Study this in the app →

English · हिन्दी · తెలుగు · தமிழ் · മലയാളം · मराठी · ಕನ್ನಡ

Enforcement, Emergencies and Amendments (Articles 31–35 and beyond)

मराठीत स्पष्टीकरण

Fundamental Rights · Part 4 / 4 · Fact-checked on · how we check

Written with AI from the sources listed at the bottom of this page, then fact-checked by a separate AI.

How Fundamental Rights are enforced (Articles 32 and 226, the five writs, public interest litigation), when they can be limited (Articles 33–35 and 359), how far Parliament can amend them, what happened to the right to property, and how they relate to the Directive Principles.

Each idea is explained first in Marathi (मराठी), ending with the English and Hindi exam terms, followed by the same point in exam English. UPSC Prelims is in English or Hindi, so understand it in Marathi and revise it in English.

हक्क तितकाच बळकट असतो जितका त्यामागचा उपाय — न्यायालयात जाता आले नाही तर हक्क कागदावरच राहतो. पहिल्या तीन भागांनी मूलभूत हक्क कोणते ते सांगितले; हा भाग ते कसे अंमलात येतात आणि त्यांच्या मर्यादा कुठे आहेत ते सांगतो: सर्वोच्च न्यायालय (32), उच्च न्यायालय (226), पाच प्राधिलेख, जनहित याचिका; सैन्य आणि लष्करी कायदा (33–35), आणीबाणी (359); संसद हक्कांत किती दुरुस्ती करू शकते; मालमत्तेच्या हक्काचे काय झाले; मार्गदर्शक तत्त्वांशी संबंध. (→ English: Fundamental Rights · हिन्दी: मूल अधिकार)

In exam EnglishA right is only as strong as the remedy behind it. The first three parts of this chapter explained what the Fundamental Rights are; this part explains how they are enforced and where their limits lie. It covers the right to go to the Supreme Court (Article 32) and the High Courts (Article 226), the five writs the courts issue, and public interest litigation. It then looks at when rights can be restricted: for the armed forces and under martial law (Articles 33 to 35), and during an emergency (Article 359). Finally, it explains how far Parliament can amend Fundamental Rights, what happened to the right to property, and how these rights relate to the Directive Principles.

अनुच्छेद 32 नुसार, मूलभूत हक्कांच्या अंमलबजावणीसाठी थेट सर्वोच्च न्यायालय कडे जाण्याचा हक्कच मूलभूत हक्क आहे. म्हणजे उपायही हक्क आहे. सर्वोच्च न्यायालय निर्देश, आदेश, प्राधिलेख देऊ शकते. 9 डिसेंबर 1948 रोजी संविधान सभेत डॉ. आंबेडकरांनी याला 'संविधानाचा आत्मा आणि हृदय' म्हटले. हे मूलभूत संरचनेचा भाग आहे. संसद कायद्याने इतर न्यायालयांनाही हा अधिकार देऊ शकते; राज्यघटना सांगते त्या स्थितीशिवाय (अनुच्छेद 359) हा हक्क स्थगित करता येत नाही. (→ English: Supreme Court · हिन्दी: उच्चतम न्यायालय)

In exam EnglishArticle 32 guarantees the right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights in Part III. This makes the remedy itself a Fundamental Right. The Supreme Court can issue directions, orders or writs to enforce any of these rights. In the Constituent Assembly on 9 December 1948, Dr B. R. Ambedkar called this article 'the very soul of the Constitution and the very heart of it'. The Supreme Court has treated the right under Article 32 as part of the basic structure. Under Article 32(3), Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise these powers within its local limits, and under Article 32(4) the right shall not be suspended except as the Constitution provides, that is, under Article 359.

