According to the Cabinet Mission Plan, 1946, the members of the Constituent Assembly were elected indirectly by the elected members of the provincial legislative assemblies by the system of single transferable vote. At that time, adult franchise was not implemented in India, but only limited franchise was available on the basis of property, tax and education under the Government of India Act of 1935. Members of the provincial legislative assemblies elected representatives of their respective communities (generals, Muslims, Sikhs), while representatives of the princely states were selected through consultation and nomination by the rulers of the princely states. Therefore, the Constituent Assembly was a partly elected and partly nominated body.

The first meeting of the Constituent Assembly was held on December 9, 1946 in the Constitution Hall (Central Hall of the present Parliament House), New Delhi. In this first meeting, following the French tradition, Dr. Sachchidanand Sinha, the senior most member of the Assembly, was elected the Temporary President of the Constituent Assembly. Two days later, on December 11, 1946, Dr. Rajendra Prasad was unanimously elected the permanent President of the Constituent Assembly, while H. C. Mukherjee was elected the Vice President and Sir B. N. Rao was appointed constitutional advisor.

On December 13, 1946, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru presented the historic 'Objective Resolution' in the Constituent Assembly, which became the philosophical basis of the Indian Constitution. On December 16, 1946, the first amendment on this was made by Dr. M.R. Jayakar, which sought to postpone the resolution until the Muslim League and the princely states joined in. After intensive deliberations, the Constituent Assembly unanimously adopted it on January 22, 1947. In this resolution, it was resolved to declare India an independent, sovereign republic and to ensure social, economic and political justice and freedom to all citizens. This proposal was modified and became the preamble of the Constitution.

The Constituent Assembly had constituted many important committees for various tasks of constitution making. The drafting committee was headed by Dr. B. R. Ambedkar (formed on August 29, 1947). Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel was the Chairman of the Large Advisory Committee on Fundamental Rights, Minorities and Tribal and Excluded Areas (this was the largest committee in terms of number of members with 54 members). Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru was the chairman of both the Union Power Committee and the Union Constitution Committee. Whereas the Steering Committee, Rules Committee and Finance and Staff Committee were headed by the President of the Constituent Assembly, Dr. Rajendra Prasad. Hence the correct combination is A-2, B-1, C-4, D-3.

Chairman of the drafting committee was Dr. B. R. Apart from Ambedkar, there were 6 other members: N. Gopalaswami Iyengar, Alladi Krishnaswami Iyer, Dr. K. M. Munshi, Syed Mohammad Saadullah, N. Madhava Rao (who succeeded B. L. Mitter after his resignation) and T. T. Krishnamachari (who succeeded D. P. Khaitan after his death in 1948). Of these members, only Dr. Kanhaiyalal Maniklal Munshi (K.M. Munshi) was originally an active member of the Congress Party. Syed Mohammad Saadullah belonged to the Muslim League, while other members were non-party lawmakers or independent experts.

At the time of Indian independence, the Socialist Party (Samajwadi Dal) led by Jayaprakash Narayan, Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia and Acharya Narendra Dev took the principled stand that the present Constituent Assembly was a product of the British Cabinet Mission Plan and was elected by the provincial assemblies of 1935 with limited property-based franchise. Therefore, the National Executive of the Socialist Party had demanded that this Constituent Assembly should be dissolved and a truly people's representative Constituent Assembly should be re-elected on the basis of universal adult franchise.

The Constitution was adopted, enacted and surrendered by the Constituent Assembly on 26 November 1949. A clear provision was made in Article 394 of the Constitution that Articles 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 (Citizenship), Article 60 (Oath of the President), Article 324 (Election Commission), Articles 366, 367, 379, 380, 388, 391, 392, 393 and Article 394 itself - these are a total of 16 Articles (15 Special Articles + Article 394) came into force immediately on 26 November, 1949. The rest of the Constitution came into force on January 26, 1950, which is considered the official date of implementation of the Constitution.

The Preamble of the Indian Constitution, while clarifying the nature of India, declares that India is a 'Sovereign, Socialist, Secular, Democratic Republic'. The preamble of the original Constitution contained the words 'a sovereign democratic republic'. Three new words were added to the Preamble by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976: 'socialist' and 'secular' were inserted immediately after 'overall sovereignty', and 'unity and integrity of the Nation' was replaced by 'unity of the Nation' below. Hence the official correct order is option B.

In the Preamble of the Constitution, it has been resolved to ensure three types of justice to all citizens, whose official order is: 1. Social Justice, 2. Economic Justice, and 3. Political Justice. The concept is inspired by the noble ideals of the Russian Revolution of 1917. Social justice means the end of discrimination on the basis of caste, religion, gender; Economic justice means reducing inequality of wealth and income; And political justice means providing equal political rights and voting rights to all citizens. There is no mention of religious or legal justice in the preamble.

There are 5 types of freedoms listed in the Preamble of the Indian Constitution: Freedom of Thought, Expression, Belief, Religion, and Worship. There is no mention of economic freedom (the economic reference comes only in 'economic justice'). Under equality two aspects are given: 'Equality of status and opportunity'. These great ideals of liberty, equality and fraternity have been adopted from the universal slogans of the French Revolution of 1789. Therefore, all four statements are completely true technically and constitutionally.

In the Berubari Union case (1960), the Supreme Court had said that the Preamble is not a part of the Constitution. But in the historic 13-judge Constitution Bench decision of Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala (1973), the Supreme Court overturned its earlier decision and ruled that the Preamble is an integral part of the Constitution. The Court also held that Parliament can amend the Preamble under Article 368, but no amendment can be made which destroys or distorts the 'Basic Structure' of the Constitution. On this basis, the Preamble was amended by the 42nd Amendment in 1976.

S. R. In the Bommai vs. Union of India (1994) case, a nine-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court gave a historic judgment making it clear that 'secularism' is an integral and essential feature of the basic structure of the Indian Constitution. The court also said that if any state government is found to be involved in anti-secular policies or communal activities, then the President can dismiss the government of that state and impose President's rule under Article 356. Separation of religion and politics is the basic principle of the Indian constitutional system.

The constitutional and political meaning of 'Republic' is that the supreme head of the state or head of state is not hereditary (like a king or queen in a monarchy), but he is elected directly or indirectly by the people for a fixed period of time. The head of state in India is the President, who is indirectly elected by an electoral college composed of members of the Parliament and Legislative Assemblies elected for a term of 5 years. In contrast, Britain is a democratic country but because the monarch there is hereditary, it is not a republic but a constitutional monarchy.

