Q1. In which case did the Supreme Court first declare that Fundamental Rights prevail over Directive Principles in case of conflict?
- Golaknath Case (1967)
- Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973)
- Minerva Mills Case (1980)
- Champakam Dorairajan Case (1951)
Correct Option: 4. Champakam Dorairajan Case (1951).
Explanation: In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that if there is a conflict between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles, the Fundamental Rights will prevail. It held that DPSPs must remain subordinate to Fundamental Rights.
Q2. Which constitutional amendment first inserted Article 31C into the Constitution?
- 24th Amendment Act
- 25th Amendment Act
- 42nd Amendment Act
- 44th Amendment Act
Correct Option: 2. 25th Amendment Act.
Explanation: The 25th Amendment Act (1971) added Article 31C, protecting laws made to implement certain Directive Principles (Article 39(b) and (c)) from being challenged under Articles 14, 19, and 31.
Q3. What was the verdict of the Supreme Court in the Golaknath Case (1967) regarding the amendment of Fundamental Rights?
- Parliament can abridge Fundamental Rights
- Parliament cannot abridge or amend Fundamental Rights
- Fundamental Rights are subordinate to Directive Principles
- Parliament can override the Constitution
Correct Option: 2. Parliament cannot abridge or amend Fundamental Rights.
Explanation: In the Golaknath case, the Supreme Court ruled that Parliament had no power to amend Fundamental Rights, viewing them as sacrosanct and beyond the reach of Parliament.
Q4. Which amendment extended the protection of Article 31C to all Directive Principles, not just Article 39(b) and (c)?
- 44th Amendment Act
- 24th Amendment Act
- 25th Amendment Act
- 42nd Amendment Act
Correct Option: 4. 42nd Amendment Act.
Explanation: The 42nd Amendment Act (1976) extended Article 31C to cover all Directive Principles, giving them primacy over Articles 14, 19, and 31. However, this extension was later struck down in the Minerva Mills case.
Q5. In which case did the Supreme Court strike down the expanded scope of Article 31C as unconstitutional?
- Kesavananda Bharati Case
- Minerva Mills Case
- Golaknath Case
- Indira Gandhi Election Case
Correct Option: 2. Minerva Mills Case.
Explanation: In the Minerva Mills Case (1980), the Supreme Court invalidated the extended protection given to all Directive Principles under the 42nd Amendment, stating it disturbed the balance between Fundamental Rights and DPSPs, which is part of the basic structure.