Articles of the Constitution

Which one of the following Articles of the Constitution of India is considered for prohibition of employment of children in factories ?

[amp_mcq option1=”Article 24″ option2=”Article 19″ option3=”Article 39A” option4=”Article 23″ correct=”option1″]

Article 24 of the Constitution of India is a Fundamental Right that prohibits the employment of children below the age of fourteen years in any factory or mine or engagement in any other hazardous employment. This Article directly addresses the issue of child labour in specific hazardous sectors.

Article 24 of the Indian Constitution prohibits the employment of children under 14 in factories, mines, and hazardous occupations.

Article 19 deals with the right to freedom. Article 39A is a Directive Principle about equal justice and free legal aid. Article 23 prohibits traffic in human beings and forced labour. While these articles touch upon related socio-economic issues, Article 24 is the specific provision focused on child labour in factories and similar places.

Right to Property has been provided under which one of the following Articles of the Constitution of India ?

[amp_mcq option1=”Article 19(1)(f)” option2=”Article 31″ option3=”Article 300A” option4=”Article 301″ correct=”option3″]

The Right to Property was originally a Fundamental Right under Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31 of the Constitution.

The 44th Amendment Act of 1978 repealed Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31, removing the Right to Property from the list of Fundamental Rights. It was subsequently made a legal right under Article 300A, which was inserted into Part XII of the Constitution. Article 300A states that “no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law.”

The change from a Fundamental Right to a legal right meant that the right could be regulated or restricted by ordinary law passed by the legislature, provided it was done by the authority of law, whereas previously it required a constitutional amendment or was subject to strict judicial review based on fundamental rights principles. Article 301 in Part XIII deals with freedom of trade, commerce, and intercourse within the territory of India.

Under which Clause of Article 16, inserted by the Constitutional (77th Amendment) Act, 1995, stating that “Nothing in this Article shall prevent the State from making any provisions for the reservation in matter of promotion [with consequential seniority] to any class or classes of posts in the services under the State in favour of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, which, in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the services under the State” ?

[amp_mcq option1=”Article 16(1)” option2=”Article 16(2)” option3=”Article 16(3)” option4=”Article 16(4-A)” correct=”option4″]

Article 16(4A) was inserted into the Constitution by the Constitutional (77th Amendment) Act, 1995. This clause states that “Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for reservation in matters of promotion to any class or classes of posts in the services under the State in favour of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes which, in the opinion of the State, are not adequately represented in the services under the State.” The phrase “[with consequential seniority]” was added to Article 16(4A) later by the Constitutional (85th Amendment) Act, 2001, with retrospective effect from June 17, 1995. However, the insertion of the clause itself (16(4A)) allowing for promotion reservation was done by the 77th Amendment. The question asks for the Clause inserted by the 77th Amendment, which is 16(4A).

Article 16(4A), enabling reservation in promotion for SC/ST, was inserted by the 77th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1995.

Prior to the 77th Amendment, the Supreme Court, in the Indra Sawhney case (1992), had held that reservation under Article 16(4) is only for initial appointments and not for promotions. The 77th Amendment was enacted to constitutionally permit reservation in promotions for SCs and STs. The issue of consequential seniority arising from such promotions was addressed by the 85th Amendment, modifying the language of Article 16(4A).

The rule of the law is the basic feature of the Constitution under which specific Article and Clause of the Constitution of India provides that no law (future laws) can be enacted which runs contrary to the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution of India ?

[amp_mcq option1=”Article 13(1)” option2=”Article 13(2)” option3=”Article 13(3)” option4=”Article 13(4)” correct=”option2″]

Article 13(2) of the Constitution of India states that “The State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the rights conferred by this Part [Part III – Fundamental Rights] and any law made in contravention of this clause shall, to the extent of the contravention, be void.” This clause specifically applies to laws made *after* the commencement of the Constitution (future laws) and mandates that they must be consistent with Fundamental Rights. It embodies the principle that legislative power is subject to Fundamental Rights, reinforcing the rule of law by making the Constitution the supreme law. Article 13(1) deals with pre-constitutional laws, Article 13(3) defines “law,” and Article 13(4) (added by 24th Amendment) relates to constitutional amendments, which is a different context.

Article 13(2) renders any law made after the commencement of the Constitution void to the extent it violates Fundamental Rights.

