Q.13 Facts: A religious sect had the practice of offering prayers five times in a day-early morning, late morning, early afternoon, early evening and late evening. In their temple they used loudspeakers at the time of offering prayers which used to disturb the people who were residing in the nearby area. Several residents of the area were facing problems with the loud noise coming from the loudspeaker in the early hours of the day and late in the evening. A resident of that area filed a complaint before the District Administration against the pries of the temple. The priest justified the practice by invoking freedom of religious practice. The State passed a law restricting the use of loudspeakers during prayers offered early morning and late evenings. This law challenged as unconstitutional by the priest as unreasonable.
Principle: Every citizen has the freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion. State may pass a law restrict any unreasonable religious practice.
(a) The priest will fail as the State has passed the law to restrict an unreasonable religious practice.
(b) The priest will fail as the State has not restricted the religious practice but only restricted the method of such practice.
(c) The priest will succeed as by restricting the use of loudspeakers the freedom to practice religion is violated.
(d) The priest will succeed the right to practice religion is absolute and it cannot be restricted.
Solution (b): What is being restricted is the method of practicing religion and not the practice of religion itself. This restriction is in accordance with the principle as the practice of using loudspeakers was causing unreasonable interference to the residents of the locality.
Q.14 Facts: Father Jose Santiago was living in tribal areas of Madhya Pradesh for last 10 years. He came across several tribals who were living in abject poverty. He started preaching to them the tenest of Christianity and slowly the tribals started converting to Christianity. It was discovered that Father Santiago was offering the tribals inducements to get converted, for example, he would give cash and kind to a poor tribal to marry off his daughter, or will buy agricultural equipments for poor farmers who could not afford them. Government passed a law banning such conversations. Father Santiago challenged this law on the ground that he is being denied the right to propagate his religion.
Principle: Every person is entitled to freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice and propagate religion. Activities that are not an essential part of religion can be reasonably restricted.
Explanation: Right to propagate one’s religion includes the right to transmit or spread one’s religion by an exposition of its tenets but does not include a right to convert other people into one’s religion.
(a) Father Santiago shall succeed because he has the blessings of his lord Jesus Christ on his said and no one can defeat the one who has God on his side
(b) Father Santiago shall succeed because his right to propagate hisreligion is an necessary part of his religious freedom that are protected by the principle.
(c) Father Santiago shall fail because his right to propagate Christianity is only to the extent of transmitting its tenets and he as such cannot claim that he has a right to convert people into Christianity.
(c) Father Santiago shall succeed because he is helping poor tribals monetarily.
Solution (c): Freedom to propagate religion is protected but only to the extent of the freedom to be able to transmit one’s religious ideas without restriction to people. There is no intrinsic right to be able to convert people by any and all means within the ambit of freedom of religion.
Q.15 Facts: Tees Maar Khan was a Muslim priest. He was convinced that the only reason Allah has sent him to earth is to spread the word of Prophet Muhammad. He was convinced that the only true word was that of Islam and every other religion was a facade. He started preaching that all Muslims must slaughter everyone who does not believe in Islam as that is the only road to redemption. Government ordered the arrest of Mr. Khan which he challenged as violative of his fundamental freedom to profess and propagate his religion.
Principle: Every person is entitled to freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice and propagate religion. Activities that are not an essential part of religion can be reasonably restricted.
Explanation: Right to propagate one’s religion includes the right to transmit or spread one’s religion by an exposition of its tenets in such a way that religious harmony is maintained.
(a) Mr. Khan can succeed because the fundamental freedom to be able to freely express and spread one’s religion is protected by the principle
(b) Mr. Khan can succeed because it cannot be reasonably presumed that other muslims will actually take to arms by following his words.
(c) Mr. Khan will fail because the right to spread the word of one’s religion does not allow any person to spread hatred among person practicing different religions.
(d) Mr. Khan will fail because his words do not represent true works of Islam and he is not actually propagating Islam rather he is propagating violence.
Solution (c): One is allowed to spread the word of one’s religion and is allowed to convince other people by peaceful means. However, one is not allowed to spread religious hatred in exercise of the right to freely profess and/or propagate one’s religion.
Q.16 Facts: The AI Salami mosque was a very old mosque and it was widely believed Prophet Muhammad himself came to the mosque and preached from there and had cooked food for several people and fed them by his own holy hands. The Government was considering a project to extend the underground local railway network and in order for that to be done, land on which AI Salami mosque was situated was to be acquired, and the mosque demolished. A law was accordingly passed, which was challenged on the grounds of freedom of religion.
Principle: Every person is entitled to freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice and propagate religion. Activities that are not an essential part of religion can be reasonably restricted.
Explanation: Right to worship is an integral part of freedom to religion but right to worship at a particular place is not unless the place has a particular religious significance.
