Every UPSC Prelims question on this topic, 2016–2026, newest first. Tap an option to check yourself; the answer and explanation open below it.
Asked in 8 of 11 years · most in 2019 (4)
UPSC syllabus: “Indian Polity and Governance-Constitution, Political System, Panchayati Raj, Public Policy, Rights Issues, etc.” See the full syllabus →
A Writ of Prohibition is an order issued by the Supreme Court or High Courts to:
Answer & explanation▾
Answer: (c) the lower court prohibiting continuation of proceedings in a case.
The writ of prohibition is issued by a higher court, that is the Supreme Court or a High Court, to a lower court that has taken up a case going beyond its jurisdiction. Its effect is to stop that lower court from continuing the proceedings.
✓(c)A lower court that has considered a case beyond its jurisdiction is the target of this writ. The higher court orders it to stop the proceedings.
✗(a)A writ aimed at an office holder who is not doing his legal duty is mandamus, which orders him to act. Prohibition is not addressed to an officer.
✗(d)This writ is not aimed at the Government or at a legislature, as in options (d) and (b). It is directed at a lower court acting beyond its jurisdiction.
Remember · Prohibition: a higher court stops a lower court that has taken up a case beyond its jurisdiction. Mandamus is issued when an office holder neglects a legal duty.
Question and answer: UPSC's official GS Paper I (2024, Series A) —
paper ↗ · answer key ↗.
Explanation: Minimalist IAS, checked 30 Sept 2026 (how we verify). Permalink ·
'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).
Supreme Court of India, Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) ↗“Natural justice is a great humanising principle intended to invest law with … The procedure established by law does not mean procedure, however, fantastic and oppressive or arbitrary which in truth and reality is no procedure at all.”
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 ·
Statement-I:The Supreme Court of India has held in some judgements that the reservation policies made under Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India would be limited by Article 335 for maintenance of efficiency of administration.
Statement-II:Article 335 of the Constitution of India defines the term ‘efficiency of administration’.
Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above statements?
Answer & explanation▾
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-IThe 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-IIArticle 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.
Sources
Constitution of India, Article 335 (Legislative Department) ↗“shall be taken into consideration, consistently with the maintenance of efficiency of administration, in the making of appointments to services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State”
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 ·
1.Pursuant to the report of H.N. Sanyal Committee, the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was passed.
2.The Constitution of India empowers the Supreme Court and the High Courts to punish for contempt of themselves.
3.The Constitution of India defines Civil Contempt and Criminal Contempt.
4.In India, the Parliament is vested with the powers to make laws on Contempt of Court.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Answer & explanation▾
Answer: (b) 1, 2 and 4
The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was enacted on the Sanyal Committee's 1963 report, under Parliament's power in Entry 77 of List I and Entry 14 of List III. Articles 129 and 215 give the Supreme Court and High Courts power to punish contempt of themselves, but the definitions of civil and criminal contempt are in Section 2 of the Act, not the Constitution.
✓1.A committee under H.N. Sanyal, then Additional Solicitor General, was set up in 1961 and reported in 1963; the 1971 Act was enacted to give effect to its recommendations.
✓2.Article 129 (Supreme Court) and Article 215 (High Courts) make them courts of record with the power to punish for contempt of themselves.
✗3.The Constitution does not define the two kinds of contempt. Section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 defines 'civil contempt' and 'criminal contempt'.
✓4.Entry 77 of the Union List (contempt of the Supreme Court) and Entry 14 of the Concurrent List (contempt of other courts) let Parliament legislate on contempt; the 1971 Act is such a law.
Remember · Contempt: power from Articles 129 and 215 (courts of record); definitions from the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (Sanyal Committee, 1963); legislative entries — List I Entry 77, List III Entry 14.
Sources
Law Commission of India, Report No. 274 — Review of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (2018) ↗“The Act 1971 was enacted to give effect to the recommendations contained in Sanyal Committee report of 1963. … The Constitution of India designates the Supreme Court and the High Courts as the Courts of Record. It further grants the Supreme Court and every High Court the power to punish for contempt of itself. … The said Act 1971 inter alia categorises contempt under two heads i.e. ‘civil contempt’ and ‘criminal contempt’, providing thereunder specific definitions for both (Section 2). … can be regulated by legislation by appropriate legislature under Entry 77 of List I and Entry 14 of List III in exercise of which the Parliament has enacted the Act of 1971”
Question and answer: UPSC's official GS Paper I (2022, Series A) —
paper ↗ · answer key ↗.
Explanation: Minimalist IAS, checked 30 Sept 2026 (how we verify). Permalink ·
With reference to India, consider the following statements:
1.Government law officers and legal firms are recognised as advocates, but corporate lawyers and patent attorneys are excluded from recognition as advocates.
2.Bar Councils have the power to lay down the rules relating to legal education and recognition of law colleges.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Answer & explanation▾
Answer: (b) 2 only
Under the Advocates Act, 1961 an advocate is an individual enrolled on a State Bar Council's roll; a law firm is not an advocate, and corporate lawyers or patent attorneys are not excluded as a class. The Bar Council of India does have statutory functions over legal education and recognition of law degrees.