Article 13 is crucial as it provides for judicial review of legislation. If any law (both pre-constitutional under 13(1) and post-constitutional under 13(2)) is found to be inconsistent with Fundamental Rights, the judiciary can declare it void. This power makes the Fundamental Rights justiciable and upholds the supremacy of the Constitution. The concept of “rule of law” implies that the government’s actions, including legislation, must be within the bounds of the law, and Article 13 serves as a cornerstone in enforcing this principle by subjecting laws to the test of Fundamental Rights.

Consider the following statements :
The ‘pleasure’ doctrine with regard to service of the civil servants under the Constitution of India is

• 1. absolute
• 2. subject to Article 309
• 3. subject to Article 311

Which of the above statements is/are correct?

[amp_mcq option1=”1 only” option2=”2 only” option3=”1 and 2″ option4=”3″ correct=”option4″]

The pleasure doctrine, stated in Article 310 of the Constitution, signifies that civil servants hold office during the pleasure of the President or Governor, as the case may be. However, this power is not absolute and is subject to certain constitutional limitations, most significantly those provided under Article 311, which lays down procedural safeguards against arbitrary dismissal, removal, or reduction in rank.

– Statement 1 is incorrect; the pleasure doctrine under the Indian Constitution is not absolute.
– Statement 3 is correct; Article 310 is expressly made subject to the provisions of Article 311, which provides civil servants with safeguards like the right to an inquiry and a reasonable opportunity of showing cause before being dismissed, removed, or reduced in rank.
– Statement 2 is incorrect; while Article 309 relates to rules governing conditions of service, the pleasure doctrine’s limitations stem primarily from Article 311, which overrides rules made under Article 309 if they conflict with the protections under 311.

Article 310(1) states: “Except as expressly provided by this Constitution, every person who is a member of a defence service or of a civil service of the Union or of an all-India service or holds any post connected with defence or any civil post under the Union holds office during the pleasure of the President, and every person who is a member of a civil service of a State or holds any civil post under a State holds office during the pleasure of the Governor of the State.” Article 310(2) mentions contractual appointments being an exception. Article 311 provides the procedural restrictions on the exercise of this pleasure.

Which one of the following statements relating to the Constitution of India is not correct?

[amp_mcq option1=”The provisions of Articles 324 to 329 apply equally to States as well as Union Territories.” option2=”Only some of the provisions of Articles 324 to 329 apply to one Union Territory.” option3=”The provisions of Articles 124(4) and 124(5) apply to both the Supreme Court and all the High Courts.” option4=”The definition of ‘State’ provided under Article 12 applies to both the Fundamental Rights as well as the Directive Principles of State Policy.” correct=”option1″]

The correct option is A. The statement that the provisions of Articles 324 to 329 apply equally to States as well as Union Territories is not correct.

– Articles 324 to 329 of the Constitution deal with elections, establishing the Election Commission of India and defining its powers and responsibilities for conducting elections to Parliament and State Legislatures, as well as to the offices of President and Vice-President.
– While these provisions apply to States, their application to Union Territories (UTs) is not necessarily ‘equal’. Some UTs have their own legislatures (e.g., Delhi, Puducherry, Jammu and Kashmir), for which election provisions similar to State Legislatures apply. However, UTs without legislatures (like Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep) only have elections for representation in Parliament. Therefore, the full set of provisions related to both Parliament and State Legislature elections from Articles 324-329 does not apply ‘equally’ to all UTs compared to States, or even equally across all types of UTs.
– Statement B is plausible as in a UT without a legislature, only provisions related to parliamentary elections from Articles 324-329 would apply, meaning “only some” apply.
– Statement C is correct because Article 218 makes the provisions of clauses (4) and (5) of Article 124 (relating to removal of Supreme Court judges and Parliament’s power to regulate procedure) applicable to High Court judges.
– Statement D is correct because Article 36 explicitly states that the definition of “the State” in Part IV (Directive Principles) is the same as in Part III (Fundamental Rights), where Article 12 defines “the State”.

Article 324 provides the general power of superintendence, direction, and control of elections in the Election Commission. Article 325 deals with electoral rolls, 326 with adult suffrage, 327 with power of Parliament to make laws relating to elections, 328 with power of Legislature of a State to make laws relating to elections to such Legislature, and 329 bars interference by courts in electoral matters. The scope of these articles varies depending on whether a State Legislature exists in a UT.