Important Judgements MCQ Quiz - Objective Question with Answer for Important Judgements - Download Free PDF

The correct answer is Faheema Shirin v. State of Kerala.

Key Points

• The Kerala High Court in the case of Faheema Shirin v. State of Kerala recognised the right to internet access as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
• This judgement linked internet access to the right to privacy and education, emphasizing its importance in empowering individuals.
• The court held that restrictions on internet access disproportionately affect the fundamental rights of individuals, especially students.
• This case arose when a college hostel imposed restrictions on the use of mobile phones and internet by female students, which was challenged in court.
• The judgement highlighted that access to the internet is crucial for participation in modern education and enabling informed decision-making.

Additional Information

• Article 21 of the Constitution of India:
  • States that "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law."
  • It includes the right to privacy, right to education, and other facets of life essential for human dignity.
• Right to Privacy:
  • Recognized as a fundamental right in the landmark judgement of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017).
  • It protects individuals from unwarranted intrusion into their personal lives and data.
• Impact of Internet Access:
  • Internet access is essential for education, employment, and social inclusion in the digital age.
  • It is increasingly being considered a basic utility, akin to water and electricity.
• Women’s Rights in Education:
  • Ensuring equal access to educational resources, including internet facilities, is critical for gender equality.
  • Restrictions on internet usage disproportionately impact women’s ability to access information and opportunities.

The correct answer is Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India.

Key Points

• The landmark case Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) expanded the interpretation of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.
• The Supreme Court held that the procedure established by law under Article 21 must be "just, fair, and reasonable," thereby broadening the scope of fundamental rights.
• The case overturned the restrictive interpretation of Article 21 given in A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) and established the concept of the "Golden Triangle" of Articles 14, 19, and 21.
• The observation regarding the expansion of fundamental rights was made by the court to ensure that constitutional rights are upheld in a progressive and inclusive manner.
• This case is a landmark in Indian jurisprudence for establishing that fundamental rights must be liberally interpreted to enhance their scope rather than limiting them.

Additional Information

• Article 21 of the Indian Constitution:
  • States that "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law."
  • Initially interpreted narrowly, it was expanded in cases like Maneka Gandhi to include the right to live with dignity and other derivative rights.
• Golden Triangle Doctrine:
  • Refers to the harmonious interpretation of Articles 14 (Equality), 19 (Freedom), and 21 (Life and Liberty).
  • The doctrine ensures that laws and government actions cannot violate these interconnected rights.
• A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950):
  • In this case, the Supreme Court upheld a narrow interpretation of Article 21, focusing only on "procedure established by law."
  • It was later overturned by Maneka Gandhi, which emphasized substantive due process.
• Judicial Activism in Fundamental Rights:
  • Refers to the proactive role of the judiciary in interpreting laws to uphold and expand fundamental rights.
  • Cases like Kesavananda Bharati and Maneka Gandhi exemplify the judiciary's role in safeguarding constitutional values.
• Right to Travel Abroad:
  • The issue in Maneka Gandhi's case arose when her passport was impounded, leading to the Supreme Court's recognition of the right to travel abroad as part of personal liberty under Article 21.

The correct answer is 1973.

Key Points

• The Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala case was a landmark judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of India in 1973.
• The case centered on the question of whether the Parliament's power to amend the Constitution was unlimited or subject to certain inherent restrictions.
• The judgment established the Basic Structure Doctrine, which asserts that certain fundamental features of the Constitution cannot be altered by Parliament.
• The verdict was delivered by a 13-judge bench, making it the largest bench in the history of the Indian judiciary.
• The case was significant in defining the balance of power between the Parliament and the judiciary in India.

Additional Information

• Basic Structure Doctrine:
  • It was introduced by the Supreme Court in the Kesavananda Bharati case to protect the fundamental framework of the Constitution.
  • Key elements of the basic structure include the supremacy of the Constitution, separation of powers, and the secular character of the state.
• Background of the Case:
  • The case was filed by Kesavananda Bharati, the head of a religious mutt in Kerala, challenging the Kerala government’s land reform laws.
  • It evolved into a broader debate on the Parliament's constitutional amending power under Article 368.
• Significance of the Verdict:
  • The judgment curtailed Parliament's ability to amend the Constitution in a way that undermines its essential features.
  • It empowered the judiciary to review constitutional amendments and protect the "basic structure."
• Judicial Bench:
  • The 13-judge bench had a narrow 7:6 majority, showcasing the complexity and divisiveness of the case.
  • Chief Justice S.M. Sikri presided over the bench, which included other prominent judges like Justice H.R. Khanna and Justice A.N. Ray.
• Impact on Indian Democracy:
  • The judgment upheld the principle of constitutional supremacy and reinforced checks and balances in governance.
  • It laid the foundation for judicial review as a safeguard against potential misuse of parliamentary power.