(a) Mosque can be demolished as the Government project of extending under ground railway network is more important as compared to a mere mosque.
(b) Mosque cannot be demolished as it is an old heritage building and the same are not allowed to be demolished.
(c) Mosque cannot be demolished as it has a particular religious significance as it is believed that Prophet Muhammad had himself come to the mosque in distant past.
(c) Mosque cannot be demolished as every muslim has the right to offer prayer(s) in AI Salami Mosque.
Solution (c): AI Salami Mosque is not just a mosque. It is the mosque where Muslims believe Prophet Muhammad had come to preach and help people. This religious belief is the basis of special significance that the mosque holds and therefore Muslims get a right to offer prayers at that mosque. It cannot therefore be demolished.
Q.17 Facts: Binny was a student of Saint Peters High School in Shimla studying in class 12th. Saint Peters High School was under the direct control of the District administration as 70% of the funding of the school was provided by the State Government and the District Administration was responsible for appointing Principal of the school who was in turn responsible for appointment of all teachers. Binny refused to sing prayers in the school assembly though he attended the assembly. Father Benson, the principle, cancelled the admission of Binny on the ground that his refusal of singing of prayers was a violation of school rules. Binny challenged his cancellation by way of a writ petition before the State High Court. Will Binny succeed?
Principle: No person attending any educational institution receiving aid out of State funds shall be required to take part in any religious instruction that may be imparted in such institution.
Explanation: State means State Government or any body directly in complete control of the State Government.
(a) Binny will fail because refusal to sing prayers in school assembly results in violation of school rules.
(b) Binny will fail because he refused to follow rules of the school that resulted in cancellation of his admission.
(c) Binny will succeed because Saint Peters High School is run by funds and in such a school imparting of religious instruction is not allowed.
(d) Binny will succeed because the school rules only say to pupils that attendance in the assembly is mandatory and not the singing of the prayers.
Solution (c): Clearly, this is a State run school. Singing of religious prayers amounts to religious instruction that is not allowed to be done in this school . Binny cannot be thrown out of the school for not following a rule that itself is against the principle.
Q.18 Facts: To curb the growing crime situation the State Government passed law that made it necessary that if one files a petition for enforcement of fundamental rights before the Supreme Court one must file a court fee of Rs. 2,00,000/- for every petition and without payment of this court fee no petition for enforcement of fundamental rights can be entertained. As a result several poor people, Aggrieved by arbitrary State action decided to challenge this law as unconstitutional as it imposed an unreasonable and restrictive burden on the right to get fundamental rights enforced through Supreme Court by way of a writ petition. What should be the decision?
Principle: In case fundamental right is violated the aggrieved person has the right to file a petition before the Supreme Court and the Court is empowered to issue a writ in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari for enforcement of such right.
Explanation: If a person’s fundamental rights are violated he may approach the Supreme Court in order to obtain an appropriate order to enforce his or her rights and right to approach the Supreme Court is itself a fundamental right.
(a) Ranbir shall fail because the State has not prohibited anyone from filing petitions before the Supreme Court, they have only provided for court fee to be paid as money is required to run the courts too.
(b) Ranbir shall fail because the restriction is neither unreasonable nor restrictive.
(c) Ranbir shall succeed because this law effectively prohibits the citizens who cannot afford to pay heavy court fee from approaching the Supreme Court and thereby restricting the exercise of the right to approach the Supreme Court.
(d) Ranbir shall succeed because no court fee can be imposed writ petitions as it is a fundamental right to file writ petitions before the Supreme Court.
Solution (c): It is not the case that no court fee can be imposed on writ petitions before the Supreme Court. Rather it is the case that the burden of court fee cannot be prohibitive or restrictive in such a way that it actually amounts to taking away of the right to file the case before the court at all. In these facts, hefty court fee actually retards the exercise of this fundamental right as it imposes an unreasonable financial obligation the failure of discharge of which effectively results in a violation of two fundamental rights-one the violation of which is alleged in the petition and two the right to file petition itself.
Q.19 Facts: A robbery took place in Panipat, Haryana and Ganpat was suspected of being the mastermind and executor of the robbery. Intelligence agencies informed that Ganpat is hiding in Lucknow and would be going to meet his girlfriend Sheela very soon. The location of the meeting was also intimated. The UP Police laid a trap and arrested Ganpat and after a week’s trial of Ganpat for a robbery committed in Panipat began before the Sessions Court of Lucknow and the same sentenced him to 20 years in prison. Ganpat of Lucknow had no jurisdiction to try him as the crime was allegedly committed in Haryana and prayed for quashing of the sentence. What should be the decision?
Principle: In case a fundamental right is violated the aggrieved person has the right to file a petition before the Supreme Court and the Court is empowered to issue a writ in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari for enforcement of such right.