There are specific administrative provisions in various schedules of the Constitution. The second schedule deals with the salaries, allowances and pensions of the President, Governor, Speaker of the Lok Sabha/Assembly, CAG, Supreme Court and High Court judges. The Third Schedule prescribes the format of oath of office and secrecy to be taken by Ministers, MPs, MLAs, CAG and Judges (note: the oath of the President, Vice President and Governor is in Articles 60, 69 and 159 respectively, not in the Third Schedule). The Fourth Schedule is related to the allocation of seats in the Rajya Sabha to the States/Union Territories. The Tenth Schedule was added by the 52nd Amendment (1985), which deals with anti-defection law.

The Fifth and Sixth Schedules provide unique constitutional mechanisms for self-governance and cultural preservation of the tribal areas of India. The Fifth Schedule applies to the scheduled areas of 10 states of the country (Andhra, Telangana, Jharkhand, Odisha, Chhattisgarh, MP, Rajasthan, Gujarat, Maharashtra, HP), where a 20-member Tribal Advisory Council is formed. The Sixth Schedule applies specifically to the tribal areas of the four North-Eastern states – Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram (AMTM formula), where Autonomous District Councils have civil, criminal judicial and limited legislative and tax autonomous powers. All four statements are true.

Under the Seventh Schedule, legislative subjects have been divided into Union List, State List and Concurrent List. Inter-State Trade and Commerce and Insolvency and Bankruptcy are not subjects of the State List; Interstate trade is a subject of the Union List (Entry 42) and insolvency and bankruptcy is a subject of the Concurrent List (Entry 9). Banking, defence, citizenship unions are on the list; Police, public health, prisons, local self-government are in the state list; And education, forests, wildlife conservation (transferred by 42nd amendment) come in the concurrent list.

By the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976, keeping in mind the Centre-State balance and national uniformity, 5 important subjects were removed from the State List (List II) and transferred to the Concurrent List (List III): 1. Education, 2. Forests, 3. Protection of Wild Animals and Birds, 4. Standards of Weights and Measures, and 5. Supreme Court and High Courts. The constitution and organization of all courts except the Judiciary and the administration of justice. Police and agriculture are still in the state list.

There were originally 14 languages ​​in the Eighth Schedule of the Indian Constitution (Assamese, Bengali, Gujarati, Hindi, Kannada, Kashmiri, Malayalam, Marathi, Oriya, Punjabi, Sanskrit, Tamil, Telugu, Urdu). 8 new languages ​​were added to it by three amendments: 1. Sindhi language by 21st amendment 1967, 2. Konkani, Manipuri and Nepali by 71st amendment 1992, and 3. Bodo, Dogri, Maithili and Santhali languages ​​by 92nd amendment 2003 (effective 2004). At present a total of 22 languages ​​are recognized in the Eighth Schedule. English and Rajasthani languages ​​are not included in the 22 languages ​​of the Eighth Schedule. Hence all the statements are true.

The Ninth Schedule was added by the First Constitutional Amendment (1951) to protect land reform laws from judicial review. I.R. In Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007), a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that judicial review is the basic structure of the Constitution. Therefore, the constitutional validity of any Act included in the Ninth Schedule after April 24, 1973 (the date of Kesavananda Bharati judgment) can be examined by the court if it subverts the essence of the fundamental rights in Part III of the Constitution (particularly Articles 14, 19 and 21) or the basic structure of the Constitution.

According to Para 6 of the Tenth Schedule added by the 52nd Constitutional Amendment Act (1985), the exclusive power to decide any question relating to the disqualification of a member on the ground of defection rests with the Presiding Officer of the concerned House (Speaker in the Lok Sabha and Chairman in the Rajya Sabha). In Kihoto Holohan v. Jachilhu (1992), the Supreme Court ruled that the presiding officer acts as a 'tribunal' in this context, so his final decision is subject to judicial review by the court, but the court cannot interfere in the decision process.

The 'Eleventh Schedule' (Article 243-G) was added to the Constitution by the 73rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1992, under which 29 functional subjects (such as agriculture, minor irrigation, animal husbandry, rural housing, drinking water, roads, poverty alleviation, etc.) have been assigned to Panchayati Raj institutions to prepare plans for economic development and social justice. The 'Twelfth Schedule' (Article 243-W) was added by the 74th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1992, in which 18 subjects (such as town planning, land use regulation, roads and bridges, water supply, public health and sanitation, etc.) have been listed for the administrative responsibilities of municipalities and urban local bodies.

The makers of the Indian Constitution have adopted the best democratic features from the constitutions of different countries. Rule of law, parliamentary system, single citizenship, cabinet system and legislative process were taken from Britain. Fundamental rights, the idea of ​​the Preamble, independence of the judiciary, Judicial Review, and impeachment of the President were taken from the United States. The Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP), the electoral system of the President and the nomination of 12 members to the Rajya Sabha were adopted from Ireland. Provisions of concurrent list, freedom of trade and commerce and joint sitting of both the Houses of Parliament (Article 108) were taken from Australia. Hence the correct combination is A-2, B-1, C-4, D-3.

Indian federalism is different from American federalism, because in America the states are indestructible and residuary powers are given to the states. India has adopted a 'federal structure with a strong centre', taking inspiration from the Constitution of Canada. According to the Canadian model: 1. India is called a 'Union of States', 2. Residuary powers are vested in the Parliament under Article 248, 3. Governors of the states are appointed by the Centre, and 4. The advisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to the President (Article 143) is also taken from Canada.

The term 'Procedure Established by Law' mentioned in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution was adopted from the Constitution of Japan (Article 31). In contrast, the US Constitution contains the term 'Due Process of Law', which examines not only the legality of the process but also the natural justice and fairness of the law. In the case of Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India (1978), the Supreme Court gave a liberal interpretation of Article 21 and accepted the American 'due process of law' (fair, impartial and rational process) as inherent within the 'procedure established by law'.

The provision of suspension of fundamental rights during emergency (suspension of the right to approach the court under Article 359) has been taken from the Weimar Constitution of Germany. The process of constitutional amendment and election of members of the Rajya Sabha is adopted from the Constitution of South Africa. The fundamental duties and the ideal of social, economic and political justice in the Preamble are inspired by the Constitution of the Soviet Union (former USSR). The financial and administrative provisions of the Emergency are mainly taken from the Government of India Act, 1935.

Part I of the Constitution regulates the territorial structure of India. Article 1 calls India a 'Union of States', which means that the Indian Union is not the result of any agreement between the States and no State has the right to secede from the Union (a perishable State of an indestructible Union). Article 2 deals with the admission of territories that were not previously part of India (such as Sikkim). Article 3 deals with the reorganization of existing states, for which the President sends the bill to the affected state assembly for opinion (opinion is not binding). Article 4 makes it clear that any law made under Articles 2 and 3 will be passed by a simple majority and will not be considered an amendment under Article 368. All four statements are true.