The correct answer is Golak Nath v. State of Punjab.

Key Points

• The case of Golak Nath v. State of Punjab was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of India.
• The ruling was delivered in 1967.
• The judgment stated that the Parliament could not amend Part III of the Constitution to take away or abridge fundamental rights.
• This case led to a significant interpretation of Article 368 of the Constitution of India.
• The decision emphasized the sanctity of fundamental rights and their protection from parliamentary amendments.
• It was one of the pivotal moments in the development of constitutional law in India.
• The ruling was later overturned by the Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala case in 1973, which introduced the doctrine of the basic structure of the Constitution.

 Additional Information

• Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan
  • This case was decided in 1965.
  • The ruling upheld the validity of the Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964.
  • The Supreme Court affirmed that the Parliament had the power to amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights.
• Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala
  • Decided in 1973, this landmark case introduced the doctrine of the basic structure of the Constitution.
  • The ruling stated that while Parliament has wide powers to amend the Constitution, it cannot alter the basic structure.
• Shankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India
  • This case was decided in 1951.
  • The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the First Amendment Act, 1951, and ruled that Parliament had the power to amend the Constitution, including fundamental rights.

The correct answer is Rupa Ashok Hurra vs. Ashok Hurra and Ors..

Key Points

• The concept of curative petitions was introduced by the Supreme Court in the landmark case Rupa Ashok Hurra vs. Ashok Hurra and Ors.
• This legal mechanism was established in 2002 to provide a last resort for the correction of gross miscarriages of justice.
• Curative petitions can be filed after the dismissal of a review petition, allowing the judiciary to reconsider its final judgments under exceptional circumstances.
• The Supreme Court ruled that curative petitions must be rare and should only be entertained if there's a violation of principles of natural justice.
• A curative petition is scrutinized by the senior-most judges and must be accompanied by certification from a senior advocate attesting to its necessity.

Additional Information

• Curative Petition:
  • A curative petition is an extraordinary judicial remedy to correct gross miscarriage of justice.
  • It can be filed after a review petition is dismissed by the Supreme Court.
  • It must contain clear evidence that the principles of natural justice were violated.
• Review Petition:
  • A review petition allows a party to request the Supreme Court to re-examine its decision if there are factual or legal errors.
  • It must be filed within 30 days of the judgment or order.
  • The grounds for a review petition are limited and cannot be used to reargue the case.
• Principles of Natural Justice:
  • These principles ensure fairness in legal proceedings.
  • Key principles include the right to a fair hearing and the rule against bias.
  • Violations of these principles can be grounds for curative petitions.
• Supreme Court of India:
  • The apex judicial body in India, established in 1950.
  • It has the power to interpret the Constitution and adjudicate on fundamental rights.
  • It serves as the highest appellate court and has the authority to review its own judgments.

The correct answer is persons with disabilities.  

Key Points

•  State of Kerala Vs Leesamma Joseph:-
  • The Supreme Court of India in its judgment on 28 June 2021 in the case of "State of Kerala vs Leesamma Joseph" affirmed that persons with disabilities have a right to reservation in promotion under Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India, 1950.
  • While examining the constitutionality of Section 33 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, the Court noted that 'equality of opportunity' in matters of public employment includes provision of certain reservations in favour of persons with disabilities.
  • Furthermore, it held that Article 16(4) of the Constitution, empowering the State to make provisions for reservation in matters of promotion in favour of any backward class of citizens, also includes persons with disabilities within its scope, regardless of the nature of their establishments, whether they belong to the public sector or the private sector.

Additional Information

• Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPDA):
  • This is the principal legislation that protects the rights of individuals with disabilities in India.
  • It replaces and strengthens the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995.
  • The RPDA complies with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, to which India is a signatory.
  • The Act expands the list of recognized disabilities from 7 to 21, and mandates the central and state governments to take measures to ensure that persons with disabilities fully enjoy all human rights and fundamental freedoms.

The correct answer is Entry of women to Sabarimala.