Explanation: The writ of certiorari is for quashing an order or executive action of lower authorities or court that violates any fundamental right(s) or is otherwise illegal. Criminal jurisdiction is vested always with criminal courts where the crime has been committed.
(a) A court of law after examination of evidence has convicted Ganpat. His conviction is proper and legal and must be allowed to stand.
(b) After being convicted by a court of law in Lucknow which afforded him full opportunity to defend himself, Ganpat is now only trying to find legal technicalities to escape punishment.
(c) Ganpat shall fail because this objection was to be taken before the trial began. He willingly sat through the trial and now cannot object to the result.
(d) Ganpat shall succeed because only the criminal courts in Panipat, Haryana had jurisdiction to try him and Lucknow court’s decision is wrong because it had no power to punish Ganpat. Accordingly, the Supreme Court shall issue a certiorari to quash the sentence of the Lucknow court.
Solution (d): The crime was committed in Panipat, Haryana and therefore the courts of Panipat will have jurisdiction. Lucknow court’s order suffered from this basis infirmity and therefore will be quashed by ordering a certiorari.
Q.20 Facts: Jamal Harris is a resident of Nigeria who was arrested by Delhi Police as he did not possess legal papers to stay in India. It was that while he had his passport with him he had no visa or any equivalent document that would evidence the fact that he has been allowed to stay in India. The Illegal Immigrants Act provided that any such person who is arrested must be immediately handed over to the Indian Immigration Service that was empowered, amongst other things, to deport such people out of India. Instead the Delhi Police itself initiated deportation proceedings against Jamal. Jamal got in touch with his lawyer who filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court praying for a prohibition on the ground that Delhi Police had no power to deport Jamal. What should be the decision?
Principle: In case a fundamental right is violated the aggrieved person has the right to file a petition before the Supreme Court and the Court is empowered to issue a writ in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari for enforcement of such right.
Explanation: The writ of prohibition is for prohibiting executive action of lower authorities or courts that violates any fundamental right(s) or is otherwise illegal.
(a) Jamal will not succeed because he was found staying in India without valid legal documents and he is to be deported anyway so it is irrelevant which authority decides to deport him.
(b) Jamal will not succeed because he is not a citizen of India and as such he has no right to approach the Supreme Court.
(c) Jamal will succeed because the right to approach Supreme Court is available to all person irrespective of whether they are citizen or not.
(d) Jamal will succeed because for this right citizenship of India is not a mandatory requirement and the Delhi Police has no power to deport Jamal out of India, which is actually vested with the Indian Immigration Service.
Solution (d): For approaching the Supreme Court, one is not required be a citizen of India; it is sufficient if one is a person within the territory of India. For granting a writ of prohibition it is necessary that the authority against whom prohibition is to be granted must be acting outside the scope of its power which is clearly the case in these facts. Thus prohibition can be granted and Delhi Police can be stopped from deporting Jamal.
Q.21 Facts: President Bartlet received a report from the Governor of State of Taxas that the State Government might not be able to function in accordance with the Constitution. Subsequently, the President received some other sensitive reports on the issue that also concluded that the State Government is not in a position to work in accordance with the Constitution. Finally he got to know that the Governor of the State and the Chief Minister do not enjoy good relations and are in fact extremely bitter of each other. The President decided to impose emergency and dissolve the State Legislature and Government. Decide whether this imposition is in accordance with the principle.
Principle: If the President is satisfied on the basis of a report received by the Governor of a State or otherwise that a situation has arisen in which the government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution, the same may proclaim emergency and assume all legislative and executive powers of the State Government.
Explanation: If the President is satisfied, with or without a report by the Governor of a given State that in such State, Government cannot function in accordance with the Constitution, he may dismiss the State Legislative Assembly and the State Government and assume all such power himself. The President must have some material to entertain the belief that State Government cannot function in accordance with the Constitution. It is not permissible to go into correctness or adequacy of the material.
(a) The imposition wrong because the President clearly knew that Governor has a personal bias in recommending to the President to dismiss the Government of the Chief Minister with whom he does not enjoy good relations.
(b) The imposition is wrong because there was not enough material to entertain the belief that State Government cannot be run in accordance with the Constitution.
(c) The imposition is correct because there was enough relevant material with the President to satisfy himself of the situation of the State.
(d) The President should have invited the Governor and the Chief Minister to his house for drinks and should have tried to solve the problem with dialogue.
Solution (c): As long as the President has some relevant material with him it cannot be concluded that his belief was based on nothing. Correctness or adequacy of material cannot be called into question; thus the only deciding criterion is presence of some relevant material which is clearly the case here.
Q.22 Principle: In order to declare President’s Rule in a particular State, the President of India shall seek a report from the Governor, and decide on the basis of such report. The Governor shall base this report on his analysis and judgement of the situation. The report of the Governor is amenable to judicial review only if it is mala fide.
