Constitution Law Part-3 interview questions for PCS-J

All the receipts in favor of the union are credited to this fund. All loans raised by the government and all money received in repayment of loans are credited to the fund. If the government wants to withdraw money from the consolidated fund the competent legislature passes appropriation Acts.

Article 267 of the constitution provides the provision about the contingency fund of India: The union and each state have another fund known as the contingency fund. If any expenditure has not been sanctioned by the legislature, then the money is withdrawn from the contingency fund.

Q. How many committees had been appointed by the constituent Assembly?

Ans. 21 committees

10 committees on Procedural affairs. 11 committees on substantive affairs.

Q. Who was the chairman of states committees of the Constituent Assembly?

Ans. Jawaharlal Nehru.

Q. What do you mean by the citizenship of a person?

Ans. Citizenship is the legal relationship between an individual and a federation.

Q. In which case it is said that secularism is one of the basic features of the Indian constitution?

Ans. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India AIR 1994 SC.

Q. What is justice?

Ans. Justice is a principle that controls the general distribution of rights.

Q. Who is called a stateless person?

Ans. A person who is not a citizen of any country is called a stateless person.

Q. What is Domicile?

Ans. Domicile is the relationship between man and territory.

Which article of the Indian constitution not be suspended during an emergency?

Ans. Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution.

Who is the guardian of fundamental rights?

Ans. Supreme Court of India.

Q. Can the “Doctrine of Waiver” be applied to fundamental rights?

Ans. No.

Q. How many numbers of judges gave a majority decision in the Keshavananda Bharti case?

Ans. 7 judges.

Q. Originally how many fundamental rights were conferred by the constitution of India?

Ans. 7 Fundamental Rights.

Q. In which article of the Indian constitution power of judicial review enshrined?

Ans. Art 13, 32, 226, 227 of the Constitution.

Q. Which article of the constitution relates to the doctrine of severability?

Ans. Article 13 of the Constitution.

Q. Whether Article 15 (4) of the Constitution of India is discretionary or mandatory?

Ans. Discretionary.

Q. What do you mean by creamy layer?

Ans. Persons of backward classes whose income exceeds the limit are called creamy layers.

Q. What is the reason for which the Asiad case is famous?

Ans. In this case, SC says that the right given by Article 17 can be enforced against private individuals, and it is the state’s duty to ensure that this right is not infringed.

Q. What is the difference between Procession and meeting?

Ans. The procession is a mobile assembly though the meeting is stationary.

Q. What do you mean by autrefois convict and autrefois acquit?

Ans. The plea of autrefois convict avers that the defendant has been previously convicted in respect of the same offense.

The plea of autrefois acquit is the plea that the accused has been acquitted on a charge for the same offence for which he is being prosecuted.

Q. How many days the hearing of the Keshavnanda case took place?

Ans. 76 working days.

Q. Do you know the Electoral College for the election of vice president?

Ans. Electoral College consists of the members of the Lok Sabha and The member of the Rajya Sabha

Q. Who is the first vice President of India? Ans. Dr.Sarvapalli Radhakrishnan.

Q. Whether impeachment proceeding lies for the removal of the vice president?

Ans. No.

Q. Whether the governor can be safeguarded under Article 311 of the constitution of India?

Ans. No, because he holds office at the pleasure of the president.

Q. Which is the lowest criminal court in India?

Ans. Court of sub-divisional Magistrate.

Q. Can, Churches, Mosques, and Temples be acquired by the state?

Ans. Yes, because such acquisition does not violate Art 25 and 26 [Ismail Faruqui v. Union of India 1994 6 SSC.]

Q. In which case of the Supreme Court of India it was decided that the right to fly tricolor is a fundamental right covered by Article 19(1)?

Ans. Union of India v. Naveen Jindal (2004) 2 SCC.

Q. Which case of the Supreme Court of India is also known as the Mandal Commission Case?

Ans. Indra Sawhney v. Union of India AIR 1993 SC 477

Q. What is the difference between Civil Contempt and Criminal Contempt?

Ans. When a person wilfully disobeys any judgment, decree, order, or possession of a court or breaches or fails to honor an undertaking given to a court, this is called Civil Contempt. Criminal Contempt consists of the publication of any matter, or doing an act that scandalizes or lowers the authority of a court or interferes with the due course of a judicial proceeding, etc.

Q. What do you mean by a court of record?

Ans. A court of record is a court expressly declared by law to be so. Article 129 of the constitution of India declares that SC is a Court of record.

Q. Do you feel that the judgment of the court of record is a conclusive piece of evidence?

Ans. Yes.