Key Points

• Entry of women to Sabarimala:-
  • The Supreme Court on 28 September 2018 allowed entry of women of all ages into the Ayyappa temple at Sabarimala in Kerala.
  • The SC said banning entry of women to Kerala's Sabarimala temple is gender discrimination and the practice violates rights of Hindu women.
  • Justice Indu Malhotra penned a dissenting opinion Entry of women to Sabarimala. 
  • The court gave its verdict on a clutch of pleas challenging the ban on entry of women at Sabarimala in Kerala.

Additional Information

•  Doctrine of Basic Structure:-
  • It is a judicial principle developed by the Supreme Court of India in 1973.
  • This principle emerged in the Keshavananda Bharati judgment.
  • The Parliament of India is vested with the power of amending the Constitution (Article 368). But, the doctrine of basic structure restricts the powers of the Parliament.
  • According to this, the Supreme Court has the power to declare any law void if it is found to be unconstitutional.
  • Any amendment that tries to change the basic structure of the constitution is considered unconstitutional, though the term ';basic structure' is not mentioned in the constitution and has evolved over time.
  • This principle thus helps to protect and preserve the spirit of the constitution document.
• Preamble' of the Indian Constitution -
  • The Preamble to a Constitution embodies the fundamental values and the philosophy, on which the Constitution is based, and the aims and objectives, which the founding fathers of the Constitution enjoined the polity to strive to achieve.
  • The importance and utility of the Preamble have been pointed out in several decisions of the Supreme Court of India.

The correct answer is Champakam Dorairajan Case, 1951.

Key Points

• The Supreme Court of India ruled in the Champakam Dorairajan Case, 1951, that fundamental rights have supremacy over directive principles in case of any conflict between the two.
• This landmark judgment emphasized the importance of fundamental rights as enshrined in Part III of the Indian Constitution.
• The case involved the challenge against a communal Government Order of Madras that provided caste-based reservations in educational institutions.
• The Supreme Court held that such reservations violated the fundamental right to equality guaranteed under Article 15(1).
• Consequently, this ruling led to the First Amendment of the Constitution in 1951, allowing the state to make special provisions for socially and educationally backward classes.

Additional Information

• Fundamental Rights
  • Fundamental Rights are the basic human rights guaranteed to all citizens by the Constitution of India.
  • They are enshrined in Part III of the Constitution and include rights such as the right to equality, freedom of speech, and protection against exploitation.
  • These rights are enforceable by the courts, subject to specific restrictions.
• Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP)
  • DPSPs are guidelines for the framing of laws by the government, outlined in Part IV of the Indian Constitution.
  • They are not enforceable by any court but are considered fundamental in the governance of the country.
  • DPSPs aim to create social and economic conditions under which citizens can lead a good life.
• First Amendment of the Indian Constitution
  • It was enacted in 1951 to address judicial decisions and public criticism of certain provisions of the Constitution.
  • The amendment added Article 15(4) to allow the state to make special provisions for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.
  • It also added Articles 31A and 31B to protect laws providing for the acquisition of estates, etc., from being challenged on the ground that they contravened the fundamental rights.
• Article 15 of the Indian Constitution
  • It prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth.
  • Article 15(1) ensures that no citizen shall be discriminated against on these grounds in matters of access to public places.
  • Article 15(4) allows the state to make special provisions for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.

The correct answer is Golak Nath Case, 1967.

Key Points

• The Golak Nath Case (1967) was a landmark ruling by the Supreme Court of India.
• In this case, the Supreme Court held that the Parliament could not amend the Fundamental Rights enshrined in the Constitution.
• The judgment stated that Fundamental Rights are transcendental and immutable, thus, they cannot be abridged or taken away by any amendment of the Constitution.
• The decision in Golak Nath Case was later overruled by the Kesavananda Bharati Case in 1973, which introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine.

Additional Information

• Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973)
  • This case is known for the Basic Structure Doctrine which asserts that certain fundamental features of the Constitution cannot be altered by any amendment.
  • The judgment provided stability to the Constitution by ensuring its core values remain intact.
• Minerva Mills Case (1980)
  • This case reinforced the Basic Structure Doctrine and further strengthened judicial review.
  • The Supreme Court ruled that the power of judicial review is an essential feature of the Constitution.
• Indira Sawhney Case (1992)
  • This case is also known as the Mandal Commission Case, which addressed the issue of reservations in government jobs.
  • The Supreme Court upheld the 27% reservation for OBCs but excluded the creamy layer.
• Directive Principles of State Policy
  • These are guidelines for the framing of laws by the government, set out in Part IV of the Constitution.
  • They are non-justiciable in nature, meaning they are not legally enforceable by the courts for their violation.