Following the demand for reorganization of states on the basis of language (particularly the formation of Andhra State), in December 1953, the Government of India constituted a three-member 'States Reorganization Commission' under the chairmanship of former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Fazal Ali. The other two members of this commission are eminent historian and diplomat K. M. Panikkar and educationist and MP Hridaynath Kunzru. This Commission submitted its report in 1955, rejecting the principle of 'one language, one state' and recommending the formation of 16 states and 3 union territories on the basis of administrative convenience, linguistic uniformity and financial feasibility. On the basis of this report, the States Reorganization Act, 1956 was passed.

In the original Constitution (1950), the states were divided into four categories: Part 'A' (British Provinces - 9), Part 'B' (large princely states like Rajasthan - 9), Part 'C' (Chief Commissioner's Provinces - 10) and Part 'D' (Andaman and Nicobar Islands). By the 7th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1956, this complex four-tier classification and the post of 'Rajpramukh' were abolished and the entire country was reorganized into 14 states and 6 union territories. Rajasthan became a full-fledged state on November 1, 1956 by emerging from Part 'B' and the post of Rajpramukh was abolished and the first Governor was appointed.

India does not have dual citizenship like America, but has single citizenship for the entire country. Articles 5 to 8 of the Constitution related only to the identity of citizens at the time of January 26, 1950. For the future, Article 11 gave the Parliament the power to make laws related to citizenship, under which the Parliament passed the 'Citizenship Act, 1955'. According to this Act, there are 5 ways of acquiring citizenship: 1. By birth, 2. Hereditary, 3. Registration, 4. Naturalization, and 5. By merger of the new territory into India. There are three grounds for termination of citizenship: voluntary renunciation, termination on taking citizenship of another country, and deprivation by the government. All four statements are true.

The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 (CAA) was notified on December 12, 2019 and came into effect from January 10, 2020 (its rules to be notified in March 2024). The law provides accelerated Indian citizenship by naturalization without treating six non-Muslim minority communities (Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians) as illegal immigrants who came to India on or before December 31, 2014 due to religious persecution from three neighboring countries—Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan. The law does not apply to the tribal areas in the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution and the North-Eastern areas covered by the Inner Line Permit (ILP) of the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation 1873.

Article 12 defines 'State' for the purposes of Part III of the Constitution, which includes the Government of India, Parliament, State Governments, Legislatures, all local authorities (Municipalities, Panchayats) and 'Other Authorities'. In the case Zee Telefilms v. Union of India (2005), the Supreme Court ruled that the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) is a non-government autonomous society, which neither receives financial assistance from the government nor has direct administrative control over it, hence it does not fall within the definition of 'State' under Article 12. On the contrary, statutory corporations like Electricity Board, LIC, ONGC, CSIR etc. are considered as states because they are under government control.

Article 13 is the cornerstone of judicial review in India. In Bhikaji vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (1955), the 'Doctrine of Eclipse' propounded that pre-constitutional inconsistent laws do not die but are eclipsed by fundamental rights. R.M.D.C. Versus Union of India (1957) the 'principle of severability' was recognized that the inconsistent part can be separated from the remaining valid part. In Basheshwar Nath vs. CIT (1959), the Supreme Court decided that no citizen in India can voluntarily waive his fundamental rights, because these rights are constitutional protection of public policy and social welfare. Hence all four statements are true.

Article 14 declares that 'the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India'. The first phrase in this 'Equality before Law' is a reference to the British Common Law tradition and A. A negative principle derived from V. Dicey's 'Rule of Law', which means that no person is privileged in the eyes of the law. The second phrase 'Equal Protection of the Laws' is a positive principle taken from the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution, which means that persons in similar circumstances should be treated equally by the law.

Earlier Article 14 was judged only on the criterion of 'Reasonable Classification'. But in the case of E.P. Royappa vs. State of Tamil Nadu (1974), Justice P.N. Propounding the dynamic theory of equality, Bhagwati said that "Equality is a living concept and cannot be limited to the traditional framework of classification. Equality and arbitrariness are diametrically opposed to each other. Where an action is arbitrary, equality is necessarily violated." The principle that arbitrary and uncontrolled discretion by the executive is a violation of Article 14 was further strengthened in the Maneka Gandhi case.

The wording used in Article 15(1) of the Constitution is: "The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them." The framers of the Constitution have used the word 'Only' very carefully and only 5 grounds are mentioned in it: Religion, Race, Caste, Sex and Place of birth. It does not include 'residence' or 'language', so the state can give preference to residents of its state in educational institutions or welfare schemes (e.g. D.P. Joshi case 1955).

Article 15(4) was added by the First Amendment 1951 to nullify the effect of State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951) decision. P.A. Article 15(5) was added by the 93rd Amendment 2005 after the Inamdar case (2005), under which OBC/SC/ST reservation became applicable in all private educational institutions except minority institutions (validated in Ashok Kumar Thakur case). Article 16(4A) was added by the 77th Amendment (1995) after the Indra Sawhney decision prohibited reservation in promotion and consequential seniority was given by the 85th Amendment (2001). By the 103rd Amendment 2019, 10% reservation was given to EWS of general category by adding Article 15(6) and 16(6) (valid in Janhit Abhiyan case 2022).

Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India (1992) is the most landmark decision of Indian reservation law. In this, the Constitution Bench of 9 judges ruled with a majority of 6:3: 1. 27% reservation for OBCs is valid, 2. Reservation can be done only on social and educational backwardness, not on purely economic basis, 3. 'Creamy layer' principle was made mandatory to identify the affluent people of the backward class (for which the government constituted the Ramanandan Committee in 1993), 4. Total reservation under Article 16(4) Should not exceed the limit of 50%, and 5. Reservation will be only in direct recruitment and not in promotions. Hence all four statements are completely correct.

Under Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955, if a person is convicted of the offense of practicing or propagating untouchability, he automatically becomes disqualified from contesting elections to Parliament or State Legislature. Hence statement D is incorrect. The term untouchability is not defined in the Constitution or law, the Mysore High Court has considered it as a historical social evil. Article 17 is one of the few fundamental rights that is absolute (with no exceptions) and is enforceable against both the state and private citizens.

Article 18(1) prohibits the State from conferring any title other than military or academic honors. In Balaji Raghavan v. Union of India (1996), the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court ruled that the Bharat Ratna, Padma Vibhushan, Padma Bhushan and Padma Shri awards, instituted in 1954, are not 'awards' within the meaning of Article 18(1) but are national 'Decorations/Honours' for outstanding services to citizens. Therefore these are constitutionally valid. However, the Court gave strict instructions that award recipients could not use these decorations as a prefix or suffix to their names; Doing so may result in the prize being withdrawn.

