Fundamental Rights

11. Which among the following is not correct under Article 19 of the Const

Which among the following is not correct under Article 19 of the Constitution of India ?

Join Our Telegram Channel
Freedom of speech and expression
Assemble peaceably and with arms
Form associations and unions
Move freely throughout the territory of India
This question was previously asked in
UPSC Combined Section Officer – 2021-22
Download PDFAttempt Online
Article 19(1) of the Constitution guarantees six fundamental freedoms. Article 19(1)(b) specifically grants the right “to assemble peaceably and *without arms*”. Option B states “Assemble peaceably and with arms”, which directly contradicts the constitutional provision that requires assemblies to be without arms. Therefore, assembling peaceably *with* arms is not a freedom guaranteed under Article 19(1)(b).
Article 19(1)(b) guarantees the freedom to assemble peaceably and *without arms*.
The other options correctly reflect freedoms guaranteed under Article 19: A) Freedom of speech and expression (19(1)(a)), C) Freedom to form associations and unions (19(1)(c)), and D) Freedom to move freely throughout the territory of India (19(1)(d)). All these freedoms are subject to reasonable restrictions that can be imposed by the State under Article 19(2) to 19(6).

Subscribe on YouTube

12. Consider the following statements with respect to Article 32 and Artic

Consider the following statements with respect to Article 32 and Article 226 of the Constitution of India :

Join Our Telegram Channel
  • Article 32 confers a right on the petitioner while Article 226 confer a discretion on the High Court.
  • Article 32 and Article 226 confer identical power on the Supreme Court and the High Courts to enforce the Fundamental Rights.
  • The power of superintendence of the Supreme Court over the High Courts is not similar to the powers of superintendence conferred on the High Courts over the courts subordinate to them.

Which of the above statements is/are not correct?

1 and 3
3 only
2 only
2 and 3
This question was previously asked in
UPSC Combined Section Officer – 2019-20
Download PDFAttempt Online
Statement 2 is incorrect because Article 32 and Article 226 do not confer identical power; Article 226 has a wider scope, covering enforcement of Fundamental Rights and any other legal rights, whereas Article 32 is confined only to the enforcement of Fundamental Rights. Statements 1 and 3 are correct. Therefore, the statement that is *not* correct is statement 2.
Article 32 guarantees the right to constitutional remedies for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights and is a Fundamental Right itself. Article 226 empowers High Courts to issue writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights and other legal rights. The scope of Article 226 is broader than Article 32. High Courts have superintendence over subordinate courts (Article 227), a power not held by the Supreme Court over High Courts.
Article 32 is a fundamental right, making the right to move the Supreme Court for enforcement of FRs absolute (the SC cannot ordinarily refuse). Article 226 is a discretionary power of the High Court. The power of superintendence under Article 227 is administrative and judicial, enabling the High Court to call for returns, make rules for practice and proceedings, etc. The Supreme Court primarily has appellate jurisdiction over High Courts, not general superintendence.

Subscribe on YouTube

13. Which one of the following is included in the prohibition provided und

Which one of the following is included in the prohibition provided under Article 20(3)?

Subscribe on YouTube
Giving of finger impression
Giving of sample of handwriting
Narco-analysis test
Voice sample
This question was previously asked in
UPSC Combined Section Officer – 2019-20
Download PDFAttempt Online
The correct option is C) Narco-analysis test.
Article 20(3) of the Constitution provides protection against self-incrimination, stating that no person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. The Supreme Court in the landmark case *Selvi & Ors vs State of Karnataka & Anr* (2010) held that involuntary administration of techniques like narco-analysis, polygraph (lie detector), and brain electrical activation profile tests constitutes compelled testimonial acts that violate the protection under Article 20(3). These tests aim to extract incriminating information from the subject’s mind without their conscious consent.
Giving of finger impressions, handwriting samples, or voice samples are generally considered forms of providing physical evidence, not testimonial evidence, and thus are typically held not to be in violation of Article 20(3). The protection is primarily against compelling a person to make a statement or produce evidence that is “testimonial” in nature and likely to incriminate them.

Join Our Telegram Channel

14. Article 22 of the Constitution of India does not provide for which one

Article 22 of the Constitution of India does not provide for which one of the following?

Subscribe on YouTube
The detention of a person detained under any preventive detention law has to be considered by an Advisory Board headed by a sitting judge of the High Court.
An arrested person has a right of legal representation.
An arrested person has right to know the grounds of his/her arrest.
A person cannot be detained in custody beyond twenty-four hours (excluding journey time) without the authority of a Magistrate.
This question was previously asked in
UPSC Combined Section Officer – 2019-20
Download PDFAttempt Online
The correct option is A) The detention of a person detained under any preventive detention law has to be considered by an Advisory Board headed by a sitting judge of the High Court.
Article 22 of the Constitution deals with protection against arrest and detention. Article 22(1) grants the right to be informed of the grounds of arrest and the right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner (covering options B and C). Article 22(2) mandates production before a Magistrate within 24 hours (excluding journey time) (covering option D). Article 22(4) deals with preventive detention and states that detention beyond three months must be reviewed by an Advisory Board consisting of persons who are, or have been, or are qualified to be appointed as Judges of a High Court. It does *not* require that the Advisory Board must be *headed by a sitting judge* of the High Court. It can be headed by a retired judge or a person qualified to be a judge.
Article 22 provides a balance between individual liberty and state power, particularly in the context of preventive detention laws. While it grants rights to arrested persons (Art 22(1), (2)), it also lays down safeguards and procedures for preventive detention (Art 22(4)-(7)), such as the need for an Advisory Board review for detention beyond three months, consultation with lawyers, etc. The specific composition and chairmanship of the Advisory Board are detailed, but the requirement for a *sitting* judge as head is not mandated by the article.