Facts: Following sporadic riots on a large scale in the state of Chaupatrashtra, the ruling party at the centre wanted to clamp President’s Rule in the State. However, the party which was in the Opposition at the centre vehemently opposed it. The same party was also the ruling party in the State of Chaupatrashtra. The Governor of Chaupatrashtra, in his report, stated that the situation looked difficult, but there was no urgent need for President’s Rule. Still, the Centre goes ahead, and President’s Rule is declared. The ruling party in Chaupatrashtra approached the Supreme Court against the imposition of President’s Rule, claiming it was based on irrelevant, wrong, and baseless factors, and contending that the imposition of President’s Rule should be quashed. It comes out during the hearing that the Governor, for the purpose of his report, had taken inputs from his very close sources who were occupying very sensitive positive positions in the administration, and also some newspaper editors who reported secretly and directly to him.
(a) The Governor’s report was totally bona fide, and anyway, the basis of such report cannot be challenged in a Court of law.
(b) The Governor’s report would be quashed held as ultra vires the Constitution.
(c) The Governor’s report would be quashed, since it was prepared with a dishonest intention.
(d) The imposition of President’s Rule would be quashed, since it was done out of purely political vendetta.
Solution (c): The very act of the Governor sounding out people in such positions, and having newspaper editors as ‘spies’ directly reporting to him provides sufficient proof of the very mala fides of his actions.
Q.23 Facts: Narain Raj came into power riding on the horse back of the popular opinion that we need widely change the structure of Government as provided in our Constitution. After being elected to Parliament with overwhelming majority Raj decided to change the Parliamentary system to Presidential system. Accordingly his Government decided to amend the Constitution and changed the Parliamentary system to Presidential system and vested all legislative power with the President and took the same away from the Parliament. This amendment was challenged before the Supreme Court by India Gandhi on the ground of being violative of basis structure. What should be the decision?
What should be the decision?
Principle: Parliament may amend any provision of the Constitution by way of addition, variation or repeal and its power to amend is absolute, except for the Basic Structure of the Constitution.
Explanation: Democratic set up is included in the Basic Structure of the Constitution.
(a) The amendment has been done by a democratically elected Parliament that represents the popular opinion of the people of India and the power of the power of the Parliament to amend is absolute.
(b) The amendment has been done by a popular elected Parliament in accordance with the will of the people therefore the amendment is valid.
(c) The amendment is invalid because Parliamentary set up of democracy as provided in Indian Constitution is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
(d) The amendment is invalid because the legislative power of the Parliament has been totally taken away and has been vested with the office of the President which is against the basic structure of the Constitution.
Solution (c): Democratic set up in Indian Constitution is of the Parliamentary sort and that is a part of the basic structure. It cannot be shifted to the Presidential sort by an amendment because our entire Constitution is designed on the Parliamentary system. Therefore the amendment of the Constitution that changes Parliamentary system to Presidential system is actually a drastic alteration in our democratic setup done in the garb of amendment which is not allowed as it infringes the basic structure of the Constitution.
Q.24 Facts: Sikandra Gandhi was elected to the Parliament from Ros Bartley constituency. She was the leader of the majority party in the Parliament and thus became the Prime Minister of India. Her election from Ros Bartley was challenged by her opponent Rack Norton on the ground that she had engaged in corrupt electoral policies. Accordingly her election was declared as illegal and was quashed. She amended the Constitution and inserted a new provision that said that once a person is elected as a MP such person’s election cannot be challenged in an court of law and gave this amendment a retrospective effect so as to nullify the court order. This amendment was challenged by Rack Norton in the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. What should be the decision?
Principle: Parliament may amend any provision of the Constitution by way of addition, variation or repeal and its power to amend is absolute, except for the Basic Structure of the Constitution.
Explanation: Judicial Review i.e. the power of the Constitutional Court to examine the validity of legislative and administrative action of the Legislatures and Governments is a part of basic structure.
(a) The amendment cannot challenged successfully as it is made by a Parliament that constitutes of elected representative of the people of India and thus represents the will of the people.
(b) The amendment can be challenged successfully as its real purpose is to over rule an unfavourable judgment of a court of law.
(c) The amendment cannot be challenged successfully as it is the courts have no power to quash elections as courts are not composed of elected representatives of the people of India.
(d) The amendment can be challenged successfully as it takes away the power of courts to review administrative action thereby taking away the power to judicial review which is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
Solution (d): Clearly the amendment’s actual purpose is to overrule an unfavourable judgment of the court but that itself does not make the amendment unconstitutional. What makes it unconstitutional is that it takes away the power of judicial review of the courts.
YOU CAN REGISTER FOR OUR CORRESPONDENCE COURSES HERE.
You can read more about English HERE
You can read more about Logical Reasoning HERE
You can read more of Current Affairs HERE
You can read more of Legal Reasoning HERE.
You can read more of General Knowledge HERE
