Fundamental Rights (Indian Polity and Governance) Part-II

Total Questions: 65

31. The Supreme Court of India has propounded the Doctrine of Basic Structure of the Constitution in which of the following cases? [U.P. Lower Sub. (Pre) 2013]

Correct Answer: (c) Keshavananda Bharati Vs. Kerala State
Solution:The doctrine of basic structure of the Constitution owes its evolution to the majority judgment of the Supreme Court in the landmark case, Keshvananda Bharati Vs. State of Kerala (1973), which was approved in Minerva Mills Vs. Union of India (1980) case.

The Kesavananda Bharati case upheld Parliament's power to amend the Constitution but limited it with the basic structure doctrine and reinforced judicial review. The Supreme Court's judgment was delivered with a 7:6 majority, highlighting key principles.

  • Parliament's Amending Power: The Court held that Parliament does have the authority to amend the Constitution but emphasized that this power is not absolute. It cannot alter or destroy the Constitution's basic structure.
  • Basic Structure Doctrine: The Basic Structure Doctrine asserts that certain principles, including the supremacy of the Constitution, rule of law, separation of powers, federalism, and fundamental rights, form the Constitution's core framework.
  • Judicial Review: The Court reaffirmed its right to review amendments made by Parliament. It stated that any amendment infringing upon the basic structure would be unconstitutional.
  • Constitutionality of Amendments: While upholding the validity of the 24th CAA, which clarified Parliament's amending power, it found parts of the 25th CAA unconstitutional for infringing upon judicial review..

32. Which one of the following cases outlined the basic- structure doctrine of the Indian Constitution ? [U.P.P.C.S. (Pre) (Re. Exam) 2015]

Correct Answer: (c) Keshavananda Bharati vis Kerala State
Solution:The doctrine of basic structure of the Constitution owes its evolution to the majority judgment of the Supreme Court in the landmark case, Keshvananda Bharati Vs. State of Kerala (1973), which was approved in Minerva Mills Vs. Union of India (1980) case.

The Kesavananda Bharati case upheld Parliament's power to amend the Constitution but limited it with the basic structure doctrine and reinforced judicial review. The Supreme Court's judgment was delivered with a 7:6 majority, highlighting key principles.

  • Parliament's Amending Power: The Court held that Parliament does have the authority to amend the Constitution but emphasized that this power is not absolute. It cannot alter or destroy the Constitution's basic structure.
  • Basic Structure Doctrine: The Basic Structure Doctrine asserts that certain principles, including the supremacy of the Constitution, rule of law, separation of powers, federalism, and fundamental rights, form the Constitution's core framework.
  • Judicial Review: The Court reaffirmed its right to review amendments made by Parliament. It stated that any amendment infringing upon the basic structure would be unconstitutional.
  • Constitutionality of Amendments: While upholding the validity of the 24th CAA, which clarified Parliament's amending power, it found parts of the 25th CAA unconstitutional for infringing upon judicial review..

33. Which of the following statement/s is/are incorrect? [U.P.R.O./A.R.O. (Pre) 2023]

A. Part III on Fundamental Rights of the Constitution is based upon Bill of Rights of the U.S.A.

B. "Right to Die" is a Fundamental Right under Article 21 of the Constitution.

C. Indian Constitution is a complete Federal Constitution.

D. Fundamental Rights can be removed under the Indian Constitution.

Correct Answer: (a) Only B, C and D
Solution:In Philosophical and conceptual sense, the fundamental rights of the Indian Constitution are similar to the Bill of Rights of the USA. Significantly, Right to Die is not the fundamental Right under Article 25 of the Constitution. Notably, the Indian Constitution is not a complete federal constitution but quasi federal. According to the law established by the apex court of India, F.R. can be amended but not removed because it comes under the basic structure of the Indian Constitution.

34. Select the correct chronological order of the following judgements dealing with Fundamental Rights: [R.A.S/R.T.S (Pre) 2018]

(A) Golaknath v/s State of Punjab

(B) Keshvananda Bharati v/s State of Kerala

(C) Minerva Mills v/s Union of India

(D) A.K Gopalan v/s State of Madras

Select the correct answer:

Correct Answer: (c) (D), (A), (B), (C)
Solution:A.K. Gopalan v/s State of Madras (1950)

Golaknath v/s State of Punjab (1967)

Keshvananda Bharati v/s State of Kerala (1973)

Minerva Mills v/s Union of India (1980).

35. What is the position of the Right to Property in India? [U.P.S.C. (Pre) 2021]

Correct Answer: (b) Legal right available to any person
Solution:Constitution, 44th Amendment Act: By 44th Amendment Act 1978 of the Constitution of India, a new article namely 300A was inserted and titled as Right to Property. It read as:
  • No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. This article provides restrictions on the State that it cannot take anybody's property without the force of law also interpreted can be deprived of the force of law.
  • The word 'law' here means a validly enacted law which is just, fair, and reasonable. Thus, making the right to property as a legal and constitutional right, but not a fundamental right.
    The right to property as a legal right (as distinct from the Fundamental Rights) has the following implications:
  • It can be regulated i.e., curtailed, abridged, or modified without constitutional amendment by an ordinary law of the Parliament.
  • It protects private property against executive action but not against legislative action.
  • In case of violation, the aggrieved person cannot directly move the Supreme Court under Article 32 (right to constitutional remedies including writs) for its enforcement. He can move the High Court under Article 226

