Q1. Which of the following is a major criticism of Fundamental Rights in India?
- They are subjected to too many restrictions
- They cannot be amended by Parliament
- They are unlimited and unchecked
- They provide too many economic rights
Correct Option: 1. They are subjected to too many restrictions
Explanation: Critics argue that Fundamental Rights come with excessive limitations, exceptions, and conditions, which dilute their effectiveness. They claim the Constitution gives with one hand and takes with the other.
Q2. Which important Fundamental Right was abolished in 1978?
- Right to Equality
- Right to Property
- Right to Freedom of Religion
- Right to Education
Correct Option: 2. Right to Property
Explanation: The 44th Amendment Act of 1978 removed Right to Property from Part III (Fundamental Rights), making it a legal right under Article 300-A in Part XII.
Q3. Preventive detention under Article 22 is criticized because it:
- Encourages illegal immigration
- Allows long-term detention without trial
- Reduces police power
- Prevents interstate travel
Correct Option: 2. Allows long-term detention without trial
Explanation: Preventive detention laws allow the State to detain individuals without formal charges or trial, which negates individual liberty and has been widely criticized as undemocratic.
Q4. Which Fundamental Rights cannot be suspended even during a National Emergency?
- Articles 14 and 19
- Articles 21 and 22
- Articles 20 and 21
- Articles 16 and 32
Correct Option: 3. Articles 20 and 21
Explanation: Only Articles 20 (Protection against conviction for offences) and 21 (Right to life and personal liberty) remain enforceable during emergencies, as per constitutional safeguards.
Q5. The phrase “Constitution made by the lawyers for the lawyers” refers to criticism based on:
- Complexity and vague language of Fundamental Rights
- Absence of economic rights
- Excessive focus on agriculture
- Lack of emergency provisions
Correct Option: 1. Complexity and vague language of Fundamental Rights
Explanation: Critics, including Sir Ivor Jennings, argued that the language of Fundamental Rights is too legalistic and complex, making it difficult for the common citizen to understand and claim them.