Q1. Which of the following correctly distinguishes “equality before law” and “equal protection of laws” as used in Article 14?
- Both are identical in meaning and application
- The former is a positive concept; the latter is a negative concept
- The former prohibits discrimination; the latter mandates equal treatment of equals
- Both terms only apply to Indian citizens
Correct Option: 3. The former prohibits discrimination; the latter mandates equal treatment of equals.
Explanation: “Equality before law” (British origin) is a negative concept, implying no special privileges. “Equal protection of laws” (U.S. origin) is a positive concept, requiring equal treatment of equals under similar circumstances.
Q2. Which of the following conditions must be met for a classification to be considered ‘reasonable’ under Article 14?
1.It should not be arbitrary, artificial or evasive
2. It must be based on intelligible differentia
3. The differentia must have a rational nexus with the objective
4. The classification must be based on economic status
- 1 and 2 only
- 1, 2 and 4 only
- 2 and 3 only
- 1, 2, 3 and 4
Correct Option: 2. 1, 2 and 4 only.
Explanation: Under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, “equality before law” and “equal protection of laws” do not prohibit all kinds of classifications. The Constitution allows reasonable classification as long as it satisfies two essential tests:
✅ 1. Intelligible Differentia
This means that the classification must be based on a clear and distinct distinguishing factor that separates those who are grouped together from those who are left out.
-The basis of differentiation must be logical and understandable, not vague or irrational.
-For example, giving reservation to Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) is based on the historical and social disadvantages they have faced — a real and intelligible differentia.
✅ 2. Rational Nexus to the Objective
There must be a direct connection (nexus) between the basis of classification and the objective or purpose the law aims to achieve.
-If a law classifies people in a certain way, that classification must help fulfill the goal the law is trying to achieve.
-For instance, providing free education to children from economically weaker sections has a rational nexus to the objective of promoting inclusive education.
❌ 3. Classification must be based on economic status
This is not a necessary condition for classification to be valid.
-Economic status can be a permissible criterion (like in EWS reservations), but it is not mandatory for all classifications.
-Article 14 permits classification based on various factors — social, educational, geographical, gender-based, etc. — as long as they meet tests 1 and 2.
✅ 4. Classification must not be arbitrary, artificial, or evasive
Even if a classification is based on differentia and has a nexus with the objective, it must not be arbitrary or artificial.
-This is to prevent abuse of legislative power under the guise of classification.
-Courts have repeatedly held that arbitrary classification violates the core spirit of equality under Article 14.
Q3. Which of the following is not immune under Article 361 of the Constitution?
- Criminal proceedings against the Governor during term of office
- Civil proceedings against the President in his personal capacity during term without notice
- Civil proceedings against the Vice-President for official acts during term
- Arrest or imprisonment of the President during his tenure
Correct Option: 3. Civil proceedings against the Vice-President for official acts during term.
Explanation: Article 361 provides constitutional immunity only to the President and Governors—not to the Vice-President, who does not enjoy any special immunity beyond general provisions.
Q4. In which case did the Supreme Court declare that the “Rule of Law” is part of the basic structure of the Constitution?
- Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
- I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007)
- Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992)
- Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
Correct Option: 1. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973).
Explanation: The Kesavananda Bharati case established the Basic Structure Doctrine, recognizing Rule of Law, equality, and judicial review as essential features of the Constitution.
Q5. Which of the following National Awards would result in forfeiture under Article 18 if used as a title before or after the name?
- Bharat Ratna
- Padma Vibhushan
- Both 1 and 2 if used as title
- None, as all National Awards are exempt
Correct Option: 3. Both 1 and 2 if used as title.
Explanation: While National Awards are valid, the Supreme Court (1996) ruled that they must not be used as titles (e.g., “Bharat Ratna Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam”). If so, the recipient may forfeit the award, as it violates Article 18.