Article 19(1) guarantees 6 democratic freedoms to Indian citizens: 19(1)(a) – Freedom of speech and expression; 19(1)(b) – Freedom to assemble peacefully and without arms; 19(1)(c) – Right to form an association, union or co-operative society (added by 97th Amendment 2011); 19(1)(d) - Right to unhindered communication throughout the territory of India; 19(1)(e) - Right to reside and settle in any part of India; [19(1)(f) – Right to property deleted by 44th Amendment 1978]; And 19(1)(g) – Freedom to practice any profession, trade or business. All these rights are available only to Indian citizens and not to foreigners.

Statement A is incorrect because 'Friendly relations with foreign states' and 'Public order' were not in the original Constitution, they were added by the 1st Amendment 1951 after the Ramesh Thapar case. Currently there are a total of 8 grounds under Article 19(2): 1. Sovereignty and integrity of India (16th Amendment 1963), 2. Security of the State, 3. Friendly relations with foreign states (1st Amendment), 4. Public order (1st Amendment), 5. Decency or morality, 6. Contempt of Court, 7. Defamation, and 8. Incitement to commit an offence. Revision). No restrictions can be imposed other than these 8 grounds and restrictions should always be 'reasonable', which can be examined by the judiciary. Hence option C is correct.

In the case Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India (2015), the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, declaring it unconstitutional. Under Section 66A, there was a provision of up to 3 years in jail for sending 'objectionable or inconvenient' messages on computer or social media. Justice J. A division bench comprising Justice Chelameswar and Justice Rohinton Nariman ruled that Section 66A was excessively vague, overbroad and arbitrary, disproportionately impinged on the fundamental right of citizens to freedom of speech and expression [Article 19(1)(a)] and did not fall within the scope of any reasonable restriction under Article 19(2).

In the famous case of Union of India vs. Naveen Jindal (2004), a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court delivered a historic judgment holding that hoisting the National Flag (Tricolor) with dignity and respect in one's home, office or premises is a fundamental right of every citizen of India under Article 19(1)(a) [freedom of speech and expression] of the Constitution. The Court clarified that hoisting the national flag is a medium of expression of loyalty, pride and patriotism towards the nation. However, this right is not absolute and is subject to the statutory rules of 'Emblems and Names Act 1950' and 'Prevention of Insults to National Honor Act 1971'.

Article 20 is an extremely powerful fundamental right which cannot be suspended even during emergency after the 44th Amendment (1978). 20(1) provides that a person may only be convicted of a breach of a law in force at the time the act was committed, and may not be sentenced to a punishment greater than that prescribed at that time (this only applies to criminal laws, tax laws can be retrospective). 20(2) is based on the principle 'nemo debate bis vexari', which does not treat departmental disciplinary punishment as a second punishment. 20(3) protects an accused from giving evidence against himself. Hence all four statements are correct.

Chief Justice of India in the case Smt. Selvi vs. State of Karnataka (2010) K. Yes. A three-judge bench headed by Balakrishnan ruled that it is unconstitutional to forcibly subject any accused or suspect to techniques such as narco-analysis, polygraph test or brain electrical activation profile (BEAP/Brain Mapping) without his or her free consent. This process is a direct violation of the 'right against self-incrimination' guaranteed by Article 20(3) of the Constitution (as it elicits testimony from a person's subconscious mind) and the 'right to personal liberty and mental privacy' protected by Article 21.

In the Gopalan case (1950), the court gave a narrow interpretation of Article 21 and said that if the Parliament has made a law and fixed a procedure, then the court cannot check the fairness of that law. But in the Maneka Gandhi case (1978) the Supreme Court completely overturned it. The Court held that merely any arbitrary 'procedure' in Article 21 is not sufficient; That process should be 'Right, Just and Fair', which is in accordance with the principles of natural justice. Also, the Court did not consider Articles 14, 19 and 21 as mutually exclusive and declared them as 'Constitutional Golden Triangle'.

Justice K. S. In the Puttaswamy vs. Union of India (2017) case, the Constitution Bench of all 9 judges of the Supreme Court, while giving a unanimous decision, quashed the old decisions of M.P. Sharma (1954) and Kharak Singh (1962). The bench declared that the 'Right to Privacy' is an intrinsic and integral part of the 'Right to Life and Personal Liberty' under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and it flows from the freedoms guaranteed by Part III. However, the right to privacy is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions on the criteria of validity of law, legitimate state interest and proportionality.

The Supreme Court has expanded Article 21 to include many rights related to human dignity. In the Vishakha case (1997), the historic Vishakha Guidelines were issued to prevent sexual harassment at the workplace. In the Parmanand Katara case, it was decided that the first duty of every doctor is to save the life of the injured, whether there is a police case or not. In the Chameli Singh case, housing and clean environment were considered a part of a dignified life. The Husnara Khatoon case (1979) laid the foundation for speedy trial and release of undertrials in jail, and in the M.H. Hoskote case, legal aid was considered a fundamental right. Hence all four pairs are true.

In the Gyan Kaur case (1996), the Court had clarified that the 'right to life' in Article 21 does not include the 'right to die'. The possibility of passive euthanasia under strict court supervision was accepted for the first time in the Aruna Shanbaug case (2011). Ultimately, in the landmark Constitution Bench judgment of Common Cause (A Registered Society) vs Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court ruled that the 'right to life with dignity' in Article 21 also includes the 'right to die with dignity'. The Court legalized passive euthanasia (withdrawal of life support) and pre-written 'Living Will' (Advance Directive) for terminally ill patients suffering from incurable diseases.

In Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018), a 5-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court unanimously overturned the Suresh Kaushal (2013) decision. The bench declared as unconstitutional the portion of 158-year-old Section 377 of the IPC that criminalized consensual same-sex relations between adults. The court accepted that sexual orientation is an essential part of a person's identity, dignity and privacy. Therefore, criminalizing consensual adult relationships is a direct violation of Article 14 (equality), Article 15 (prohibition of discrimination on the basis of gender) and Article 21 (dignified life).

Unnikrishnan J. In P. vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993), the Supreme Court had ruled that the right to life under Article 21 includes the right to education for children up to 14 years of age. On the recommendations of the Muhi Ram Saikia Committee (1997), Parliament passed the 86th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2002, by which Article 21A was added. It places the responsibility on the State to provide 'Free and Compulsory Education' to all children of the age group of 6 to 14 years in the manner prescribed by law. To give effect to this, Parliament passed the 'Right to Education Act, 2009' (RTE Act), which came into effect from April 1, 2010.

