Q1. Which article of the Indian Constitution allows a citizen to directly approach the Supreme Court for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights?
- Article 32
- Article 226
- Article 14
- Article 21
Correct Option: 1. Article 32
Explanation: Article 32 provides the Right to Constitutional Remedies, allowing citizens to approach the Supreme Court directly for enforcement of Fundamental Rights. It’s called the “heart and soul” of the Constitution by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar.
Q2. The Directive Principles of State Policy are:
- Justiciable and legally enforceable
- Not legally enforceable but fundamental in governance
- More important than Fundamental Rights
- Enforceable during an emergency only
Correct Option: 2. Not legally enforceable but fundamental in governance
Explanation: Directive Principles in Part IV are non-justiciable but guide the state in creating laws and policies. They reflect the idea of social and economic democracy.
Q3. The 42nd Amendment to the Indian Constitution added which of the following to the Preamble?
- Sovereign
- Republic
- Secular and Socialist
- Justice and Equality
Correct Option: 3. Secular and Socialist
Explanation: The 42nd Amendment Act of 1976 added the words “Secular” and “Socialist” to the Preamble to emphasize equality of religion and social equity.
Q4. Which of the following rights cannot be suspended during a National Emergency?
- Right to Education (Article 21A)
- Right to Freedom (Article 19)
- Right to Equality (Article 14)
- Rights under Articles 20 and 21
Correct Option: 4. Rights under Articles 20 and 21
Explanation: Even in an emergency, Articles 20 and 21 — which deal with protection in criminal offenses and the right to life and personal liberty — cannot be suspended.
Q5. The Supreme Court described the Indian Constitution as being based on a balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles in which case?
- Maneka Gandhi case (1978)
- Kesavananda Bharati case (1973)
- Golaknath case (1967)
- Minerva Mills case (1980)
Correct Option: 4. Minerva Mills case (1980)
Explanation: In the Minerva Mills case, the Supreme Court emphasized that Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles must exist in harmony and balance.