अनुच्छेद 226 प्रत्येक उच्च न्यायालय ला मूलभूत हक्कांसाठीच नव्हे तर 'इतर कोणत्याही प्रयोजनासाठी' प्राधिलेख देण्याचा अधिकार देतो. या शब्दांमुळे उच्च न्यायालयाचा अधिकार व्यापक आहे — एखाद्या साध्या कायद्याने दिलेला हक्कही ते अंमलात आणू शकते. दुसरा फरक: 32 स्वतः मूलभूत हक्क आहे, म्हणून खऱ्या उल्लंघनाचे प्रकरण सर्वोच्च न्यायालय सहसा नाकारू शकत नाही; 226 मूलभूत हक्क नाही, उच्च न्यायालयाला विवेकाधिकार आहे. हक्क डावललेली व्यक्ती कोणत्याही न्यायालयात जाऊ शकते, पण सर्वोच्च न्यायालय कधी कधी आधी उच्च न्यायालयात जा असे सांगते. (→ English: High Court · हिन्दी: उच्च न्यायालय)

In exam EnglishArticle 226 gives every High Court the power to issue writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights 'and for any other purpose'. Those four words make the High Courts' writ power wider in scope than the Supreme Court's under Article 32: a High Court can enforce ordinary legal rights too, such as a right under a statute. There is a second difference. Article 32 is itself a Fundamental Right, so the Supreme Court cannot refuse to hear a genuine claim that a Fundamental Right has been violated simply because another remedy exists; Article 226 is not a Fundamental Right, and the High Court has discretion. A person whose Fundamental Right is violated can therefore choose to approach either court, although the Supreme Court sometimes asks petitioners to go to the High Court first.

प्राधिलेख म्हणजे न्यायालयाचा औपचारिक लेखी आदेश. राज्यघटना पाच प्राधिलेखांचा उल्लेख करते. बंदी प्रत्यक्षीकरण ('शरीर हजर करा'): एखाद्याला डांबून ठेवणाऱ्याने त्या व्यक्तीला न्यायालयासमोर हजर करून कोणत्या कायद्याने ठेवले ते दाखवावे; नसेल तर सुटका. व्यक्तिस्वातंत्र्याचे हे सर्वात भक्कम संरक्षण; सरकारविरुद्धच नव्हे तर खासगी व्यक्तींविरुद्धही देता येते — उदाहरणार्थ, एखाद्या कुटुंबाने कोणाला बेकायदा कोंडून ठेवले तर. परमादेश ('आम्ही आज्ञा देतो'): आपले सार्वजनिक कर्तव्य न करणाऱ्या अधिकारी, संस्था, कनिष्ठ न्यायालय किंवा सरकारला ते करण्याचा आदेश; खासगी व्यक्ती, राष्ट्रपती किंवा राज्यपाल यांच्याविरुद्ध दिला जात नाही. (→ English: writ · हिन्दी: रिट)

In exam EnglishA writ is a formal written order from a court. The Constitution names five, borrowed from English law. habeas corpus, meaning 'to have the body', orders a person who has detained someone to produce them before the court and show the legal basis for the detention; if there is none, the person is freed. It is the strongest protection of personal liberty, and it can be issued against private individuals as well as public authorities. mandamus, meaning 'we command', orders a public official, public body, lower court, tribunal or government to perform a public duty it has failed or refused to do. It does not lie against a private individual or private body, or against the President or the Governor of a state.

उरलेले तीन प्राधिलेख कनिष्ठ न्यायालये आणि पदाधिकाऱ्यांना कायद्याच्या मर्यादेत ठेवतात. प्रतिषेध ('मनाई'): खटला चालू असतानाच, आपल्या अधिकारक्षेत्राबाहेर जाणाऱ्या कनिष्ठ न्यायालयाला वरिष्ठ न्यायालय थांबवते — प्रतिबंधात्मक. उत्प्रेषण: अधिकारक्षेत्र ओलांडून किंवा कायद्याची चूक करून कनिष्ठ न्यायालयाने आधीच दिलेला आदेश रद्द करते — सुधारात्मक. उदाहरणार्थ, निकालाआधी थांबवले तर प्रतिषेध, नंतर रद्द केले तर उत्प्रेषण. हे विधिमंडळ आणि खासगी व्यक्तींविरुद्ध दिले जात नाहीत. अधिकारपृच्छा ('कोणत्या अधिकाराने?'): कायदा किंवा राज्यघटनेने निर्माण केलेल्या सार्वजनिक पदावरील व्यक्तीला त्या पदासाठीचा हक्क दाखवायला सांगते; खासगी पदांना लागू नाही; पीडितच नव्हे, कोणतीही हितसंबंधित व्यक्ती मागू शकते. (→ English: certiorari · हिन्दी: उत्प्रेषण)