✗1.The Act's definition of advocate does not extend to law firms, partnerships or companies, so 'legal firms' are not recognised as advocates. Recognition turns on an individual's enrolment, not on whether one works for government, a company or in patent practice.
✓2.Section 7 of the Advocates Act gives the Bar Council of India legal-education functions, including recognising universities whose law degree qualifies a person for enrolment, and inspecting them for that purpose.
Remember · Advocates Act, 1961: advocates are enrolled individuals (firms are not); the Bar Council of India sets legal-education standards and recognises law degrees for enrolment.
Sources
Law Commission of India, Report No. 266 — The Advocates Act, 1961 (Regulation of Legal Profession), 2017 ↗“to recognize Universities whose degree in law shall be a qualification for enrolment as an advocate and for that purpose to visit and inspect Universities … a number of responses have highlighted the existence of faulty/unsatisfactory definitions such as the definition of advocate (which does not extend to the law firms, partnerships, body corporate etc.).”
Question and answer: UPSC's official GS Paper I (2022, Series A) —
paper ↗ · answer key ↗.
Explanation: Minimalist IAS, checked 30 Sept 2026 (how we verify). Permalink ·
With reference to the writs issued by the Courts in India, consider the following statements:
1.Mandamus will not lie against a private organisation unless it is entrusted with a public duty.
2.Mandamus will not lie against a Company even though it may be a Government Company.
3.Any public minded person can be a petitioner to move the Court to obtain the writ of Quo Warranto.
Which of the statements given above are correct?
Answer & explanation▾
Answer: (d) 1, 2 and 3
UPSC's official answer: (d) · the answer UPSC accepted, and the one that counts in the exam
Also defensible: (c)
Statements 1 and 3 are settled law: mandamus enforces a public or statutory duty, and quo warranto may be sought by any member of the public. The dispute is statement 2.
UPSC's (d) follows Praga Tools (1969), where the Supreme Court refused mandamus against a company 88 per cent owned by the Union and Andhra Pradesh governments, because 'the company being a non-statutory body and one incorporated under the Companies Act there was neither a statutory nor a public duty imposed on it'. Government ownership alone does not attract the writ.
But the same judgment adds that 'a mandamus would also lie against a company constituted by a statute for the purposes of fulfilling public responsibilities', and Article 226 lets a High Court issue writs 'to any person or authority'. A government company that carries a public duty is therefore not immune, so statement 2, written without any exception, is too absolute.
Read as the general rule it is correct, giving (d); read as an absolute statement it is wrong, giving (c).
UPSC's key is (d), following Praga Tools: a company does not become subject to mandamus merely because the government holds its shares. In the exam, read statement 2 as that general rule and keep the public-duty exception in statement 1, which gives (d).
Constitution of India, Article 226(1) (Legislative Department) ↗“every High Court shall have power, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs”
This box is Minimalist IAS's analysis, with its sources; it does not change UPSC's answer.
Mandamus commands the performance of a statutory or public duty, so it reaches a private body only when the law entrusts it with a public duty, and not a company registered under the Companies Act merely because the government owns it: in Praga Tools Corporation (1969) the Supreme Court refused mandamus against a company in which the Union and Andhra Pradesh governments held 88 per cent of the shares. Quo warranto tests a person's title to a public office, and any member of the public may seek it.
✓1.Mandamus is a command to do a thing that is in the nature of a public duty. The Supreme Court in Praga Tools said it can issue to companies or corporations to carry out duties placed on them by the statutes authorising their undertakings, so a private body is reached only when a statute entrusts it with a public duty.
✓2.In Praga Tools the company was a government company in substance (56 per cent Union and 32 per cent Andhra Pradesh shareholding), yet the Court held that, being a non-statutory body incorporated under the Companies Act, it bore no statutory or public duty enforceable by mandamus. Government ownership alone does not expose a company to the writ.
✓3.Quo warranto asks by what authority a person holds a public office. Because the aim is to stop usurpation of public office, the petitioner need not be personally affected — any public-minded person may apply.
Remember · Mandamus: enforces a statutory or public duty; not against a private body without one, nor against a company merely because the government owns it (Praga Tools, 1969). Quo warranto: challenges title to a public office; any public-minded person can file.
NCERT Class 11 · Indian Constitution at Work, Chapter 2“Mandamus: This writ is issued when the court finds that a particular office holder is not doing legal duty and thereby is infringing on the right of an individual.”
Supreme Court of India, Praga Tools Corporation v. C.A. Imanual (1969), headnote ↗“An order of mandamus is, in form, a command directed to a person, corporation or an inferior tribunal requiring him or them to do a particular thing therein specified which appertains to his or their office and is in the nature of a public duty. … In the present case the company being a non-statutory body and one incorporated under the Companies Act there was neither a statutory nor a public duty imposed on it by a statute”
We adopted parliamentary democracy based on the British model, but how does our model differ from that model?
1.As regards legislation, the British Parliament is supreme or sovereign but in India, the power of the Parliament to legislate is limited.