The Right to Education Act (RTE Act), 2009 brings to the ground the right of children to free and compulsory education. Under Section 12(1)(c), 25% seats at the entry level in all private unaided schools are mandatorily reserved for children from weaker and disadvantaged sections, the fees for which are reimbursed by the government (validated by the Supreme Court in the Society for Un-Aided Private Schools case). Section 27 prohibits teachers from being engaged in non-academic work (exceptions: elections, census, disaster). In 2019, by the RTE amendment, Section 16 was changed and states were given the freedom to conduct regular examinations in class 5th and 8th and stop them if they fail. All four statements are true.

Article 24 of the Constitution clearly declares that 'No child below the age of 14 years shall be employed to work in any factory or mine or in any other hazardous employment'. In the case M.C. Mehta vs. State of Tamil Nadu (1996) related to child labor in the firecracker factories of Sivakasi, the Supreme Court gave detailed guidelines for the elimination of child labour. The court ordered that a fine of ₹ 20,000 per child should be collected from every employer employing child labor in hazardous industries and deposited in the 'Child Labor Rehabilitation and Welfare Fund', which should be used for the education and welfare of that child.

Rudal Shah v. State of Bihar (1983) was a watershed in India's constitutional jurisprudence. Rudal Sah was illegally imprisoned for 14 years even after being acquitted by the court. The then Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Y. V. Chandrachud, while hearing the habeas corpus petition, ruled that merely releasing the victim is not enough; To compensate for the gross violation of Article 21 of personal liberty by the State, the State will have to pay monetary compensation to the victim. In the Bhim Singh case (1985), the MLA was awarded compensation of ₹ 50,000 for illegal detention.

D.K. to prevent custodial violence, torture and deaths. In Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) the Supreme Court issued 11-point mandatory guidelines for all police and security agencies. These include: visible identification and nameplate of the police officer, preparation of arrest memo in the presence of an independent witness, immediate notification of family/friend, entry in the case diary, permission to meet a lawyer during interrogation and medical examination every 48 hours. Police officers who violate these instructions are liable to face departmental action as well as contempt of court. All four statements are true.

In the case of Satwant Singh Sawhney vs. Assistant Passport Officer, New Delhi (1967), the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court had for the first time ruled that the right to travel abroad is a part of the 'personal liberty' guaranteed in Article 21 of the Constitution, and the passport of any citizen cannot be taken away without the procedure established by law. After this decision, Parliament passed the Passport Act, 1967. Later, in the case Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (1978), when the government confiscated Maneka Gandhi's passport without giving any reason, the Supreme Court reaffirmed Satwant Singh's principle and expanded it by linking it to natural justice and Articles 14, 19 and 21.

In Chameli Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (1996), a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court ruled that the 'right to life' guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution does not mean mere survival like an animal. The right to live as a citizen in a civilized society includes food, water, decent environment, education, medical care and above all 'Right to Shelter'. Shelter does not just mean a roof over the head, but a secure physical and social structure where the individual and his family can grow with dignity, peace and physical security. Therefore, it is the duty of the state to make housing schemes for the poor and the deprived.

Murali S. In Deora v. Union of India (2001), the Supreme Court considered smoking in public places to be a serious attack on the right to health and life (Article 21) of innocent non-smoking citizens. The court said that passive smoking causes cancer and fatal lung diseases. A person may have the right to smoke as per his choice, but he has no right to make others helpless victims of polluting smoke. On this basis, the court gave a historic order to immediately ban smoking in public places like hospitals, educational institutions, railways, buses, libraries, public offices etc. across the country.

In January 2019, the 103rd Constitutional Amendment provided for up to 10% reservation in educational institutions (including private institutions) and government jobs for economically weaker citizens (EWS) from the general category. In Janhit Abhiyan vs Union of India (November 7, 2022), the then Chief Justice of India U. You. A five-judge bench headed by Lalit gave the historic judgment with a majority of 3:2. The majority (Justices Dinesh Maheshwari, Bela M. Trivedi, J.B. Pardiwala) held that: 1. Reservation is not limited to socio-educational backwardness only, reservation is permissible on economic grounds also, 2. The limit of 50% is not completely inflexible, and 3. It is not unreasonable to exclude SC/ST/OBC as they already enjoy special reservation. Hence all four statements are correct.

The case Saudan Singh vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee (NDMC, 1989) is called 'Hawkers Case'. In this, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that hawking, setting up kiosks or doing business on the footpaths and roads is a 'fundamental right to livelihood and business' of Indian citizens under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. However, this right is not absolute and the Municipal Corporation can decide on 'hawking and non-hawking zones' and regulate the number of hawkers through licensing system to ensure public order, safety and smooth movement of pedestrians.

Article 22 provides protection from both criminal and preventive detention. Preventive Detention is not a punishment for any crime but a precautionary measure to prevent crime. According to Article 22(4), a person cannot be detained for more than 3 months unless the permission of an advisory board consisting of High Court judges is obtained (although the 44th Amendment of 1978 provided for reducing this period to 2 months, but that notification has not been formally implemented till date). Under 22(5) it is mandatory to disclose the grounds of detention, but 22(6) gives the authority the freedom to hide confidential facts in public interest. All four statements are true.

In People's Union for Democratic Rights (PUDR) v. Union of India (1982), popularly known as the 'Asiad Workers Case', Justice P.N. Bhagwati's bench gave a historical and revolutionary interpretation of 'Forced Labour/Begar' of Article 23. The Court held that 'forced labour' does not only mean forced labor through physical force or whipping; If a person, due to poverty, helplessness or hunger, is forced to work at a rate lower than the legally prescribed minimum wage, then he also falls under the category of 'forced labour' under Article 23 and this is a violation of his fundamental right. In Sanjit Roy vs. State of Rajasthan (1983), paying low wages in famine relief work was also declared unconstitutional on the same basis.

Article 25(1) grants all persons freedom of conscience and equal right to freely profess, practice and peacefully propagate religion. But this right is not absolute. The very opening line of Article 25(1) makes it clear that this right is based on three essential grounds – 1. Public Order, 2. Morality, and 3. Health – and is subject to other provisions of Part III of the Constitution (such as Articles 14 and 15 of Equality). Apart from this, the state has full right under Article 25(2) to regulate economic, financial or political activities related to religious practice and to make laws for social reform.

The Sabarimala Temple case (2018) is a highly debated case in Indian constitutional jurisprudence. A five-judge bench headed by the then Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, by a majority of 4:1, overturned the earlier decision of the Kerala High Court and declared the ban on entry of women of reproductive age (10 to 50 years) into the Lord Ayyappa temple as unconstitutional. The Court said that barring women due to patriarchal notions and biological reasons is a violation of equality (Articles 14-15) and right to worship (Article 25). Justice Indu Malhotra dissented, saying that the reasonableness of faith and religious practices cannot be decided by the courts and that Ayyappa devotees are entitled to protection of their rituals under Article 26. All four statements are correct.