Q. Where do appeals lie?

a.From the order of a single judge of the High Court.

b.Death punishment is given by High Court?

Ans. a. In the double Bench of the said High Court.b. to the Supreme Court.

Q. Capital punishment is given by the High Court. When certificate from the said Court is necessary to appeal in Supreme Court?

Ans. Such appeal may lie without a certificate.

Q. What is the Basic Structure of the Constitution of India?

Ans: In the Kesavananda case Chief Justice Sikri, writing for the majority, indicated that the basic structure consists of the following:

The supremacy of the constitution.

A republican and democratic form of government.

The secular character of the Constitution.

Maintenance of the separation of powers.

The federal character of the Constitution.

Justices Shelat and Grover in their opinion added three features to the Chief Justice’s list:

The mandate to build a welfare state is contained in the Directive Principles of State Policy.

Maintenance of the unity and integrity of India.

The sovereignty of the country.

Q. What is the Doctrine of Eminent Domain?

Ans. It means to take property for public purpose without the owner’s consent, upon making just compensation (Kameshwar Singh vs. the State of Bihar) (AIR 1952 PAT. 91) Every state has inherent power and right to take and appropriate the private property.

Q. Is the Judiciary encroaching in the field of Executive?

Ans: What is called encroachment is Judicial Activism & Judicial Review.

In carrying out the judicial review, the Judiciary often undermines Executive power. Adverse decisions impact the legality of executive government conduct. The tension between the Legislature and the Judiciary inevitably arises as the result of courts invalidating legislation, The tension between the Judiciary and legislature is acceptable because it demonstrates that the courts are performing their role of ensuring that the actions of the Government of the day are being taken in accordance with the law. The tension is a consequence of maintaining the balance of power between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary judicial review involves a “vindication of the legality of the administrative decision-making process”. The Judiciary is perceived as performing a “watchdog” role – particularly by the Executive. Also called, bulwark, Senitel on quivie.

Q. Why do we need Constitution?

Ans: When a baby first steps or starts walking he needs coverage that can hold him from falling on the ground. Just like that when India got independence it was like a child who started walking, which required a framework containing the fundamental principles within which the country should be governed and to which people can adhere for the protection of their rights and to prevent anarchy and tyrants which could take over and people would lose our freedoms.

It was also a requirement to limit the powers of the different branches of government. If those limitations were not written down, there could be an abuse of powers and rights would be likely to be governed by party wills. Since the founders were trying to find a way to create a stable republican government, they were obliged to write it down to prevent the overrun of arbitrary powers and complete dominance, and it happened in the form of the Constitution of India.

Q. Give arguments regarding the Formation of Small states.

Ans: The creation of small states on the basis of administration may be considered necessary for the sake of faster growth, smooth administration, and quickest execution of policy framed by the government and also the best monitoring of the plan and policy executed at the ground level.

Against: Taking care of our room only in a house, will not make it a home, family members should live together, and we should not divide the home into rooms. It will promote regionalism. We should stand united and should not create a situation of interstate wars, border wars, river wars, etc.

Q. What are the Discretionary Powers of the President?

In general, the President of India accepts the advice of the Council of Ministers at the centre. But in some circumstances, he acts at his discretion. These circumstances or situations are:

(i)When no Political Party wins the required Majority in the Lok Sabha Election.

(ii)When the Government Loses the Support of the Majority in the Lok Sabha.

(iii)May not give Assent to a Bill.

(iv)President’s Will -If the President feels on the basis of the report of the Governor of a state or otherwise that there has taken place constitutional failure in that state, he can declare a state emergency in that state under Art. 356. But sometimes he does not accept the advice of the Council of Ministers at the centre to impose President’s Rule in a state if he feels that the report of the Governor of that state has not been based on objective facts.

Q. What is a Curative petition? On which ground it can be filed?

Ans The concept of a Curative petition was evolved by the Supreme Court of India in the matter of Rupa Ashok Hurra vs. Ashok Hurra and Anr. (2002) where the question was whether an aggrieved person is entitled to any relief against the final judgment/order of the Supreme Court, after the dismissal of a review petition. The Supreme Court in the said case held that in order to prevent abuse of its process and to cure gross miscarriage of justice, it may reconsider its judgments in the exercise of its inherent powers.