2.In India, matters related to the constitutionality of the Amendment of an Act of the Parliament are referred to the Constitution Bench by the Supreme Court.
Select the correct answer using the code given below.
Answer & explanation▾
Answer: (c) Both 1 and 2
Both statements are correct as UPSC frames them. The British Parliament is sovereign, but India's Parliament works within a written Constitution and can be checked by the courts. Also, cases on the meaning of the Constitution go to a Constitution Bench of at least five Supreme Court judges.
✓1.In the UK, Parliament is the supreme legal authority and the courts generally cannot overrule its laws. In India, the Constitution limits Parliament: it must respect Fundamental Rights, the division of powers between the Union and the States, and the basic structure, and the Supreme Court can strike down laws that breach them.
✓2.Article 145(3) requires at least five judges to decide any case involving a substantial question of law on the interpretation of the Constitution. So challenges to the constitutional validity of a law or an amendment are placed before a Constitution Bench. The statement's phrase 'Amendment of an Act' is loose, but the key treats it as correct.
Remember · UK: parliamentary sovereignty. India: constitutional supremacy, with judicial review, and Constitution Bench (five or more judges) for substantial questions on interpreting the Constitution (Article 145(3)).
UK Parliament, Parliamentary sovereignty ↗ · reference work“It makes Parliament the supreme legal authority in the UK, which can create or end any law. Generally, the courts cannot overrule its legislation”
Question and answer: UPSC's official GS Paper I (2021, Series A) —
paper ↗ · answer key ↗.
Explanation: Minimalist IAS, checked 30 Sept 2026 (how we verify). Permalink ·
With reference to India, consider the following statements:
1.Judicial custody means an accused is in the custody of the concerned magistrate and such accused is locked up in police station, not in jail.
2.During judicial custody, the police officer in charge of the case is not allowed to interrogate the suspect without the approval of the court.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Answer & explanation▾
Answer: (b) 2 only
Statement 1 is wrong because a person in judicial custody is kept in prison (jail) on the Magistrate's order, while a police-station lock-up is police custody. Statement 2 is the one UPSC treats as correct: a person in judicial custody is under the court's control, so the police need the court's approval to question him.
✗1.The law separates the two: detention is either in a police station under police custody, or in prison under judicial custody. Judicial custody is therefore not a lock-up in a police station.
✓2.Police custody is granted by the Magistrate only for a limited period. Once the accused is remanded to judicial custody, he is in prison under the court's control, and the MHA Model Prison Manual allows only police officers authorised by the Judge or Magistrate to interrogate an undertrial prisoner there.
•Since thenThe Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 167) has since been replaced by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, where the same remand rules appear in Section 187.
Remember · Police custody means the police station; judicial custody means prison under the Magistrate's order. Questioning in judicial custody needs the court's approval.
With reference to India, consider the following statements:
1.When a prisoner makes out a sufficient case, parole cannot be denied to such prisoner because it becomes a matter of his/her right.
2.State Governments have their own Prisoners Release on Parole Rules.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Answer & explanation▾
Answer: (b) 2 only
Parole and furlough rules are made by each State, not by the Centre, so statement 2 is correct. Statement 1 is wrong because these rules do not give a prisoner a legal right to be released; parole is a conditional, discretionary release.
✗1.The Ministry of Home Affairs' Model Prison Manual says release on parole is not an absolute right: an eligible prisoner has a legal right only as per the conditions laid down, and the concession can be cancelled. So parole cannot be claimed as of right merely on making out a case.
✓2.Each State frames its own rules: the MHA Model Prison Manual says the respective State Government or Union Territory may enact a local and special law or issue instructions on parole and furlough. An example is the Bombay Furlough and Parole Rules, made under Section 59 of the Prisons Act, 1894, which apply in Gujarat.
Remember · Parole is a conditional, discretionary release, not a right. Each State has its own parole rules, as prisons are a State subject.
Sources
Ministry of Home Affairs, Model Prison Manual 2016, Ch XIX (parole and furlough), para 19.06.4 ↗“Release on parole is not an absolute right, though, it is a legal right of every eligible prisoner as per the conditions laid down. This concession is subject to cancellation. … The respective State Government/ Union Territory may enact a local and special law or issue instructions providing for temporary release of prisoners on parole and furlough.”
Which one of the following in Indian polity is an essential feature that indicates that it is federal in character?
Answer & explanation▾
Answer: (a) The independence of judiciary is safeguarded.
An independent judiciary is an essential mark of a federation, because someone neutral must settle disputes between the Centre and the States over who holds which power. India has this: the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over Centre–State and inter-State disputes.
✓(a)Two levels of government need an umpire on the division of powers. Article 131 gives the Supreme Court exclusive original jurisdiction in disputes between the Government of India and States, or between States.
✗(b)Elected representatives from States sitting in the Union legislature also happens in unitary systems, where regions send members to the national legislature. It does not show a federal character.
✗(c)Regional-party members in the Union Cabinet arise from coalition politics, not from a constitutional feature of federalism.
