judgment declared privacy an intrinsic part of Article 21.
- Section 377 (2018): Navtej Singh Johar decriminalized consensual same-sex relations.
- Amendments: 1st (Ninth Schedule), 7th (States Reorganization), 42nd (Mini-Constitution), 44th (Restored 5-year LS term), 73rd/74th (Local self-government under PV Narasimha Rao).
- 97th & 101st Amendments: Gave constitutional status to Co-operative societies and introduced GST respectively.
- Constituent Assembly: Objectives resolution adopted Jan 22, 1947; Sachchidananda Sinha as Interim President; Sardar Patel not on the Drafting Committee.
- Sources: Equal protection (USA), Procedure established by law (Japan), DPSP (Ireland), Strong Centre Federalism (Canada), Speaker (UK).
- Writs: Mandamus (Action) vs Prohibition (Inaction); Quo-Warranto (Public office usurpation); Article 139 (Parliament can expand SC writ power).
- DPSP: Article 38 embodies the ‘Welfare State’ principle.
Timer β³
15:00
Progress (0/30)
Click any card to flip and reveal the summarized answer!
Smart Review: Questions you got wrong appear here for focused study.