36. Right of Property belongs to which category amongst the following? [Uttarakhand P.C.S. (Pre) 2021]

Correct Answer: (a) Legal Right
Solution:Constitution, 44th Amendment Act: By 44th Amendment Act 1978 of the Constitution of India, a new article namely 300A was inserted and titled as Right to Property. It read as:
  • No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. This article provides restrictions on the State that it cannot take anybody's property without the force of law also interpreted can be deprived of the force of law.
  • The word 'law' here means a validly enacted law which is just, fair, and reasonable. Thus, making the right to property as a legal and constitutional right, but not a fundamental right.
    The right to property as a legal right (as distinct from the Fundamental Rights) has the following implications:
  • It can be regulated i.e., curtailed, abridged, or modified without constitutional amendment by an ordinary law of the Parliament.
  • It protects private property against executive action but not against legislative action.
  • In case of violation, the aggrieved person cannot directly move the Supreme Court under Article 32 (right to constitutional remedies including writs) for its enforcement. He can move the High Court under Article 226

37. Right to Property is a - [U.P.P.C.S. (Pre) 1996]

Correct Answer: (d) Legal Right
Solution:Constitution, 44th Amendment Act: By 44th Amendment Act 1978 of the Constitution of India, a new article namely 300A was inserted and titled as Right to Property. It read as:
  • No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. This article provides restrictions on the State that it cannot take anybody's property without the force of law also interpreted can be deprived of the force of law.
  • The word 'law' here means a validly enacted law which is just, fair, and reasonable. Thus, making the right to property as a legal and constitutional right, but not a fundamental right.
    The right to property as a legal right (as distinct from the Fundamental Rights) has the following implications:
  • It can be regulated i.e., curtailed, abridged, or modified without constitutional amendment by an ordinary law of the Parliament.
  • It protects private property against executive action but not against legislative action.
  • In case of violation, the aggrieved person cannot directly move the Supreme Court under Article 32 (right to constitutional remedies including writs) for its enforcement. He can move the High Court under Article 226

38. Read the following statements and choose the correct option: [Chhattisgarh P.C.S. (Pre) 2020]

Statement 1: Right to property was deleted from the list of Fundamental Rights by the 44th Amendment Act, 1978.

Statement II: Right to property was made a legal right under Article 300-A in Part XII of the Constitution.

Correct Answer: (c) Statement i and Statement II both are true.
Solution:Constitution, 44th Amendment Act: By 44th Amendment Act 1978 of the Constitution of India, a new article namely 300A was inserted and titled as Right to Property. It read as:
  • No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. This article provides restrictions on the State that it cannot take anybody's property without the force of law also interpreted can be deprived of the force of law.
  • The word 'law' here means a validly enacted law which is just, fair, and reasonable. Thus, making the right to property as a legal and constitutional right, but not a fundamental right.
    The right to property as a legal right (as distinct from the Fundamental Rights) has the following implications:
  • It can be regulated i.e., curtailed, abridged, or modified without constitutional amendment by an ordinary law of the Parliament.
  • It protects private property against executive action but not against legislative action.
  • In case of violation, the aggrieved person cannot directly move the Supreme Court under Article 32 (right to constitutional remedies including writs) for its enforcement. He can move the High Court under Article 226

39. At present, right to property under the Constitution of India is a- [Uttarakhand P.C.S. (Pre) 2010, UPPCS. (Pre) 1992]

Correct Answer: (b) Legal Right
Solution:Constitution, 44th Amendment Act: By 44th Amendment Act 1978 of the Constitution of India, a new article namely 300A was inserted and titled as Right to Property. It read as:
  • No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. This article provides restrictions on the State that it cannot take anybody's property without the force of law also interpreted can be deprived of the force of law.
  • The word 'law' here means a validly enacted law which is just, fair, and reasonable. Thus, making the right to property as a legal and constitutional right, but not a fundamental right.
    The right to property as a legal right (as distinct from the Fundamental Rights) has the following implications:
  • It can be regulated i.e., curtailed, abridged, or modified without constitutional amendment by an ordinary law of the Parliament.
  • It protects private property against executive action but not against legislative action.
  • In case of violation, the aggrieved person cannot directly move the Supreme Court under Article 32 (right to constitutional remedies including writs) for its enforcement. He can move the High Court under Article 226

40. Consider the following statements- [U.P.S.C. (Pre) 2005]

1. Article 301 is related to Right to Property.

2. Right to Property is a legal right but not a Fundamental Right.

3. Article 300-A was inserted in Indian Constitution by 44th Amendment during the period of Congress Government.

Which of aforesaid statements is/are correct?

Correct Answer: (a) Only 2
Solution:Article 301 is related to freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse, and not to the right to property. The Right to property was a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(f), but by the 44 Amendment 1978, this Clause [19(1)(1)] has been omitted, and Article 300-A has been inserted, which provides that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. This amendment was done at the time of the Janta Party Government. After that amendment, the right to property became a legal right and ceased to be a fundamental right. Thus only statement 2 is correct.