In Shayara Bano vs. Union of India (2017), a Constitution bench comprising judges from five religions declared the practice of triple talaq (Talaq-e-Biddat) unconstitutional by a majority of 3:2. Justice Rohinton Nariman and Justice U. You. Lalit ruled that triple talaq gives the Muslim man the arbitrary right to dissolve the marriage on the spur of the moment without any attempt at reconciliation. Since arbitrariness is a gross violation of the right to equality enshrined in Article 14, it is legally invalid. Justice Kurian Joseph also held that what is bad according to the Quran cannot be good by law and is not an essential religious part of Islam.

Provisions for religious and minority freedom: Article 26 gives every religious sect the collective right to establish institutions for religious and charitable purposes and to manage its religious affairs. Article 27 prohibits the state from imposing tax (fee can be imposed) for the promotion of any particular religion. According to Article 28(1), no religious education can be given in schools run entirely from state funds. Article 30(1) gives the special fundamental right to minorities based only on religion and language to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. Hence the correct combination is A-2, B-1, C-4, D-3.

T.M.A. An 11-judge bench of Pai Foundation vs. State of Karnataka (2002) and P.A. In the Inamdar (2005) case, the Supreme Court ruled that the power under Article 30(1) is to bring minority communities on an equal footing and not to give them superior privileges over the majority. The Court clearly stated that “The right to administer is not the right to maladminister”. The State may impose regulatory conditions in the interest of quality of education, qualification of teachers, service conditions, financial transparency and national security, provided they do not destroy the minority character of the institution.

Article 32 is the most important protector of fundamental rights. Without it all the fundamental rights would have become meaningless, hence Dr. Ambedkar called it the soul of the Constitution. Article 226 (High Court) also applies to general legal rights, while Article 32 (Supreme Court) can be invoked only in case of violation of the fundamental rights given in Part III. At the time of emergency, the President can suspend the right to approach the court by issuing an order under Article 359 (Articles 20 and 21 cannot be suspended under any circumstances after the 44th Amendment). Hence all four statements are true.

5 historical Latin writs are issued under Articles 32 and 226: 1. Habeas Corpus = 'You may have the body', to produce an illegally detained person before the court and get him released (it is issued against both the state and private). 2. Mandamus = 'We command', to order any public officer to perform his statutory duty (not against the President, Governor and private person). 3. Prohibition = Prohibition by the High Court to prevent the lower court or tribunal from encroachment of jurisdiction. 4. Certiorari = To cancel the illegal order of the lower court. 5. Quo-Warranto = To prevent unauthorized occupation of public office (it does not have the obligation of locus standi).

The objective of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is to provide access to justice to the poor, helpless, uneducated and deprived sections of the society. Under this, 'locus standee' (the rule of going to court only in case of personal injury) was relaxed, so that any social worker or organization can file a writ on issues of public interest (such as bonded labour, child labour, environmental pollution, plight of undertrials, violence in police custody) by sending letters or postcards. The Supreme Court has issued clear guidelines that PIL will not be accepted in cases involving personal gain, political publicity, personal rivalry, landlord-tenant disputes, or general service/transfer cases. Hence statement D is incorrect.

Article 33 gives the Parliament the special power to determine by law the extent to which fundamental rights shall apply or be restricted to persons working in the armed forces, police, intelligence organizations and telecommunication systems. Its objective is to ensure proper discharge of duties and discipline among these forces. Keep in mind that this power is available only to the Parliament and not to the state legislatures. Under this, Parliament has made laws like Army Act 1950, Navy Act 1950, Police Force (Restriction of Powers) Act 1966 etc.

The Directive Principles (Articles 36 to 51) are similar to the 'Instrument of Instructions' of the Government of India Act 1935. While the fundamental rights establish political democracy mainly by imposing negative restrictions on the state, the directive principles provide positive guidelines to the state and create social and economic justice and Gandhian Ramrajya and welfare state. Although these are non-justiciable under Article 37 (i.e. the court cannot issue writs if they are not implemented), it is still declared a moral and constitutional duty of the state to apply these principles while making laws. All four statements are correct.

The directive principles can be divided into three ideological categories: socialist, Gandhian and liberal-intellectual. Gandhian philosophy emphasizes rural reconstruction, indigenous and moral values. Article 40 mandates the formation of Gram Panchayats (on the basis of which the 73rd amendment was made). Article 43 promotes cottage industries in rural areas. Article 43B (added by 97th Amendment 2011) deals with autonomous formation and promotion of co-operative societies. Article 47 prescribes prohibition of drugs and alcohol (cow slaughter is prohibited in Article 48) under the auspices of improving health. Hence the correct match is A-2, B-1, C-4, D-3.

By the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976, 4 new articles were included in the Directive Principles of Policy on the basis of the recommendations of the Swaran Singh Committee: 1. Article 39(f) - To provide children with opportunities for healthy development in a free and dignified environment, 2. Article 39A - To ensure equal justice and free legal aid to the poor (under which the Legal Services Authority Act / NALSA was created in 1987), 3. Article 43A - To ensure participation of workers in the management of industries, and 4. Article 48A - To protect and improve the environment and to protect forests and wildlife.

Articles 39(b) and 39(c) are the economic foundation of socialist India, whose objective is to break private monopolies and ensure equitable distribution of wealth. In 1971, by the 25th amendment, Article 31C was added and these two articles were given priority over Articles 14 and 19. The 42nd Amendment gave priority to all the Directive Principles over the Fundamental Rights, which was declared unconstitutional and repealed in the Minerva Mills case (1980). Justice Y. V. Chandrachud said: "Part III and Part IV are two wheels of a chariot. To crush the Directive Principles by giving priority to the fundamental rights or to do the opposite is to destroy the basic structure of the Constitution." All four statements are correct.

In Randhir Singh v. Union of India (1982), a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court historically ruled that 'Equal Pay for Equal Work', though a directive principle of the State under Article 39(d), when read in conjunction with Article 14 (right to equality) and Article 16 (equal opportunity in public employment) of the Constitution, is an enforceable principle for all employees of the State. Takes the form of constitutional rights and fundamental rights. If the workload, responsibilities and qualifications of two officials are equal, the State cannot arbitrarily discriminate in their pay scales.

Article 44 is part of the Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV), not the Fundamental Rights (Part III). Therefore, according to Article 37, it is not enforceable by the court and the court cannot issue Mandamus to the government to implement the Uniform Civil Code. However, in the Shah Bano (1985), Sarala Mudgal (1995) and John Vallamattam (2003) cases, the Supreme Court has repeatedly reminded the Central Government that efforts should be made to implement UCC for the sake of national integration and gender justice in the country. It was implemented at the state level historically in Goa and in 2024 in Uttarakhand. Hence statement D is false.

