Q1. Which of the following provisions of the Indian Constitution specifically declares that laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights are void?
- Article 13
- Article 32
- Article 226
- Article 245
Correct Option: 1. Article 13
Explanation: Article 13 declares that any law that is inconsistent with or derogates from the Fundamental Rights shall be void. This provision directly supports judicial review in India, allowing the judiciary to invalidate unconstitutional laws.
Q2. What is the key difference between judicial review in the U.S. and India?
- U.S. courts review only federal laws, while Indian courts review both federal and state laws.
- U.S. judicial review includes the “due process” clause, which has broader scope, whereas Indian judicial review is limited to the “procedure established by law”.
- Indian courts have no power of judicial review over state laws.
- U.S. judicial review is more focused on the executive, while Indian judicial review is focused on the legislature.
Correct Option: 2. U.S. judicial review includes the “due process” clause, which has broader scope, whereas Indian judicial review is limited to the “procedure established by law”.
Explanation: In the U.S., judicial review is broad due to the “due process of law” clause, allowing courts to declare laws void not only on substantive grounds but also on procedural grounds. In India, judicial review is more restricted, focusing primarily on whether a law is within the competence of the authority that enacted it.
Q3. Which of the following Articles allows the President to seek the opinion of the Supreme Court on any legal question?
- Article 136
- Article 32
- Article 143
- Article 245
Correct Option: 3. Article 143.
Explanation: Article 143 allows the President of India to seek the opinion of the Supreme Court on any question of law or fact, including pre-constitution legal matters. This provision ensures that the President can consult the judiciary on critical legal issues.
Q4. Which landmark case led the Supreme Court to declare that laws placed under the Ninth Schedule after April 24, 1973, can still be challenged on the grounds of violating Fundamental Rights or the ‘basic structure’ of the Constitution?
- Kesavananda Bharati case
- I.R. Coelho case
- Minerva Mills case
- Golaknath case
Correct Option: 2. I.R. Coelho case.
Explanation: In the I.R. Coelho case (2007), the Supreme Court ruled that laws added to the Ninth Schedule after April 24, 1973, could still be challenged on the grounds that they violate Fundamental Rights or the ‘basic structure’ of the Constitution, thus limiting their immunity from judicial review.
Q5. What was the effect of the Kesavananda Bharati case on judicial review?
- It strengthened judicial review by declaring it a part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
- It limited judicial review by making it subject to legislative amendments.
- It removed judicial review from the Indian Constitution.
- It allowed judicial review only in cases involving fundamental rights.
Correct Option: 1. It strengthened judicial review by declaring it a part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
Explanation: In the Kesavananda Bharati case, the Supreme Court held that judicial review is a basic feature of the Indian Constitution. This means that judicial review cannot be altered or removed, even by constitutional amendments, thus ensuring the judiciary’s role in maintaining the Constitution’s supremacy.