✗(d)Fundamental Rights being enforceable in court protect individuals against the State. They are found in unitary democracies too, so they do not mark a federation.
Remember · Federal features: two levels of government, a written constitution, division of powers and an independent judiciary to resolve Centre–State disputes (Article 131).
Constitution of India, Article 131 ↗“Original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.—Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the Supreme Court shall, to the exclusion of any other court, have original jurisdiction in any dispute— (a) between the Government of India and one or more States”
Question and answer: UPSC's official GS Paper I (2021, Series A) —
paper ↗ · answer key ↗.
Explanation: Minimalist IAS, checked 30 Sept 2026 (how we verify). Permalink ·
With reference to Indian judiciary, consider the following statements:
1.Any retired judge of the Supreme Court of India can be called back to sit and act as a Supreme Court judge by the Chief Justice of India with prior permission of the President of India.
2.A High Court in India has the power to review its own judgement as the Supreme Court does.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Answer & explanation▾
Answer: (a) 1 only
Why not the tempting option · UPSC's key is (a). Statement 2 tempts because High Courts do review their own orders — under the Civil Procedure Code and, as courts of record, under an inherent power the Supreme Court recognised in Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab (1963). But that power is not 'as the Supreme Court does': the Supreme Court's review is an express, general constitutional power (Article 137), while a High Court's is statutory or inherent and narrower, and the criminal procedure code bars it from altering or reviewing a signed criminal judgment except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error. In the exam, 'as the Supreme Court does' invites a comparison of constitutional provisions, and the High Court has none.
Statement 1 is correct: under Article 128 the Chief Justice of India, with the President's previous consent, may request a retired Supreme Court judge to sit and act as a judge of the Court. Statement 2 is not: the Constitution confers an express, general power of review only on the Supreme Court (Article 137). A High Court reviews its own judgments only under statute (the Civil Procedure Code on the civil side) or its inherent powers as a court of record, and the criminal procedure code bars a court from altering or reviewing a signed judgment except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error — so its power is not 'as the Supreme Court does'.
✓1.Article 128 lets the Chief Justice of India, with the President's previous consent, request a person who has held office as a Supreme Court judge (or a qualified former High Court judge) to sit and act as a Supreme Court judge. The person cannot be forced to sit unless he consents.
✗2.Article 137 expressly gives the Supreme Court power to review any judgment or order it has made, in any kind of proceeding. No article gives a High Court such a power; Article 215 only makes it a court of record. A High Court's review is narrower and comes from elsewhere — Section 114 and Order 47 of the CPC in civil cases and its inherent power to correct grave errors — and in criminal cases the procedure code bars altering or reviewing a signed judgment except for clerical or arithmetical errors. So the High Court does not have the power 'as the Supreme Court does'.
Remember · Article 128: the CJI, with the President's previous consent, may request retired Supreme Court judges to sit as judges. Article 137 expressly gives review power to the Supreme Court; High Courts have no equivalent article — their review is statutory or inherent, and barred in criminal cases.
Sources
Constitution of India, Article 128 (Attendance of retired Judges at sittings of the Supreme Court) ↗“may at any time, with the previous consent of the President, request any person who has held the office of a Judge of the Supreme Court or of the Federal Court … Subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament or any rules made under article 145, the Supreme Court shall have power to review any judgment pronounced or order made by it. … Every High Court shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court including the power to punish for contempt of itself.”
In India, separation of judiciary from the executive is enjoined by
Answer & explanation▾
Answer: (b) a Directive Principle of State Policy
Article 50, in Part IV (Directive Principles of State Policy), asks the State to work towards keeping the judiciary apart from the executive in its public services. It is a directive to the State, not a Preamble ideal, a Schedule entry or a mere convention.
✓(b)Article 50 ('Separation of judiciary from executive') is one of the Directive Principles in Part IV of the Constitution.
✗(a)The Preamble speaks of justice, liberty, equality and fraternity; it does not mention separating the judiciary from the executive.
✗(d)The separation is not left to convention; the Constitution itself states it in Article 50, although, being a Directive Principle, it cannot be enforced in court.
Remember · Article 50, a Directive Principle in Part IV, enjoins separation of the judiciary from the executive; like other DPSPs it is not enforceable in court.
Constitution of India, Part IV, Article 50 ↗“50. Separation of judiciary from executive.—The State shall take steps to separate the judiciary from the executive in the public services of the State.”
Question and answer: UPSC's official GS Paper I (2020, Series A) —
paper ↗ · answer key ↗.
Explanation: Minimalist IAS, checked 30 Sept 2026 (how we verify). Permalink ·
In India, Legal Services Authorities provide free legal services to which of the following type of citizens?
1.Person with an annual income of less than ₹ 1,00,000
2.Transgender with an annual income of less than ₹ 2,00,000
3.Member of Other Backward Classes (OBC) with an annual income of less than ₹ 3,00,000
4.All Senior Citizens
Select the correct answer using the code given below:
Answer & explanation▾
Answer: (a) 1 and 2 only
Section 12 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 lists who gets free legal aid: SC/ST members, women, children, persons with disability, industrial workmen, persons in custody and people below an income ceiling set by the State. Low-income persons and transgender persons within the prescribed ceilings qualify; being OBC is not a category, and senior citizens qualify only as State rules allow.