In exam EnglishThe other three writs keep lower courts and office-holders within the law. prohibition, meaning 'to forbid', is issued by a higher court to a lower court or tribunal to stop it from acting beyond its jurisdiction; it is preventive, issued while the case is still pending. certiorari, meaning 'to be certified', is issued to quash an order already passed by a lower court or tribunal that exceeded its jurisdiction or made an error of law; it is curative. Both were developed against judicial and quasi-judicial bodies, and the Supreme Court has also allowed certiorari against administrative authorities whose decisions affect people's rights; neither lies against a legislature or a private individual. quo warranto, meaning 'by what authority', asks a person holding a public office to show the legal right to hold it. It applies only to a substantive public office created by a statute or the Constitution, not a private or ministerial office, and any interested person, not only the aggrieved one, may seek it.
The five writs at a glance
WritMeaningPurposeNot available against
Habeas corpusTo have the bodyFree a person detained without legal basisLawful detention by a competent court; available against private persons too
MandamusWe commandMake a public authority perform its public dutyPrivate persons or bodies; the President; Governors
ProhibitionTo forbidStop a lower court or tribunal from exceeding its jurisdiction (before it decides)Legislatures, private persons
CertiorariTo be certifiedQuash an order already passed without jurisdiction or with an error of lawLegislatures, private persons
Quo warrantoBy what authorityTest a person's legal right to hold a public officePrivate offices, ministerial offices

पूर्वी, ज्याचा हक्क डावलला गेला त्यानेच न्यायालयात जावे असा नियम होता — त्यामुळे गरीब आणि दुर्बल न्यायालयाची पायरी चढू शकत नव्हते. 1970 च्या दशकाच्या शेवटी सर्वोच्च न्यायालयाने हा नियम शिथिल करून जनहित याचिका आणली. आता लोकहिताची भावना असलेली कोणतीही व्यक्ती — कैदी, वेठबिगार, फुटपाथवासी यांच्या वतीने — न्यायालयात जाऊ शकते. 1981 च्या एस.पी. गुप्ता प्रकरणाने याला दुजोरा दिला. एखादे पोस्टकार्डही याचिका म्हणून स्वीकारल्याची उदाहरणे आहेत. पण गैरवापर नको: ती प्रामाणिक आणि लोकहितासाठी हवी; वैयक्तिक किंवा राजकीय वैरासाठी नव्हे. (→ English: public interest litigation · हिन्दी: जनहित याचिका)

In exam EnglishTraditionally, only the person whose right was violated could go to court; this rule of locus standi (standing) shut out people too poor or powerless to sue. From the late 1970s the Supreme Court relaxed it and developed public interest litigation. Any public-spirited person or organisation can now approach the court on behalf of people who cannot do so themselves, such as prisoners, bonded labourers or pavement dwellers. In S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981) the Court affirmed this wider standing. Courts have even treated letters and postcards as writ petitions, sometimes called epistolary jurisdiction. Cases like Hussainara Khatoon (undertrial prisoners) and the Asiad workers' case came through this route. Courts also warn against misuse: a PIL must be in good faith and in the public interest, not a private or political dispute in disguise.