Article 42 of the Constitution directs the State to make laws to ensure just and humane conditions of work at workplaces and to provide for 'Maternity Relief' for women. Pursuant to this article, the Indian Parliament has passed the Maternity Benefit Act 1961 (amended 2017 - in which paid maternity leave was increased from 12 weeks to 26 weeks) and the Factories Act 1948. Article 41 deals with the right to work, education and public assistance, while Article 43 deals with the living wage.

Article 50 gives a constitutional mandate to the State to take steps to separate the judiciary from the control of the executive in the public services, so that the independence and impartiality of the judiciary remains intact. To implement this directive principle, the Parliament repealed the old Code of 1898 and passed the 'Criminal Procedure Code, 1973' (CrPC, 1973), which came into force from April 1, 1974. Under this, Judicial Magistrates were placed under the direct administrative control of the High Court and the judicial powers to try and sentence criminal cases were taken away from the Executive Magistrates (such as DM, SDM).

During the Emergency of 1975-77, Swarn Singh Committee was formed to inculcate the spirit of discipline and nation building among the citizens. On the recommendation of the Committee, new Part IV-A and Article 51A were added by the 42nd Amendment 1976. The Swarn Singh Committee had recommended the duty of paying taxes and punishment by the Parliament for non-fulfillment of duty, which was not accepted. 10 deputies joined in 1976. In the year 2002, the 86th amendment added the 11th duty, which laid down the duty of parents or guardians to provide educational opportunities to their children aged 6 to 14 years. All four statements are completely true.

Article 51A has a fixed sequential arrangement of all 11 duties: 51A(a) – Respect for the Constitution, the National Flag and the National Anthem; 51A(b) - To cherish the high ideals of the freedom struggle; 51A(c) – Protection of sovereignty, unity and integrity of India; 51A(d) - Defense of the country and national service; 51A(e) - Harmony, fraternity and abandonment of practices antithetical to the dignity of women; 51A(f) - Preservation of the glorious tradition of composite culture; 51A(g) – Protection of environment (forest, lake, river, wildlife); 51A(h) - Development of scientific approach, humanism and knowledge; 51A(i) - Protection of public property and abandonment of violence; 51A(j) – Strive for excellence in all fields; And 51A(K) – Education to children of 6-14 years.

In 1999, the former Chief Justice of India Justice J. S. A high level committee ('Verma Committee') was formed under the chairmanship of Verma. This Committee explained that although the Fundamental Duties are non-equitable, there are already stringent statutory laws in place to enforce many of the duties; Such as: Prevention of Insults to National Honor Act 1971 (for national flag and national anthem), Protection of Civil Rights Act 1955 (for caste/religion discrimination), Wildlife Protection Act 1972 and Representation of the People Act 1951.

Bijou Emmanuel v. State of Kerala (1986) is famously known as the 'National Anthem Case'. Three children from a school in Kerala belonging to the 'Jehovah's Witnesses' sect were expelled because they did not sing the national anthem during the morning prayers due to their religious beliefs, although they stood respectfully straight during the national anthem. Justice O. Chinappa Reddy, while holding the expulsion of children unconstitutional, ordered that a person cannot be compelled to sing the national anthem if he is not disrespecting it and is standing respectfully. It is protected by the freedom of silence [19(1)(a)] and religious belief [25(1)].

'Conservation of environment, forests and wildlife' is reiterated in the Constitution as a shared responsibility of both the state and the citizen. Under the Directive Principles of State Policy, Article 48A (by 42nd Amendment in 1976) has the duty of the State that "The State shall endeavor to conserve and improve the environment of the country and to protect its forests and wildlife." Under the fundamental duties, Article 51A (g) declares it to be the duty of every Indian citizen to "protect and improve the natural environment, including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife and to have compassion for living beings." The other three options are only in policy-directive elements.

The framers of the Constitution have struck a clear balance between civil and human rights. Those rights which are political and social privileges—Article 15 (non-discrimination), Article 16 (equality of opportunity in public employment), Article 19 (six freedoms), and Articles 29 and 30 (cultural and educational rights of minorities)—are available only to Indian citizens. Whereas the rights to life, personal liberty, religious freedom and freedom from exploitation are available to all persons (including foreigners). Article 22(3) makes it clear that a citizen of a country at war with India (enemy alien) does not have the right to be produced before a magistrate within 24 hours and to seek advice from a lawyer. All four statements are true.

Article 33 of the Constitution gives Parliament the special legislative power to partially or completely restrict or abrogate the fundamental rights (such as the right to strike, form organisations, speak in the media) of personnel serving in the armed forces, navy, air force, police forces, intelligence agencies (such as IB, RAW) and the telecommunication wing of the army. Its objective is to maintain efficiency and strict discipline of these forces in sensitive matters of national security. Article 34 deals with compensation when martial law is imposed, and Article 35 deals with the exclusive legislative power of Parliament to give effect to these powers.

In M.H. Hoskote vs. State of Maharashtra (1978), Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer gave a historic ruling that providing a copy of the judgment at government expense to any poor, helpless or illiterate prisoner in jail, who cannot hire a lawyer due to poverty, to appeal and providing 'Free Legal Aid' of a competent lawyer is an essential fundamental right to fair trial under Article 21. In the Sheela Barse case (1983), strict instructions were given for security, legal aid and adherence to jail rules for women prisoners in police custody.

The cases of Sunil Batra and Prem Shankar Shukla are milestones in Indian human rights jurisprudence. Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer in 'Hathkari Vaad' (Prem Shankar Shukla 1980) said: "The imposition of handcuffs is prima facie inhuman, barbaric and violative of Article 21." The police cannot be allowed to tie up prisoners routinely; If it is unavoidable to do so, the reasons will have to be recorded in the case diary and written permission of the Magistrate will have to be taken. In the Sunil Batra case, a historic decision was given on the security of the prisoner kept in a solitary cell inside Tihar Jail that the writ of habeas corpus against the brutality of the jail administration is applicable inside the jail also. All four statements are true.

In the original Constitution, the right to property was a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31, which led to frequent serious confrontations between the government and the judiciary over land reforms, abolition of zamindari and implementation of public projects (Kameshwar Singh, Bela Banerjee, Golaknath etc.). The Janata Party government led by Morarji Desai completely deleted the right to property from Part III of the Fundamental Rights by the 44th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1978. It was made only a general 'Legal/Constitutional Right' under 'Article 300A' in Chapter IV of Part XII of the Constitution, under which no person shall be deprived of his property without 'authority of law'.