For this purpose, the Court has devised what has been termed as a “curative” petition. In the Curative petition, the petitioner is required to aver specifically that the grounds mentioned therein had been taken in the review petition filed earlier and that it was dismissed by circulation. This has to be certified by a senior advocate. The Curative petition is then circulated to the three senior-most judges and the judges who delivered the impugned judgment, if available. No time limit is given for filing a Curative petition

Q. What is National Judicial Appointment Commission?

Ans. National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) was a proposed body that would have been responsible for the appointment and transfer of judges to the higher judiciary in India. The Commission was established by amending the Constitution of India through the ninety-ninth constitution amendment vide the Constitution (Ninety-NinthAmendment) Act, 2014 passed by the Lok Sabha on 13 August 2014 and by the Rajya Sabha on 14 August 2014

Q. What is the status of the National Judicial Appointment Commission?

Ans. On 16 October 2015 the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of S.C Advocate on record Association vs. Union of India, by 4;1 Majority upheld the collegium system and struck down the NJAC as unconstitutional on the ground that the NJAC had the law minister and two eminent persons as members who could join hands to reject the proposals of the judiciary, the Chief Justice of India and two senior-most judges of the Supreme Court.

Justices J S Khehar, MB Lokur, Kurian Joseph, and Adarsh Kumar Goel had declared the 99th Amendment and NJAC Act unconstitutional while Justice Chelameswar upheld it.

Q. Why Constitution is called Act in reverse?

Ans. Because definition and enforcement are written at the end of the Constitution.

Q. In which Article of the Constitution, provision relating to All India Judicial Services has been mentioned?

Ans. Article 312.

Q. In which case Supreme Court held that the ‘Jat’ community is not entitled to the reservation?

Ans. Ram Singh vs. Union of India (2015).

Q. Where we have used the word welfare?

Ans. Article 38 of the Constitution.

Q. Which Constitution Amendment has recently amended fundamental rights?

Ans. 97th Constitution Amendment. In Article 19, in clause 1, subclause (c), after the words “or unions”, the words “or co-operative societies “has been inserted.

Q. What is the decision of Rajbala vs. the State of Haryana?

Ans. The case is related to the Right to vote and the Right to contest. In this case, Supreme Court held that imposing education qualifications for contesting the election, is not violative of the fundamental rights.

Q. Can Jat Community be given reservation as OBC in Constitution?

Ans. No. Supreme Court in the case of Ram Singh vs. Union of India overturned a government decision to grant reservations to the Jat community in nine states (by including them in the Central List of Backward Classes.Court after affirming that “backwardness” ought not to be judged relative to other groups, but on absolute parameters, observed that the inclusion of the politically organized classes (such as Jats) in the list of backward classes mainly, if not solely, on the basis that on same parameters other groups who have fared better have been so included cannot be affirmed.

Q. What are the recent amendments to the Constitution of India?

The Lok Sabha, on August 10, passed The Constitution (One Hundred and Twenty-Seventh Amendment) Bill, 2021 after a discussion that lasted nearly six hours.

The Bill that aims at restoring the powers of states to notify backward classes received Opposition’s support, in a rare display of unity after more than three weeks of constant protests in both Houses over the Pegasus Project report, farm laws, and price rise.

The Opposition parties decided to cooperate with the government in passing the Bill and suspended their protest till it was passed in the Lower House.

The Bill seeks to clarify “some provisions in the 102nd Constitutional Amendment Bill” to restore the power of the states and union territories to prepare their own list of socially and educationally backward classes (SEBC).

The Amendment Bill amends Articles 342 A (clauses 1 and 2) and will introduce a new clause – 342 A (3) specifically authorizing states to maintain their state list. There will be a consequential amendment in Articles 366(26c) and 338B (9).

The states will thus be able to directly notify SEBCs without having to refer to the National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC).

Q. Discuss the recent case laws interpreting the right to life under Article 21?

Article 21 of the Constitution of India states that “No person shall be deprived of his life or his personal liberty except according to a procedure established by law.” This right applies to every person and not just to citizens. The words “life” and “personal liberty” have been interpreted in a wide manner by the Supreme Court of India.

Therefore Article 21 itself is a code of rights that captures the heart and soul of the Constitution by prioritizing the freedoms of an individual and protecting them from the might of the State. The Indian constitution has a unique balance between fundamental duties in India and rights.

“Article 21 lies at the soul of the constitution of India. If any individual, including an individual not being a citizen, is aggrieved by the action of the State brought about by law under Article 13, and such action leads to a violation of the right to life and liberty of such an individual, then a writ petition can be filed under Art 32 to the Supreme court or under Art 226 to the High Court.