अनुच्छेद 33–35 विशेष परिस्थितींबद्दल आहेत. अनुच्छेद 33 नुसार, सैन्य, सार्वजनिक सुव्यवस्था दल, गुप्तचर संस्था यांच्या सदस्यांचे मूलभूत हक्क शिस्तीसाठी कायद्याने मर्यादित करण्याचा अधिकार फक्त संसद ला आहे — राज्य विधिमंडळांना नाही. उदाहरणार्थ, सैनिक संघटना स्थापू शकत नाही, राजकीय भाषणे करू शकत नाही. अनुच्छेद 34: एखाद्या भागात लष्करी कायदा लागू असताना हक्कांवर निर्बंध; तेथे शांतता राखण्यासाठी अधिकाऱ्यांनी केलेल्या कृत्यांना संसद संरक्षण देऊ शकते. अनुच्छेद 35: काही कायदे फक्त संसदच करू शकते — अस्पृश्यता, सक्तीचे श्रम अशा गुन्ह्यांच्या शिक्षा. (→ English: Parliament · हिन्दी: संसद)

In exam EnglishArticles 33 to 35 deal with special situations. Under Article 33, Parliament may by law restrict or abrogate the Fundamental Rights of members of the armed forces, forces charged with maintaining public order, intelligence and counter-intelligence bodies, and related telecommunication systems, so that discipline is maintained and duties are properly discharged. Only Parliament has this power, not state legislatures. Article 34 allows restrictions on Fundamental Rights while martial law is in force in an area, and lets Parliament indemnify officials for acts done to maintain or restore order there; the Constitution does not define martial law. Article 35 reserves certain law-making to Parliament alone: laws under Articles 16(3), 32(3), 33 and 34, and laws prescribing punishment for acts declared offences in Part III, such as untouchability and forced labour.

अनुच्छेद 359 राष्ट्रीय आणीबाणी काळातील इतर हक्कांबद्दल आहे. आदेशात नमूद मूलभूत हक्कांच्या अंमलबजावणीसाठी न्यायालयात जाण्याचा हक्क राष्ट्रपती स्थगित करू शकतात — संपूर्ण देशात किंवा काही भागात; तो आदेश संसदेसमोर ठेवावा लागतो. हक्क नष्ट होत नाहीत, ते न्यायालयात मागण्याचा मार्ग तेवढा बंद होतो. 1978 च्या 44 व्या दुरुस्तीनंतर, अनुच्छेद 20 आणि 21 ची अंमलबजावणी कधीही स्थगित करता येत नाही. का? 1975 च्या आणीबाणीत एडीएम जबलपूर प्रकरणात, स्थानबद्ध व्यक्ती बंदी प्रत्यक्षीकरण याचिकाही करू शकत नाहीत असे सर्वोच्च न्यायालयाच्या बहुमताने सांगितले; न्यायमूर्ती खन्ना एकटेच असहमत होते. 2017 च्या पुट्टस्वामी प्रकरणात तो बहुमताचा निकाल चुकीचा असल्याचे न्यायालयाने जाहीर केले. (→ English: Emergency · हिन्दी: आपात)

In exam EnglishArticle 359 deals with the other rights during a national Emergency. The President may by order suspend the right to move any court for the enforcement of the Fundamental Rights named in the order, for the period of the emergency or a shorter period, for the whole of India or part of it; every such order must be laid before Parliament. The rights themselves are not suspended, only their enforcement in court. Since the 44th Amendment (1978), the enforcement of Articles 20 and 21 can never be suspended. The change came from bitter experience: in ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976), during the 1975 Emergency, a majority of the Supreme Court held that detainees could not file habeas corpus petitions once the enforcement of Article 21 was suspended. Justice H.R. Khanna dissented, and in K.S. Puttaswamy (2017) the Supreme Court declared the majority view wrong.
Article 358 and Article 359 compared
Article 358Article 359
Rights affectedArticle 19 onlyRights named in the President's order (never Articles 20 and 21)
How it worksAutomatic once the emergency is proclaimedNeeds a separate Presidential order
Ground of emergencyWar or external aggression onlyAny ground of national emergency
What is suspendedThe right itselfOnly enforcement in court

