Indian Polity and Constitution Mixed Practice — MCQs with Answers (Set 6)

The answer is Article 14. The deletion of the first proviso to Section 182(1) let companies give unlimited sums. The Court called it arbitrary and violative of Article 14. Why the others fail: Article 19(1)(a) was used to strike down the bond scheme itself. Articles 21 and 32 were not the basis for this holding. Memory hook: bond scheme under 19(1)(a), the cap deletion under 14.

The answer is Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India. The Court found that Section 377 did not separate consensual from non-consensual acts between adults. Why the others fail: Shayara Bano (2017) dealt with triple talaq. The other two cases were about privacy and adultery. Memory hook: 2017 talaq, 2018 Section 377.

The answer is a 3:2 majority of a five-judge bench. The order was dated 22 August 2017. The “manifestly arbitrary” reasoning is in one opinion, not the whole bench. Why the others fail: The bench had five judges and they did not all agree. Memory hook: triple talaq fell 3 to 2.

The answer is the petition was dismissed. He lost the case. Yet the judgment gave the arbitrariness doctrine its famous words. Why the others fail: The Court did not strike down the transfer, restore him, or void any rule. Memory hook: Royappa lost, but the doctrine won.

The answer is E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu. The Court said equality belongs to the rule of law in a republic. Arbitrariness belongs to the whim and caprice of an absolute monarch. Why the others fail: Shayara Bano (2017) and Navtej Johar (2018) came later and built on the idea. Kesavananda Bharati is about the basic structure. Memory hook: Royappa gave the words, the later cases gave the use.

This is the doctrine of eclipse. The law can operate again once the clash goes.

The first proviso keeps the President’s conduct open to review for an Article 61 charge.

The 4 to 1 majority rejected the Article 29 argument. Mere presence of other groups is not enough.

The Assembly rejected the amendment. It debated Draft Article 23 on 7 and 8 December 1948.

Article 34 says “or any other person”.

The Assembly was told a civilian might have to act in a martial-law situation.

His actions must come under the Article too.

An officer facing rebellion must pass orders and set procedures at once.

But he is not a law-making person.

So his procedures would not count as procedure established by law, which Article 21 demands.

That is why the Assembly called the Article indispensable.

Article 33 lets Parliament restrict or abrogate rights to ensure proper discharge of duties and discipline.

Article 34 forgives acts under martial law.

Remember: 33 limits rights, 34 forgives blame.

Article 34 says Parliament may by law indemnify any person for acts done to maintain or restore order in a martial-law area.

It can also validate sentences and other acts done under martial law.

Article 33 is a different clause. It deals with the rights of the forces.

The amendment, in force from 3 January 1977, added the first proviso. The inquiry on the charges remained.

Article 310(1) says Union civil servants hold office during the pleasure of the President. State civil servants hold it during the Governor’s pleasure.

Clause (1) is about rank. A lower-ranking authority cannot dismiss or remove a person appointed by a higher one.

Article 311 bars dismissal by a subordinate authority and requires an inquiry. Article 310 gives tenure at pleasure.

The Court has said the restriction must connect to the proper discharge of duties and the maintenance of discipline.

It goes first to the three senior-most judges and the judges who passed the judgment complained of, if available.

The Court traced curative power to Articles 129 and 142, not to its review power.

A five-judge Bench used the term in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra, (2002) 4 SCC 388.

Article 194(2) protects members of a State Legislature in the same way as Article 105(2) protects MPs.

A seven-judge Bench led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud decided the case. It held unanimously that bribery is not protected.

Article 105(3) keeps the privileges the House had immediately before section 15 of the Forty-fourth Amendment Act, 1978, until Parliament defines them by law.

Article 105(2) says no member is liable to any court proceedings for anything said or any vote given in Parliament or a committee.