✓1.Section 12 covers anyone whose annual income is below the ceiling the State prescribes; most States' ceilings are ₹1,00,000 or higher, so a person earning less than ₹1 lakh qualifies.
✓2.Delhi's legal aid rules give transgender persons a separate, higher income ceiling (NALSA now lists ₹4,00,000 for Delhi), so a transgender person earning under ₹2 lakh is eligible.
✗3.Section 12 names Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, not Other Backward Classes. An OBC person qualifies only through another category, such as the income ceiling, not because of being OBC.
✗4.NALSA says senior citizens' eligibility depends on each State's rules; Delhi, for example, gives it only below an income ceiling. So not all senior citizens qualify.
Remember · Free legal aid (Section 12, Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987): SC/ST, women, children, disabled, trafficking victims, industrial workmen, persons in custody, disaster victims, and persons below a State-set income ceiling.
Sources
National Legal Services Authority (NALSA), FAQs: who is entitled to free legal services under Section 12 ↗“A member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe (on producing a certificate in this regard); A victim of trafficking in human beings or begar as referred to in Article 23 of the Constitution of India 1950; A woman or a child … Senior citizens’ eligibility for free legal aid depends on the rules framed by the respective State Governments in this regard. … 34. Delhi General –Rs. 3,00,000, Senior citizen- Rs. 4,00,000, Transgender – Rs. 4,00,000”
Question and answer: UPSC's official GS Paper I (2020, Series A) —
paper ↗ · answer key ↗.
Explanation: Minimalist IAS, checked 30 Sept 2026 (how we verify). Permalink ·
1.The Constitution of India defines its 'basic structure' in terms of federalism, secularism, fundamental rights and democracy.
2.The Constitution of India provides for 'judicial review' to safeguard the citizens' liberties and to preserve the ideals on which the Constitution is based.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Answer & explanation▾
Answer: (d) Neither 1 nor 2
UPSC's official answer: (d) · the answer UPSC accepted, and the one that counts in the exam
Also defensible: (b)
Statement 1 is wrong on any reading: the Constitution nowhere defines a 'basic structure'; the doctrine is the Supreme Court's (Kesavananda Bharati, 1973).
Statement 2 puts 'judicial review' in quotes. The term does not occur in the Constitution ('The term judicial review is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution', NCERT), and UPSC's key reads 'provides for' as asking whether the text names it, so both statements fail and the answer is (d).
In substance, however, the Constitution does provide for judicial review: Article 13(2) makes any law that abridges a Fundamental Right void 'to the extent of the contravention', and Article 32(1) guarantees the right to move the Supreme Court to enforce those rights. NCERT says these provisions 'implicitly' give the Court the power of judicial review, and courts strike down laws under them to safeguard liberties, which is what statement 2 says.
Read for substance rather than for the term, statement 2 is correct and the answer is (b).
UPSC's key treats both statements as wrong because neither 'basic structure' nor 'judicial review' is a term the Constitution uses; read for substance, statement 2 holds and the answer is (b). In the exam, when a statement puts a term in quotes and says the Constitution 'defines' or 'provides for' it, UPSC is asking whether the term is in the text.
NCERT Class 11 Indian Constitution at Work, Ch 6 Judiciary ↗“the fact that India has a written constitution and the Supreme Court can strike down a law that goes against fundamental rights, implicitly gives the Supreme Court the power of judicial review”
Constitution of India, Article 13(2) (Legislative Department) ↗“The State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the rights conferred by this Part and any law made in contravention of this clause shall, to the extent of the contravention, be void.”
This box is Minimalist IAS's analysis, with its sources; it does not change UPSC's answer.
Neither term is written into the Constitution. The 'basic structure' doctrine was laid down by the Supreme Court in Kesavananda Bharati (1973), and the phrase 'judicial review' appears nowhere in the Constitution: the power is implied from the written Constitution and from provisions such as Articles 13 and 32, not provided for by name. Both statements, which put the terms in quotes, are therefore incorrect.
✗1.The Constitution does not mention or define a 'basic structure'. The Supreme Court created the doctrine in 1973, and features such as federalism and secularism have been identified case by case by the courts.
✗2.The term 'judicial review' is not used in the Constitution. Courts derive the power from the written Constitution and from provisions that make laws violating Fundamental Rights void; the statement treats it as something the Constitution expressly provides.
Remember · Basic structure: a judge-made doctrine (Kesavananda Bharati, 1973), not listed in the Constitution. 'Judicial review' is also not a term in the Constitution; the power is implied.
NCERT Class 11 · Indian Constitution at Work, Chapter 9“If you read the Constitution, you will not find any mention of the 'basic structure' of the Constitution. Nowhere does the Constitution say that such and such are part of the basic structure.”
NCERT Class 11 · Indian Constitution at Work, Chapter 6“The term judicial review is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution. However, the fact that India has a written constitution and the Supreme Court can strike down a law that goes against fundamental rights, implicitly gives the Supreme Court the power of judicial review.”