मूलभूत हक्कांत संसद दुरुस्ती करू शकते का? वीस वर्षांत उत्तर बदलले. 1951 शंकरी प्रसाद: घटनादुरुस्ती हा अनुच्छेद 13 मधील 'कायदा' नाही, म्हणून हक्कांतही दुरुस्ती करता येते. 1967 गोलकनाथ (11 न्यायाधीश): दुरुस्तीही 'कायदा'च, हक्क कमी करता येणार नाहीत. संसदेने 1971 मध्ये 24 व्या घटनादुरुस्तीने उत्तर दिले: कोणताही भाग दुरुस्त करता येतो. 1973 केशवानंद भारती (13 न्यायाधीश): कोणताही भाग दुरुस्त करता येतो, पण राज्यघटनेची मूलभूत संरचना बदलता येत नाही — घराची दुरुस्ती करा, पाया पाडू नका. 1980 मिनर्व्हा मिल्स: मर्यादित दुरुस्ती अधिकार आणि हक्क–मार्गदर्शक तत्त्वे यांच्यातील समतोल हेही मूलभूत संरचनेचा भाग. (→ English: basic structure · हिन्दी: मूल ढांचा)

In exam EnglishCan Parliament amend the Fundamental Rights? The answer changed over twenty years. In Shankari Prasad (1951) the Supreme Court held that Parliament could amend any part of the Constitution, including Part III, because a constitutional amendment is not 'law' under Article 13. In I.C. Golaknath (1967) an eleven-judge bench reversed this: an Amendment is 'law', so Parliament cannot take away or abridge Fundamental Rights. Parliament replied with the 24th Amendment (1971), which said Parliament may amend any provision, including Part III, and added Article 13(4). In Kesavananda Bharati (1973) a thirteen-judge bench accepted that Parliament can amend any part, but held that it cannot alter the basic structure of the Constitution. In Minerva Mills (1980) the Court added that limited amending power and the balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles are themselves part of the basic structure.

हा संघर्ष मालमत्तेच्या हक्कात स्पष्ट दिसतो. सुरुवातीला मालमत्ता 19(1)(f) आणि 31 खाली मूलभूत हक्क होती. जमीनदारी निर्मूलन आणि जमीन वाटपाचे कायदे न्यायालयांनी रद्द केल्यामुळे, 1951 च्या पहिल्या दुरुस्तीने 31A आणि 31B आणले — नववी अनुसूची मध्ये टाकलेल्या कायद्यांना मूलभूत हक्कांच्या नावाखाली आव्हान देता येत नाही (एक प्रकारचे 'संरक्षक कवच'). 1971 मध्ये 25 व्या दुरुस्तीने 31C आणले. 1978 मध्ये 44 व्या दुरुस्तीने मालमत्ता भाग III मधून पूर्णपणे काढली; आता तो अनुच्छेद 300A खालील कायदेशीर हक्क आहे — 32 खाली सर्वोच्च न्यायालयात जाता येत नाही. 2007 च्या आय.आर. कोएल्हो प्रकरणात, 24 एप्रिल 1973 नंतर या अनुसूचीत टाकलेले कायदे मूलभूत संरचनेला धक्का लावत असतील तर रद्द करता येतात, असे ठरले. (→ English: Ninth Schedule · हिन्दी: नौवीं अनुसूची)

In exam EnglishThe right to property shows this struggle most clearly. The original Constitution protected property through Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31. When states passed laws to abolish zamindari and redistribute land, courts struck some of them down, so the First Amendment (1951) added Article 31A, saving laws for the acquisition of estates, and Article 31B with the Ninth Schedule: laws placed in that Schedule could not be challenged for violating Fundamental Rights. The 25th Amendment (1971) added Article 31C to protect laws giving effect to certain Directive Principles. Finally, the 44th Amendment (1978) removed property from Part III altogether. It is now a constitutional and legal right under Article 300A: no person shall be deprived of property save by authority of law. It cannot be enforced through Article 32. In I.R. Coelho (2007) a nine-judge bench held that laws added to the Ninth Schedule after 24 April 1973, the date of the Kesavananda judgment, can be struck down if they damage the basic structure.