Procedure Established by Law to due process

In its expansive meaning, the words “procedure established by law” has also been interpreted in a manner to protect the life, liberty, and dignity of an individual. The expansive reading of Article 21 ushered in a new socio-economic wave of liberty that focuses on education, livelihood, shelter, and the environment. The liberal interpretation of Article 21 also focuses on the protection of liberty against police excesses and State violence. This Code of rights includes the following fundamental rights that have been interpreted to be a part of “life” or “personal liberty”:

Right to live with dignity

In Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi AIR 1981 SCC 746, the Supreme Court recognized that “life” is more than just mere animal existence. The Supreme Court stated that,

“The right to live includes the right to live with human dignity and all that goes along with it, viz., the bare necessities of life such as adequate nutrition, clothing, and shelter over the head and facilities for reading writing, and expressing oneself in diverse forms, freely moving about and mixing and mingling with fellow human beings and must include the right to basic necessities the basic necessities of life and also the right to carry on functions and activities as constitute the bare minimum expression of the human self.”

This ratio has been followed in a number of cases. Moreover, the right to live with dignity has also been recognized in cases such as Bandhua Mukti Morcha v Union of India.

Right to Die with Dignity

The Supreme Court has recognized that the right to life under Article 21 includes the right to die with dignity. Therefore, the dignity of a person must be secured in life as well as in death. In a landmark judgment delivered in March 2018, the Supreme Court in Common Causes v. Union of India recognized the right of terminally ill persons to die with dignity by refusing prolonged medical treatment.

Right to Livelihood

It is the fundamental right of every citizen under Article 21 of this country to live with human dignity, free from exploitation, and practice any profession to support his livelihood. The magnitude and contents of the components of this right would depend upon the extent of the economic development of the country.

A 5-judge bench of the Supreme Court in Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation held that the right to life includes the right to livelihood. Thereby, the court recognized the rights of the pavement dwellers and the hawkers in Bombay. However, this does not mean that the State can be held accountable for not providing livelihood through affirmative action programs and policy. This recognition of the right to livelihood only bars the state from denying the right to livelihood to any individual without any procedure established by law.

Right to clean environment

As good as this right sounds, as citizens, we must provide at least basic shelter to those who are in need and ignored by the government because no human being must be deprived of food, shelter, or water.

On multiple occasions, the Supreme Court has recognized that the Right to a clean environment, sanitation, pollution-free air, and water are fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. In M.C Mehta v. Union of India[1987 SCR (1) 819] and Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India [1996 (5) SCC 647], the Court recognized the pollution caused to the water bodies because of tanneries. Further, in Subhas Kumar v. State of Bihar [AIR 1991 SC 420], the Court recognized that pollution-free air and water are essential for the enjoyment of the right to life.

Right to Social security and protection of family

Social security is usually a State-sanctioned policy that provides for a system that provides for the social welfare of those with inadequate means. This includes the economic empowerment of the poor, disadvantaged, and oppressed. It also includes sickness and disablement allowances provided to workers.

In Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation (India) v. Subhas Chandra Bose [1992 AIR 573], it was held that the means to achieve the right to life and liberty are also essential fundamental right under Article 21. According to the Court, ‘these means’ include the right to social security.

Death Sentence and the Rarest of Rare Doctrine

The constitutionality of the death penalty has been challenged multiple times. However, in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab[1980 (2) SCC 684], the Supreme Court settled the question by declaring that the death penalty is a necessary evil that does not violate the Constitution. It further held that the death penalty must be provided in the rarest of rare cases to restrict arbitrary use of the power to sentence convicts to death.

Right to Know or Be Informed

This right which is a subset of Article 21 was transformed into an act known as the ‘Right to Information Act, 2002’ allowing any citizen to request information from a public authority and bounding the governing authorities to reply within a stipulated time of 30 days.

In R.P Limited v. Indian Express Newspapers [1989 AIR 190], it was held by the Supreme Court that Article 21 is wide enough to accommodate the essential features of a democracy such as the right to know and the right to be informed.

Right against solitary confinement

Solitary confinement is a form of punishment where the prisoner is confined to living alone with no meaningful contact and is confined in a closed space, at times even cut off from sunlight. In this context, it is important to realize that Article 21 applies to all persons, including convicts. There is a restriction on the liberty of convicts, yet it is not wholly denuded.

In Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration [1980 AIR 1579], the petitioner had complained about being punished with solitary confinement since the day of his conviction by the Session Court. The Supreme Court held that Solitary confinement is violative of the convict’s right to life under Article 21 and that such kinds of punishments cannot be justified under the Prisoners Act.

Right against delayed execution

In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court in T. Vatheeswaram v. State of Tamil Nadu[1983 AIR 361] held that delayed execution of a death sentence is contrary to the idea of life under Article 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, if the execution is delayed 2 years after such a death sentence is finalized then such a sentence may be commuted. The cause of the delay is immaterial.