Answer: (d) a part of the Constitution but has no legal effect independently of other parts
In Kesavananda Bharati (1973) the Supreme Court held that the Preamble is a part of the Constitution. But it is non-justiciable: it neither grants nor limits powers on its own, and is used to interpret the other provisions, so it has no legal effect independently of them.
✓(d)The Preamble is part of the Constitution but cannot be enforced in a court by itself; its force comes through helping courts read ambiguous provisions.
✗(b)The 1960 Berubari opinion had said the Preamble was not part of the Constitution, but Kesavananda Bharati (1973) overruled that view.
✗(c)It does not carry the same force as operative articles: it cannot override specific provisions, and where the two conflict, the provisions prevail.
Remember · Preamble: part of the Constitution (Kesavananda Bharati, 1973), amendable without touching the basic structure, amended once (42nd Amendment, 1976), non-justiciable, an aid to interpretation.
Sources
Institute of Secretariat Training and Management (ISTM), Study material on the Constitution of India ↗“The Supreme Court in the Kesavananda Bharati Vs State of Kerala (1973) case overruled its earlier decision of 1960 and made it clear that it is a part of the Constitution … The Preamble is non-justiciable in nature, like the Directive Principles of State Policy, and cannot be enforced in a court of law. It can neither provide substantive power (definite and real power) to the three organs of the State, nor limit their powers”
Question and answer: UPSC's official GS Paper I (2020, Series A) —
paper ↗ · answer key ↗.
Explanation: Minimalist IAS, checked 30 Sept 2026 (how we verify). Permalink ·
1.The 44th Amendment to the Constitution of India introduced an Article placing the election of the Prime Minister beyond judicial review.
2.The Supreme Court of India struck down the 99th Amendment to the Constitution of India as being violative of the independence of judiciary.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Answer & explanation▾
Answer: (b) 2 only
Only statement 2 is correct. It was the 39th Amendment (1975) that inserted Article 329A to shield the Prime Minister's election from the courts, and the 44th Amendment (1978) removed it. The Supreme Court did strike down the 99th Amendment, which created the NJAC, in October 2015.
✗1.Article 329A, on elections of the Prime Minister and the Speaker, was inserted by the 39th Amendment in 1975. The 44th Amendment, passed after the Emergency, omitted it instead of introducing it.
✓2.In the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association case (16 October 2015), a five-judge Bench struck down the 99th Amendment and the NJAC scheme, holding that the Union Law Minister's place in the Commission and the 'eminent persons' clause breached judicial independence, part of the basic structure.
Remember · 39th Amendment (1975) inserted Article 329A for the Prime Minister's election; the 44th (1978) omitted it. The 99th Amendment (NJAC) was struck down on 16 October 2015.
Question and answer: UPSC's official GS Paper I (2019, Series A) —
paper ↗ · answer key ↗.
Explanation: Minimalist IAS, checked 30 Sept 2026 (how we verify). Permalink ·
1.The motion to impeach a Judge of the Supreme Court of India cannot be rejected by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha as per the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
2.The Constitution of India defines and gives details of what constitutes 'incapacity and proved misbehaviour' of the Judges of the Supreme Court of India.
3.The details of the process of impeachment of the Judges of the Supreme Court of India are given in the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
4.If the motion for the impeachment of a Judge is taken up for voting, the law requires the motion to be backed by each House of the Parliament and supported by a majority of total membership of that House and by not less than two-thirds of total members of that House present and voting.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Answer & explanation▾
Answer: (c) 3 and 4 only
Statements 3 and 4 are correct. Article 124(4) sets the voting rule for removing a Supreme Court Judge and leaves the procedure to a law of Parliament, which is the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. That Act lets the Speaker refuse to admit the motion, and the Constitution never defines 'misbehaviour'.
✗1.Under section 3 of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, the Speaker (or Chairman) may, after consulting such persons as he thinks fit, either admit the motion or refuse to admit it. So it can be rejected at that stage.
✗2.Article 124(4) speaks of 'proved misbehaviour or incapacity' but does not define either term. The Supreme Court has observed that 'misbehaviour' is advisedly not defined.
✓3.Article 124(5) lets Parliament regulate by law the presentation of the address and the investigation and proof of misbehaviour or incapacity. The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 does this, including the inquiry committee.
✓4.Article 124(4) requires an address by each House, supported by a majority of the total membership of that House and by at least two-thirds of the members present and voting.
Remember · A Supreme Court Judge is removed by a Presidential order on an address of both Houses (special majority in each); the process is in the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, and the Speaker may refuse to admit the motion.
Sources
Constitution of India, Article 124(4) and (5) ↗“supported by a majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of that House present and voting … Parliament may by law regulate the procedure for the presentation of an address and for the investigation and proof of the misbehaviour or incapacity of a Judge under clause (4).”