मूलभूत हक्क आणि राज्य धोरणाची मार्गदर्शक तत्त्वे (भाग IV) शेजारी शेजारी पाहिली की नीट समजतात. हक्क न्यायालये अंमलात आणतात; मार्गदर्शक तत्त्वे न्यायालयात अंमलबजावणी न करता येणारी आहेत (अनुच्छेद 37) — पण शासनासाठी मूलभूत आहेत, कायदे करताना सरकारने ती पाळावी. हक्क सरकारला 'काय करू नये' ते सांगतात; तत्त्वे 'काय करावे' ते सांगतात — उपजीविका, समान वेतन, सार्वजनिक आरोग्य. सुरुवातीला, संघर्ष झाल्यास हक्कच वरचढ असे न्यायालयांनी सांगितले (1951). आता दोन्ही एकत्र वाचतात: दोघांमधील समतोल मूलभूत संरचनेचा भाग आहे असे मिनर्व्हा मिल्सने (1980) सांगितले; मोफत कायदेशीर मदत 21 मध्ये वाचणे हे त्याचे उदाहरण. (→ English: Directive Principles of State Policy · हिन्दी: राज्य की नीति के निदेशक तत्व)

In exam EnglishFundamental Rights and the Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV) are best understood side by side. Fundamental Rights are justiciable: a court will enforce them. Directive Principles are non-justiciable: Article 37 says no court can enforce them, though they are 'fundamental in the governance of the country' and the State must apply them in making laws. Most Fundamental Rights limit the State (do not discriminate, do not detain unlawfully), while most Directive Principles direct the State to act (secure livelihood, equal pay, public health). Early on, the courts held that Fundamental Rights prevail in a conflict (Champakam Dorairajan, 1951). Today the courts try to read the two together: Minerva Mills (1980) called the balance between them part of the basic structure, and courts often use Directive Principles to give content to rights, as in reading free legal aid into Article 21. The DPSP chapter covers Part IV in detail.

चारही भाग एकत्र पाहिले तर भाग III एका व्यवस्थेसारखा काम करतो: हक्कांची नावे सांगतो (14–30); प्रत्येक हक्कात वाजवी मर्यादा; न्यायालयांमार्फत उपाय (32, 226, प्राधिलेख); मूलभूत संरचनेचा सिद्धांत आणि आणीबाणीतही 20, 21 टिकून राहणे यांमुळे व्यवस्थेच्या पायाला संरक्षण. परीक्षेसाठी चार गोष्टी लक्षात ठेवा: 32 स्वतः मूलभूत हक्क आहे; 359 खाली 20 आणि 21 स्थगित करता येत नाहीत; 358 फक्त अनुच्छेद 19, आणि तेही फक्त युद्ध किंवा परकीय आक्रमणाच्या वेळी स्थगित करतो; मालमत्ता आता 300A खालील कायदेशीर हक्क आहे. हाच मूलभूत हक्क यांचा सारांश. (→ English: Fundamental Rights · हिन्दी: मूल अधिकार)

In exam EnglishPutting the four parts together, Part III works as a system. It names the rights (Articles 14 to 30), allows reasonable limits written into each right, gives a remedy through the courts (Articles 32 and 226 and the writs), and protects the core of the system from being dismantled, through the basic structure doctrine and the rule that Articles 20 and 21 survive even an emergency. For the exam, remember four points: Article 32 is itself a Fundamental Right; Articles 20 and 21 cannot be suspended under Article 359; Article 358 suspends only Article 19, and only for war or external aggression; and property is now a legal right under Article 300A, outside Part III.

Exam traps

Recap

Practice questions

Q1. Consider the following statements:
1. The right to move the Supreme Court under Article 32 is itself a Fundamental Right.
2. The writ jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226 is narrower in scope than that of the Supreme Court under Article 32.
3. Parliament may by law empower any other court to issue writs within its local limits.
Which of the statements given above are correct?