The correct answer is Rupa Ashok Hurra vs. Ashok Hurra and Ors..

Key Points

• The concept of curative petitions was introduced by the Supreme Court in the landmark case Rupa Ashok Hurra vs. Ashok Hurra and Ors.
• This legal mechanism was established in 2002 to provide a last resort for the correction of gross miscarriages of justice.
• Curative petitions can be filed after the dismissal of a review petition, allowing the judiciary to reconsider its final judgments under exceptional circumstances.
• The Supreme Court ruled that curative petitions must be rare and should only be entertained if there's a violation of principles of natural justice.
• A curative petition is scrutinized by the senior-most judges and must be accompanied by certification from a senior advocate attesting to its necessity.

Additional Information

• Curative Petition:
  • A curative petition is an extraordinary judicial remedy to correct gross miscarriage of justice.
  • It can be filed after a review petition is dismissed by the Supreme Court.
  • It must contain clear evidence that the principles of natural justice were violated.
• Review Petition:
  • A review petition allows a party to request the Supreme Court to re-examine its decision if there are factual or legal errors.
  • It must be filed within 30 days of the judgment or order.
  • The grounds for a review petition are limited and cannot be used to reargue the case.
• Principles of Natural Justice:
  • These principles ensure fairness in legal proceedings.
  • Key principles include the right to a fair hearing and the rule against bias.
  • Violations of these principles can be grounds for curative petitions.
• Supreme Court of India:
  • The apex judicial body in India, established in 1950.
  • It has the power to interpret the Constitution and adjudicate on fundamental rights.
  • It serves as the highest appellate court and has the authority to review its own judgments.

The correct answer is Faheema Shirin v. State of Kerala.

Key Points

• The Kerala High Court in the case of Faheema Shirin v. State of Kerala recognised the right to internet access as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
• This judgement linked internet access to the right to privacy and education, emphasizing its importance in empowering individuals.
• The court held that restrictions on internet access disproportionately affect the fundamental rights of individuals, especially students.
• This case arose when a college hostel imposed restrictions on the use of mobile phones and internet by female students, which was challenged in court.
• The judgement highlighted that access to the internet is crucial for participation in modern education and enabling informed decision-making.

Additional Information

• Article 21 of the Constitution of India:
  • States that "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law."
  • It includes the right to privacy, right to education, and other facets of life essential for human dignity.
• Right to Privacy:
  • Recognized as a fundamental right in the landmark judgement of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017).
  • It protects individuals from unwarranted intrusion into their personal lives and data.
• Impact of Internet Access:
  • Internet access is essential for education, employment, and social inclusion in the digital age.
  • It is increasingly being considered a basic utility, akin to water and electricity.
• Women’s Rights in Education:
  • Ensuring equal access to educational resources, including internet facilities, is critical for gender equality.
  • Restrictions on internet usage disproportionately impact women’s ability to access information and opportunities.

The correct answer is Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India.

Key Points

• The landmark case Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) expanded the interpretation of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.
• The Supreme Court held that the procedure established by law under Article 21 must be "just, fair, and reasonable," thereby broadening the scope of fundamental rights.
• The case overturned the restrictive interpretation of Article 21 given in A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) and established the concept of the "Golden Triangle" of Articles 14, 19, and 21.
• The observation regarding the expansion of fundamental rights was made by the court to ensure that constitutional rights are upheld in a progressive and inclusive manner.
• This case is a landmark in Indian jurisprudence for establishing that fundamental rights must be liberally interpreted to enhance their scope rather than limiting them.

Additional Information

• Article 21 of the Indian Constitution:
  • States that "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law."
  • Initially interpreted narrowly, it was expanded in cases like Maneka Gandhi to include the right to live with dignity and other derivative rights.
• Golden Triangle Doctrine:
  • Refers to the harmonious interpretation of Articles 14 (Equality), 19 (Freedom), and 21 (Life and Liberty).
  • The doctrine ensures that laws and government actions cannot violate these interconnected rights.
• A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950):
  • In this case, the Supreme Court upheld a narrow interpretation of Article 21, focusing only on "procedure established by law."
  • It was later overturned by Maneka Gandhi, which emphasized substantive due process.
• Judicial Activism in Fundamental Rights:
  • Refers to the proactive role of the judiciary in interpreting laws to uphold and expand fundamental rights.
  • Cases like Kesavananda Bharati and Maneka Gandhi exemplify the judiciary's role in safeguarding constitutional values.
• Right to Travel Abroad:
  • The issue in Maneka Gandhi's case arose when her passport was impounded, leading to the Supreme Court's recognition of the right to travel abroad as part of personal liberty under Article 21.