195th Report on the Judges (Inquiry) Bill, 2005, Law Commission of India ↗“the Speaker or the Chairman, as the case may be, may after consulting such persons, if any, as he thinks fit and after considering such materials, if any, as may be available to him, either admit the motion or refuse to admit the same. … observed that the word ‘misbehaviour’ is advisedly not defined. It is a vague and elastic word”
Question and answer: UPSC's official GS Paper I (2019, Series A) —
paper ↗ · answer key ↗.
Explanation: Minimalist IAS, checked 30 Sept 2026 (how we verify). Permalink ·
With reference to the Constitution of India, prohibitions or limitations or provisions contained in ordinary laws cannot act as prohibitions or limitations on the constitutional powers under Article 142. It could mean which one of the following?
Answer & explanation▾
Answer: (b) The Supreme Court of India is not constrained in the exercise of its powers by laws made by the Parliament.
Article 142 belongs to the Supreme Court: it lets the Court pass whatever order is necessary for 'complete justice' in a case before it. The statement therefore means the Supreme Court is not held back, in using this power, by the limits found in ordinary laws made by Parliament.
✓(b)Article 142(1) empowers the Supreme Court to make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it, a power drawn from the Constitution itself and not from Parliament's ordinary laws.
✗(a)Article 142 is about the Supreme Court's orders, not about decisions of the Election Commission of India.
✗(c)A Financial Emergency is a power of the President under Article 360 and has nothing to do with Article 142, which concerns the Supreme Court.
✗(d)State legislative powers are dealt with in Articles 245 to 255, not in Article 142.
Remember · Article 142: the Supreme Court may pass any order necessary for doing complete justice in a matter before it.
Constitution of India, Article 142(1) ↗“The Supreme Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it”
Question and answer: UPSC's official GS Paper I (2019, Series A) —
paper ↗ · answer key ↗.
Explanation: Minimalist IAS, checked 30 Sept 2026 (how we verify). Permalink ·
With reference to the Constitution of India, consider the following statements:
1.No High Court shall have the jurisdiction to declare any central law to be constitutionally invalid.
2.An amendment to the Constitution of India cannot be called into question by the Supreme Court of India.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Answer & explanation▾
Answer: (d) Neither 1 nor 2
Both statements are wrong. High Courts, like the Supreme Court, can examine any law and declare it unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court can strike down even a constitutional amendment if it violates the basic structure.
✗1.Judicial review is the power of the Supreme Court or the High Courts to test whether any law conforms to the Constitution. A High Court can therefore hold a central law invalid.
✗2.In the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) the Supreme Court held that even Parliament cannot violate the basic structure through an amendment. When the 42nd Amendment tried to assert parliamentary supremacy, the Court repeated its stand in Minerva Mills (1980).
Remember · Judicial review belongs to High Courts as well as the Supreme Court, and after Kesavananda Bharati (1973) the courts can strike down amendments that violate the basic structure.
NCERT Class 11 · Indian Constitution at Work, Chapter 6“In this case, the Court ruled that there is a basic structure of the Constitution and nobody—not even the Parliament (through amendment)—can violate the basic structure.”
NCERT Class 11 · Indian Constitution at Work, Chapter 9“When these failed, the 42nd amendment was made and parliamentary supremacy was asserted. But the Court again repeated its earlier stand in the Minerva Mills case (1980).”
Question and answer: UPSC's official GS Paper I (2019, Series A) —
paper ↗ · answer key ↗.
Explanation: Minimalist IAS, checked 30 Sept 2026 (how we verify). Permalink ·
1.The Parliament of India can place a particular law in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution of India.
2.The validity of a law placed in the Ninth Schedule cannot be examined by any court and no judgement can be made on it.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Answer & explanation▾
Answer: (a) 1 only
Parliament adds laws to the Ninth Schedule through constitutional amendments, and Article 31B shields them from challenge for violating Fundamental Rights. But the shield is not absolute: laws added on or after 24 April 1973 (the Kesavananda Bharati judgment) can be tested against the basic structure.
✓1.The Ninth Schedule was created by the First Amendment (1951), and Parliament has added many Acts to it by later constitutional amendments.
✗2.Following Waman Rao (1981) and I.R. Coelho (2007), courts can review a law inserted into the Ninth Schedule after 24 April 1973 if it damages the basic structure of the Constitution.
Remember · Ninth Schedule (Art. 31B, First Amendment 1951) protects listed laws from Part III challenges, but post-24 April 1973 additions remain open to basic-structure review (I.R. Coelho, 2007).
Question and answer: UPSC's official GS Paper I (2018, Series A) —
paper ↗ · answer key ↗.
Explanation: Minimalist IAS, checked 30 Sept 2026 (how we verify). Permalink ·
Which of the following are regarded as the main features of the "Rule of Law"?
1.Limitation of powers
2.Equality before law
3.People's responsibility to the Government
4.Liberty and civil rights
Select the correct answer using the code given below:
Answer & explanation▾
Answer: (c) 1, 2 and 4 only
Rule of law means that power is limited by law, that everyone stands equal before the law, and that people's rights are protected against arbitrary action. It does not make people responsible to the government, so 1, 2 and 4 are its features.