  1. 1 and 2 only
  2. 1 and 3 only
  3. 2 and 3 only
  4. 1, 2 and 3
Show answer

Answer: B. 1 and 3 only

Statements 1 and 3 are correct (Article 32(1) and 32(3)). Statement 2 is wrong: Article 226 is wider in scope, because High Courts can issue writs 'for any other purpose' as well as for Fundamental Rights.

Q2. Consider the following pairs of writs and their purposes:
1. Habeas corpus — to produce a detained person before the court
2. Mandamus — to command a public authority to perform its public duty
3. Certiorari — to stop a lower court from proceeding beyond its jurisdiction before it gives a decision
Which of the pairs given above is/are correctly matched?

  1. 1 only
  2. 1 and 2 only
  3. 2 and 3 only
  4. 1, 2 and 3
Show answer

Answer: B. 1 and 2 only

Pairs 1 and 2 are correct. Pair 3 describes prohibition, which is issued before a decision; certiorari quashes an order already passed.

Q3. Which one of the following writs can be issued against a private individual?

  1. Habeas corpus
  2. Mandamus
  3. Certiorari
  4. Prohibition
Show answer

Answer: A. Habeas corpus

Habeas corpus lies against anyone who detains a person unlawfully, including private individuals. Mandamus lies only against public authorities, and certiorari and prohibition against courts, tribunals and certain authorities, not private persons.

Q4. With reference to the writ of quo warranto, consider the following statements:
1. It can be issued only in respect of a substantive public office created by a statute or the Constitution.
2. Only the person whose right has been directly affected can seek it.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

  1. 1 only
  2. 2 only
  3. Both 1 and 2
  4. Neither 1 nor 2
Show answer

Answer: A. 1 only

Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is wrong: unlike most writs, quo warranto can be sought by any interested person, not only the aggrieved one.

Q5. During a national emergency, the enforcement of which of the following Fundamental Rights cannot be suspended under Article 359?

  1. Articles 14 and 19
  2. Articles 19 and 21
  3. Articles 20 and 21
  4. Articles 21 and 32
Show answer

Answer: C. Articles 20 and 21

Since the 44th Amendment (1978), Articles 20 and 21 cannot be suspended under Article 359. Article 19 is suspended automatically under Article 358 in a war or external-aggression emergency, and the enforcement of Articles 14 and 32 can be suspended by Presidential order.

Q6. Arrange the following Supreme Court judgments in chronological order:
1. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala
2. I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab
3. Minerva Mills v. Union of India
4. Shankari Prasad v. Union of India
Select the correct answer using the code below.

  1. 4-2-1-3
  2. 2-4-1-3
  3. 4-1-2-3
  4. 2-4-3-1
Show answer

Answer: A. 4-2-1-3

Shankari Prasad (1951), Golaknath (1967), Kesavananda Bharati (1973), Minerva Mills (1980).

Q7. Consider the following statements about the right to property today:
1. It is a constitutional and legal right under Article 300A.
2. A person deprived of property can directly approach the Supreme Court under Article 32.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

  1. 1 only
  2. 2 only
  3. Both 1 and 2
  4. Neither 1 nor 2
Show answer

Answer: A. 1 only

Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is wrong: since the 44th Amendment (1978), property is not a Fundamental Right, so Article 32 is not available; the remedy lies in the High Court under Article 226 or an ordinary suit.

Q8. Under Article 33, who can restrict or abrogate the Fundamental Rights of members of the armed forces?

  1. The President, by order
  2. Parliament, by law
  3. State legislatures, by law
  4. Both Parliament and the state legislatures
Show answer

Answer: B. Parliament, by law

Article 33 gives this power to Parliament by law, and Article 35 makes it Parliament's alone. The President cannot do it by order, and state legislatures have no such power.

← Part 3All partsQuick recap →

Study this in the Upscore app to keep notes, save it for revision, track your practice scores and follow a plan to the exam date. It's free.

Study this in the app →

Sources