In the case Sanjit Roy v. State of Rajasthan (1983), the constitutional validity of the 'Rajasthan Famine Aid and Relief Works (Regulation of Wages) Act, 1964' enacted by the Government of Rajasthan was challenged. Under this law, while providing employment to people affected by famine and drought in relief work, they were being given wages much less than the statutory minimum wages fixed under the 'Minimum Wages Act 1948'. Supreme Court Justice P.N. Delivering the historic verdict, Bhagwati said that paying less than the minimum wage by the state government even in the event of famine or disaster is 'forced labor' prohibited by Article 23 of the Constitution. The government cannot take advantage of the crisis to violate the fundamental rights of the citizens.

The President's electoral college consists of only elected members of Parliament (Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha) and only elected members of the Legislative Assemblies of 28 states and 2 Union Territories (Delhi and Puducherry, by 70th Amendment 1992). Nominated members of Parliament and Legislative Assemblies and members of Legislative Councils (MLCs) do not participate in it. The formula for the vote value of an MLA is = (1971 population of the state / number of elected MLAs) × 1/1000. The vote value of MPs is calculated by dividing the sum of total vote values ​​of MLAs of all states by the number of elected MPs (543+233=776). By the 84th Amendment the population of 1971 has been frozen till after 2026. All four statements are true.

The value of an MLA's vote in a presidential election varies depending on the ratio of each state's 1971 population to the number of elected MLAs. In the 2022 Presidential elections, the MLA from Uttar Pradesh had the highest vote value (208 vote value). The lowest vote value was of the MLA from Sikkim state, whose value was only 7. After this, the vote value of MLAs of Arunachal Pradesh and Mizoram was 8-8 and that of Nagaland was 9. The vote value of the MLA of Union Territory Puducherry was 16. The vote value of each MLA of Rajasthan was 129 (total vote value of all 200 MLAs of Rajasthan = 129 × 200 = 25,800).

The Presidential election of 1969 was the most exciting and historic election in Indian political history. After the untimely demise of the then President Dr. Zakir Hussain, the then Vice President V.V. Giri contested the election as an independent candidate against the official Congress candidate Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy and Prime Minister Indira Gandhi appealed to the MPs and MLAs to 'vote according to conscience'. In the counting of first preference votes, no candidate achieved the prescribed victory quota (50% of total valid votes + 1). After this, the second preference votes were counted by eliminating the candidates who got the least number of votes, in which V.V. Giri was declared the winner.

Article 61 provides for a quasi-judicial process of impeachment of the President. This proposal can be brought in any house of the Parliament, for which signature of 1/4 members and 14 days prior notice is required. The second House investigates the charges after the first House passes them by a special majority of two-thirds of the total membership (where the President has the right to appear in person or have a lawyer). If the second house also passes the resolution with a two-thirds majority of the total number of members, then the President has to step down from the post from the same day. Note: Nominated members of Parliament vote in impeachment, but MLAs of state assemblies do not participate in it. All four statements are true.

Article 71(1) of the Constitution clearly provides that all doubts and disputes arising out of or relating to the election of the President or Vice-President shall be investigated and decided by the 'Supreme Court of India' alone and its decision shall be final. Article 71(4) also makes it clear that the election of the President or the Vice-President can never be challenged on the ground that there was a vacancy among the members of their electoral college (for example, the election cannot be stopped by the dissolution of the Legislative Assembly of a State, as was decided in the context of the 1974 Presidential election). The Election Commission has no authority to resolve disputes on this matter.

Article 72 gives the President the power to grant 5 types of relief: Pardon – Complete Absolution, Commutation – Changing the nature of the punishment, Remission – Reducing the term without changing the nature of the punishment), Respite – Less punishment on special grounds like pregnancy), and Reprieve – Temporary stay on death penalty. In the cases of Maru Ram (1980) and Kehar Singh (1989) it was decided that the President acts on the advice of the Union Cabinet and oral hearing is not mandatory. In Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India (2014), the Supreme Court held that a death sentence can be commuted to life imprisonment for excessive and unreasonable delay in a mercy petition by the President and is subject to limited judicial review. All four statements are true.

The Indian President has the unique power of 'pocket veto' like the US President, as Article 111 of the Indian Constitution does not prescribe any time limit for the President to take a decision on a bill ("The President's pocket is bigger than that of the US President"). In the year 1986, the Rajiv Gandhi government passed the 'Indian Post Office (Amendment) Bill', in which the government was given wide powers to intercept and censor citizens' letters and messages. Considering it a violation of privacy and press freedom, President Giani Zail Singh neither gave his consent to it, nor returned it for reconsideration, nor rejected it, but kept it pending indefinitely (pocket veto).

Article 123 gives the President emergency legislative powers during the recess of Parliament. Its effect is exactly equal to that of an Act of Parliament. The maximum theoretical lifespan of an ordinance can be 6 months and 6 weeks (maximum gap between two sessions under Article 85 is 6 months + 6 weeks after the commencement of the session). A 7-judge Constitution bench in D.C. Wadhwa vs. State of Bihar (1987) and Krishna Kumar Singh vs. State of Bihar (2017) ruled that continuous re-promulgation of ordinances without introducing them in the Assembly amounts to fraud on the Constitution and unconstitutional abuse of legislative powers. All four statements are true.

According to Article 66 of the Constitution, the electoral college for the Vice President consists of all the members (both elected and nominated) of both Houses of Parliament (Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha); State assemblies do not participate in this. According to Article 67(b), the process of removing the Vice President from office can begin only in the Rajya Sabha, for which 14 days' advance written notice is mandatory. The Rajya Sabha passes it with its 'Effective Majority' and the Lok Sabha is required to agree to it only with a simple majority. The Constitution does not mention any formal impeachment or grounds for removing the Vice President.

Article 74(1) of the original Constitution stated that "There shall be a Council of Ministers with the Prime Minister at its head to aid and advise the President." The 42nd Amendment (1976) made it completely binding on the President to follow the advice of the Cabinet by adding 'shall act in accordance with the advice'. A democratic balance was created by the 44th Constitutional Amendment (1978) by the Janata Party government: the President was empowered to send back the advice of the Council of Ministers once for 'reconsideration, whether ordinarily or otherwise'. But if the Council of Ministers sends the same advice again after reconsideration, then the President is bound to act according to that advice.

Article 75 is the main engine of the parliamentary system of governance. 75(3) imposes Collective Responsibility: If the Lok Sabha passes a no-confidence motion, the entire Cabinet has to resign. 75(2) imposes personal accountability: The President can dismiss any minister on the advice of the Prime Minister. The 91st Amendment 2003 imposed a maximum limit of 15% on the number of ministers (15% of 543 at the Centre, i.e. a maximum of 81-82 ministers). Under 75(5), non-MPs (like P.V. Narasimha Rao, Dr. Manmohan Singh, S. Jaishankar etc.) can become ministers for 6 months, but if they do not become members of Parliament within 6 months, the ministerial post ends. All four statements are true.