✓1.Rule of law means no one, including those in power, is above the law. This limits the powers of rulers and prevents misuse of power.
✓2.All individuals, rich or poor, are subject to the same law and get equal protection of the law.
✗3.The principle checks those who govern, and it is not about citizens owing responsibility to the government. Accountability runs from the government to the people.
✓4.No one can be punished except by procedure established by law, and everyone gets a fair chance to defend their rights against arbitrary action, so liberty and civil rights are protected.
Remember · Rule of law: no one above the law, equality before law, and protection of liberty and rights against arbitrary power.
Question and answer: UPSC's official GS Paper I (2018, Series A) —
paper ↗ · answer key ↗.
Explanation: Minimalist IAS, checked 30 Sept 2026 (how we verify). Permalink ·
Right to Privacy is protected as an intrinsic part of Right to Life and Personal Liberty. Which of the following in the Constitution of India correctly and appropriately imply the above statement?
Answer & explanation▾
Answer: (c) Article 21 and the freedoms guaranteed in Part III
In Justice K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (24 August 2017), a nine-judge Supreme Court bench held privacy to be a Fundamental Right. It flows from Article 21, which protects life and personal liberty, and from the freedoms in Part III taken together. Only option (c) names both.
✓(c)Article 21 says no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except by procedure established by law. In Puttaswamy the Court read privacy into this Article and into the wider Part III freedoms.
✗(a)Article 14 is equality before law, and the 42nd Amendment (1976) has no provision on privacy; neither is the source of the right.
✗(b)Article 17 abolishes untouchability, and Directive Principles in Part IV are not enforceable rights; privacy was held to be a Fundamental Right.
✗(d)Article 24 bars employment of children in factories and similar hazardous work; the 44th Amendment (1978) does not create the right to privacy.
Remember · Privacy is a Fundamental Right, grounded in Article 21 and the Part III freedoms (Puttaswamy, 2017, nine judges).
Question and answer: UPSC's official GS Paper I (2018, Series A) —
paper ↗ · answer key ↗.
Explanation: Minimalist IAS, checked 30 Sept 2026 (how we verify). Permalink ·
Answer: (a) the power of the Judiciary to pronounce upon the constitutionality of laws and executive orders.
Judicial review in India is the power of the Supreme Court and High Courts to test whether a law is consistent with the Constitution and to declare it void if it is not. The Constitution's own definition of "law" in Article 13 includes ordinances, orders, rules and notifications, so executive orders are covered too.
✓(a)This is the standard meaning of judicial review: the courts decide whether a law or an order having the force of law violates the Constitution. Article 13(3)(a) counts an ordinance, order, bye-law, rule, regulation or notification as "law".
✗(b)Courts test the constitutionality (legal validity) of a law, not whether it is a wise or good policy. Policy choices belong to Parliament and the State Legislatures.
✗(c)Review happens after a law is made, when someone challenges it. Courts do not vet Bills before the President gives assent.
✗(d)Looking again at its own earlier judgments is a separate power, the review jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 137. It is not what "judicial review" means.
Remember · Judicial review: courts strike down a law or order that violates the Constitution. It checks constitutionality, not the wisdom of policy.
Constitution of India (Ministry of Law and Justice), Article 13(3)(a) ↗““law” includes any Ordinance, order, bye-law, rule, regulation, notification, custom or usage having in the territory of India the force of law … the Supreme Court shall have power to review any judgment pronounced or order made by it”
Question and answer: UPSC's official GS Paper I (2017, Series A) —
paper ↗ · answer key ↗.
Explanation: Minimalist IAS, checked 30 Sept 2026 (how we verify). Permalink ·
With reference to the ‘Gram Nyayalaya Act’, which of the following statements is/are correct?
1.As per the Act, Gram Nyayalayas can hear only civil cases and not criminal cases.
2.The Act allows local social activists as mediators/reconciliators.
Select the correct answer using the code given below.
Answer & explanation▾
Answer: (b) 2 only
Under the Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008 the village courts hear both civil and criminal cases, so statement 1 is wrong. The Act does let village-level social workers act as conciliators, so statement 2 is correct.
✗1.Section 11 says a Gram Nyayalaya exercises both civil and criminal jurisdiction, in the manner and to the extent the Act provides.
✓2.Section 27 has the District Court prepare a panel of village-level social workers of integrity to serve as Conciliators, and the Gram Nyayalaya is to try to settle disputes by conciliation.
Remember · Gram Nyayalayas (Act of 2008) are village courts with both civil and criminal jurisdiction, and they use village-level social workers as conciliators.
Sources
Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008, Section 11 (India Code, archived copy) ↗“the Gram Nyayalaya shall exercise both civil and criminal jurisdiction in the manner and to the extent provided under this Act. … the District Court shall, in consultation with the District Magistrate, prepare a panel consisting of the names of social workers at the village level having integrity for appointment as Conciliators”
Question and answer: UPSC's official GS Paper I (2016, Series A) —
paper ↗ · answer key ↗.
Explanation: Minimalist IAS, checked 30 Sept 2026 (how we verify). Permalink ·