Right against Public Hanging

When the Rajasthan High Court ordered the execution of the death sentence at the stadium grounds of Jaipur, the Supreme Court stepped in, in Attorney General v. LachmaDevi(AIR 1988 SC 1785) to hold the order as violative of Article 21 by stating that “a barbaric crime should not be visited with a barbaric penalty.”

Right against telephone tapping

Section 5(2) of the Telegraphs Act, of 1885 allows for telephone tapping. However, in PUCL v. Union of India 1997 (1) SCC 288, the Supreme Court recognized procedural safeguards that are required for the exercise of Section 5(2) of the Act. It was held that the right to privacy is a part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 and therefore telephone tapping would violate Article 21 unless due regard and just process are not followed.

Right to privacy and subjecting a person to medical tests

In light of the past few incidents where the privacy of an individual was subject to debate by our members of the parliament, one must remember that it is one of the essential rights under personal liberty.

Thus, it is a part of Article 21 and it is a right to be free from restrictions or encroachments on his person whether they are imposed directly or indirectly. Though it is nowhere mentioned under the Constitution or under Article 21 or any other Article of Part IV of the Constitution, an unauthorized intrusion would amount to a violation of privacy.

In Sharda v. Dharmpal ((2003) 4 SCC 493: Sharda v. Dharmpal), it was ruled that a matrimonial court has the power to direct parties to divorce proceedings and can be compelled to undergo a medical examination. Such a direction is not violative of Article 21 as long as material exists to order such medical tests.

Right to go abroad

In Satwant Singh Sawhney v. Assistant Passport Officer, Delhi (1967 AIR 1836: Satwant Singh Sawhney v. Assistant Passport Officer, Delhi), the right to go abroad was, for the first time, recognized under Article 21 of the Constitution. The right to travel within the territory of India was distinguished from the right to go abroad. The latter was recognized as an important aspect of Article 21. However, this right to go abroad does not exist for all people and is not to be interpreted as a positive right. This judgment only ensures that a person qualified to travel abroad cannot be arbitrarily denied this right without any procedure of law.

Right against illegal detention

The cases of illegal detention mostly reach the corridor of courts when individuals being investigated are illegally confined or detained by police officers. In this regard, the Supreme Court in Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh(1994 AIR 1349: Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh) laid down the guidelines regarding the detention of persons. The Court recognized that illegal detention was an arbitrary denial of personal liberty by the State and was a gross violation of Article 21.

Right of Women to be Treated with Decency and Dignity

This right as a part of Article 21 reminds us of a famous dialogue: “‘Na’ sirf ek shabdnahi ek pooravaakyahai… iskokisi explanation ki zaruratnahihoti… when said by a girl.”And to uphold this right, the Supreme Court in the State of Maharashtra vs. Madukar Narayan Mandikar (1991) stated that every woman is entitled to privacy and no one can invade her privacy as and when one likes. The Act of Rape against women is definitely a violation of her fundamental rights especially a violation of her right to life with liberty as provided under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

Right to Decent Environment

This right under Article 21 of the Indian constitution covers a wide variety of rights not just for humans but also for wildlife, forests, lakes, ancient monuments, fauna-flora, unpolluted air, water, and maintenance of the ecological balance. This has been recognized by the Courts in numerous cases.

The Supreme Court has directed the Government to use only CNG vehicles as a form of public transport in Delhi and has banned the running of diesel buses in Delhi, in light of the deteriorating air quality in the Capital.

Right to Education

Every citizen has a right to free education under Article 21 until the minimum age of 14 years. Though we don’t get to see such rights being practiced as stated but then we must encourage those who are deprived of education, due to their economic capabilities, to study via government-aided schools and to entitle them of their right as provided under Article 21 and Article 21 A of the Indian constitution. However, the situation earlier, was that the Right to education was only a directive principle of state policy under Article 45. The Supreme Court insisted that DPSPs must be read along with fundamental rights and recognized the right to education as a fundamental right under Article 21 in Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka 1992(AIR 1858: Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka 1992).

Right to Speedy, Fair, and Open Trial

As good as it sounds, we all are aware of how speedy trials take place in India where dialogues like “tareekh pe tareekh” are used to mock the system. But when it comes to fair and open trials even an accused of rape or a terrorist like Kasab were given a chance to present their cases. This shows that Article 21 of the Indian Constitution is there not just for ordinary citizens but is also guaranteed to prisoners. In Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, the Supreme Court has emphasized that the right to a speedy trial, though not mentioned explicitly, “is implicit in the broad sweep and content of Article 21.”

Read more: Constitution Law Part 2