Fundamental Rights, DPSP & Duties

Answer: (a) The principle of natural justice

'Due process of law', borrowed from the US Constitution, lets courts ask not only whether a law was properly made but whether the law itself is fair, just and reasonable. At its core it is the principle of natural justice: no one is condemned unheard and no one judges their own cause.

• ✓ (a) Due process asks whether a law and its procedure are fair, not only whether it was properly made. In Maneka Gandhi (1978) the Supreme Court held that the Article 21 procedure must be right, just and fair, and that natural justice, such as a fair hearing, is part of that fairness.
• ✗ (b) 'Procedure established by law' is the narrower phrase actually used in Article 21: it asks only whether a validly enacted law was followed, which is why the framers preferred it to due process.
• ✗ (d) Equality before law is a separate guarantee under Article 14, not the meaning of due process.

Remember · Article 21 says 'procedure established by law'; courts have read in 'due process' (fair, just, reasonable; natural justice) since Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978).

📘 Read it in NCERT: Class 11 Indian Constitution at Work, Ch 2 (practise this chapter)

Question and answer: UPSC's official GS Paper I (2023, Series A) — paper ↗ · answer key ↗. Explanation: Minimalist IAS, checked 30 Sept 2026 (how we verify). Permalink · Report an error

UPSC dropped this question from evaluation in its final answer key.

UPSC dropped this question from evaluation in its final answer key. The classic answer is the 1st Amendment (1951): its own Statement of Objects says difficulties had surfaced from court rulings on Fundamental Rights, and it added Articles 31A and 31B and the Ninth Schedule to protect land-reform laws.

• • (a) The Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951 was brought in because judicial decisions on Fundamental Rights, especially on free speech, trade and property, were blocking social and land-reform laws. It inserted Article 31B, which protects Acts in the Ninth Schedule from being struck down for violating Part III.
• • (b) The 42nd Amendment (1976) also asserted parliamentary supremacy after the Kesavananda Bharati ruling, but the Court repeated its stand in Minerva Mills (1980). This overlap may be why the question was contested.
• • (c) The 44th Amendment (1978) went the other way: it undid many changes made by the 38th, 39th and 42nd Amendments, and removed the right to property from the Fundamental Rights.

Remember · 1st Amendment (1951): a response to court rulings on Fundamental Rights; added Articles 31A, 31B and the Ninth Schedule.

📘 Read it in NCERT: Class 11 Indian Constitution at Work, Ch 9 (practise this chapter)

Question and answer: UPSC's official GS Paper I (2023, Series A) — paper ↗ · answer key ↗. Explanation: Minimalist IAS, checked 30 Sept 2026 (how we verify). Permalink · Report an error

Answer: (c) Statement-I is correct but Statement-II is incorrect

Statement-I is correct: the Supreme Court, notably in M. Nagaraj (2006), has treated Article 335 as a limit that reservation in services must respect. Statement-II is wrong because Article 335 only says SC and ST claims are considered consistently with the maintenance of efficiency of administration; it never defines that phrase.

• ✓ Statement-I The Court has held that the State must comply with Article 335 when providing reservation in public employment, in addition to showing backwardness and inadequacy of representation with data (M. Nagaraj, as restated in Jarnail Singh, 2022).
• ✗ Statement-II Article 335 uses the words 'efficiency of administration' without defining them. The Court has said there is no fixed yardstick for efficiency, which varies with the facts of each case.
• ✓ (c) Only Statement-I is right, so the option that accepts Statement-I and rejects Statement-II is the answer.

Remember · Article 335: SC/ST claims to services are considered consistently with efficiency of administration. The Constitution does not define 'efficiency'; the Supreme Court treats it as a fact-specific test.

Question and answer: UPSC's official GS Paper I (2023, Series A) — paper ↗ · answer key ↗. Explanation: Minimalist IAS, checked 30 Sept 2026 (how we verify). Permalink · Report an error

Answer: (b) Only two

Statements 1 and 2 are correct; statement 3 is wrong. The Constitution makes the Union protect every State from internal disturbance and denies a preventive detainee the right to a lawyer, while the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 allowed certain confessions made to a senior police officer to be used in court.

• ✓ 1. Article 355 says it is the duty of the Union to protect every State against external aggression and internal disturbance.
• ✓ 2. Article 22(1) gives an arrested person the right to consult and be defended by a lawyer, but Article 22(3)(b) says this does not apply to anyone arrested or detained under a preventive detention law.
• ✗ 3. Section 32 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 made a confession recorded by a police officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police admissible in trial under that Act, and required the officer to warn the person that it may be used against him. The Act was repealed in 2004.

Remember · Article 355: Union protects States from external aggression and internal disturbance. Article 22(3)(b): no right to a lawyer under preventive detention. POTA 2002 (repealed 2004) admitted confessions made to a police officer of SP rank or above.

Question and answer: UPSC's official GS Paper I (2023, Series A) — paper ↗ · answer key ↗. Explanation: Minimalist IAS, checked 30 Sept 2026 (how we verify). Permalink · Report an error