The correct answer is 1973.

Key Points

• The Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala case was a landmark judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of India in 1973.
• The case centered on the question of whether the Parliament's power to amend the Constitution was unlimited or subject to certain inherent restrictions.
• The judgment established the Basic Structure Doctrine, which asserts that certain fundamental features of the Constitution cannot be altered by Parliament.
• The verdict was delivered by a 13-judge bench, making it the largest bench in the history of the Indian judiciary.
• The case was significant in defining the balance of power between the Parliament and the judiciary in India.

Additional Information

• Basic Structure Doctrine:
  • It was introduced by the Supreme Court in the Kesavananda Bharati case to protect the fundamental framework of the Constitution.
  • Key elements of the basic structure include the supremacy of the Constitution, separation of powers, and the secular character of the state.
• Background of the Case:
  • The case was filed by Kesavananda Bharati, the head of a religious mutt in Kerala, challenging the Kerala government’s land reform laws.
  • It evolved into a broader debate on the Parliament's constitutional amending power under Article 368.
• Significance of the Verdict:
  • The judgment curtailed Parliament's ability to amend the Constitution in a way that undermines its essential features.
  • It empowered the judiciary to review constitutional amendments and protect the "basic structure."
• Judicial Bench:
  • The 13-judge bench had a narrow 7:6 majority, showcasing the complexity and divisiveness of the case.
  • Chief Justice S.M. Sikri presided over the bench, which included other prominent judges like Justice H.R. Khanna and Justice A.N. Ray.
• Impact on Indian Democracy:
  • The judgment upheld the principle of constitutional supremacy and reinforced checks and balances in governance.
  • It laid the foundation for judicial review as a safeguard against potential misuse of parliamentary power.

The correct answer is Golak Nath v. State of Punjab.

Key Points

• The case of Golak Nath v. State of Punjab was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of India.
• The ruling was delivered in 1967.
• The judgment stated that the Parliament could not amend Part III of the Constitution to take away or abridge fundamental rights.
• This case led to a significant interpretation of Article 368 of the Constitution of India.
• The decision emphasized the sanctity of fundamental rights and their protection from parliamentary amendments.
• It was one of the pivotal moments in the development of constitutional law in India.
• The ruling was later overturned by the Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala case in 1973, which introduced the doctrine of the basic structure of the Constitution.

 Additional Information

• Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan
  • This case was decided in 1965.
  • The ruling upheld the validity of the Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964.
  • The Supreme Court affirmed that the Parliament had the power to amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights.
• Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala
  • Decided in 1973, this landmark case introduced the doctrine of the basic structure of the Constitution.
  • The ruling stated that while Parliament has wide powers to amend the Constitution, it cannot alter the basic structure.
• Shankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India
  • This case was decided in 1951.
  • The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the First Amendment Act, 1951, and ruled that Parliament had the power to amend the Constitution, including fundamental rights.

The correct answer is persons with disabilities.  

Key Points

•  State of Kerala Vs Leesamma Joseph:-
  • The Supreme Court of India in its judgment on 28 June 2021 in the case of "State of Kerala vs Leesamma Joseph" affirmed that persons with disabilities have a right to reservation in promotion under Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India, 1950.
  • While examining the constitutionality of Section 33 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, the Court noted that 'equality of opportunity' in matters of public employment includes provision of certain reservations in favour of persons with disabilities.
  • Furthermore, it held that Article 16(4) of the Constitution, empowering the State to make provisions for reservation in matters of promotion in favour of any backward class of citizens, also includes persons with disabilities within its scope, regardless of the nature of their establishments, whether they belong to the public sector or the private sector.

Additional Information

• Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPDA):
  • This is the principal legislation that protects the rights of individuals with disabilities in India.
  • It replaces and strengthens the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995.
  • The RPDA complies with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, to which India is a signatory.
  • The Act expands the list of recognized disabilities from 7 to 21, and mandates the central and state governments to take measures to ensure that persons with disabilities fully enjoy all human rights and fundamental freedoms.