Join Our Telegram Channel

15. Which one of the following has been expressly included in Part III of

Which one of the following has been expressly included in Part III of the Constitution of India?

Join Our Telegram Channel
Company
Partnership
Trust
Cooperative society
This question was previously asked in
UPSC Combined Section Officer – 2019-20
Download PDFAttempt Online
The correct option is D) Cooperative society.
Part III of the Constitution deals with Fundamental Rights (Articles 12-35). The term “Cooperative society” was expressly included in Part III by the Constitution (Ninety-seventh Amendment) Act, 2011. This amendment inserted Article 19(1)(c), which grants citizens the fundamental right “to form co-operative societies”. While the definition of “State” under Article 12 in Part III is crucial for the applicability of fundamental rights to various entities (Government, Parliament, State Legislatures, local and other authorities), and courts have included certain types of companies etc., based on functional or control tests, the term “Cooperative society” itself was explicitly added *into* the text of Part III under the Right to Freedom. The other options (Company, Partnership, Trust) are not expressly mentioned by name anywhere in Part III.
The 97th Amendment gave constitutional status and protection to cooperative societies, recognizing their importance in promoting economic development and social justice. Besides inserting the right to form cooperatives in Part III, it also added Article 43B (Promotion of Cooperative Societies) in Part IV (Directive Principles of State Policy) and a new Part IXB (The Co-operative Societies) to the Constitution.

Subscribe on YouTube

16. Consider the following statements : 1. A citizen cannot be discrimin

Consider the following statements :

Subscribe on YouTube
  • 1. A citizen cannot be discriminated only on the ground of place of birth but the Parliament can make law prescribing any requirement as to residence within a State with regard to any class of employment in the State.
  • 2. There can be no discrimination only on the ground of religion but law may prescribe a requirement that an incumbent to an office in connection with any religious institution should belong to a particular religion to which the institution belongs.

Which of the above statements is/are correct?

Join Our Telegram Channel
1 only
2 only
Both 1 and 2
Neither 1 nor 2
This question was previously asked in
UPSC Combined Section Officer – 2019-20
Download PDFAttempt Online
The correct option is C) Both 1 and 2.
Statement 1 is correct. While Article 15 prohibits discrimination solely on grounds including place of birth, Article 16(3) is an exception to the non-discrimination principle in public employment (Article 16(2)). It allows Parliament to make laws requiring residence within a state for specific classes of employment or appointments under the state government or local authority.
Statement 2 is correct. Article 15 prohibits discrimination solely on grounds including religion. Article 16(2) prohibits such discrimination in employment. However, Article 16(5) is an exception that permits a law to require that an incumbent of an office in connection with the affairs of any religious or denominational institution or a member of its governing body shall belong to that particular religion or denomination.
These exceptions in Article 16 (clauses 3 and 5) demonstrate that while the Constitution prohibits discrimination on certain grounds, it also provides for specific circumstances where distinctions based on residence or religion (in the context of religious institutions) may be permissible by law, serving particular policy objectives or protecting the unique character of religious bodies.

17. Which one of the following is not a type of writ issued by the Supreme

Which one of the following is not a type of writ issued by the Supreme Court or the High Courts in India?

Subscribe on YouTube
Habeas corpus
Mandamus
Curfew
Certiorari
This question was previously asked in
UPSC Combined Section Officer – 2019-20
Download PDFAttempt Online
The correct option is C. Curfew is not a type of writ issued by the Supreme Court or High Courts in India.
– The Indian Constitution empowers the Supreme Court (under Article 32) and the High Courts (under Article 226) to issue writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights and for other purposes (in the case of High Courts).
– The five traditional types of writs are: Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Certiorari, and Quo Warranto.
– Habeas corpus is issued to produce a person who has been detained, before the court, and if the detention is found illegal, to set him/her free.
– Mandamus is a command issued by the court to a public official asking him to perform his official duties that he has failed or refused to perform.
– Certiorari is issued by a higher court to a lower court or tribunal to quash the order passed by the latter in a case where it lacks jurisdiction or commits an error of law.
– Prohibition is issued by a higher court to a lower court or tribunal to prevent the latter from exceeding its jurisdiction or usurping a jurisdiction that it does not possess.
– Quo Warranto is issued to inquire into the legality of the claim of a person to a public office.
– Curfew is an order imposed by authorities (typically police or military) restricting the movement of people in a particular area for a specific period, usually during times of unrest or emergency. It is an executive order, not a judicial writ.
The power to issue writs is a fundamental aspect of the judicial review power of the Supreme Court and High Courts, acting as a safeguard for constitutional rights and legal procedures.

Join Our Telegram Channel

18. Consider the following statements with regard to the Fundamental Right

Consider the following statements with regard to the Fundamental Rights :

  • 1. The Parliament has power to modify the rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution of India with regard to persons employed in telecommunication systems of certain categories.
  • 2. During the course of enforcement of martial law in any area, restrictions can be imposed on the exercise of the Fundamental Rights.
  • 3. The Fundamental Rights cannot be overridden for implementing any of the Directive Principles of State Policy.

Which of the above statements is/are not correct?

Join Our Telegram Channel
1 only
2 only
3 only
1, 2 and 3
This question was previously asked in
UPSC Combined Section Officer – 2019-20
Download PDFAttempt Online
Statement 3 is incorrect. Statements 1 and 2 are correct. The question asks for the statements that are *not* correct.
Statement 1: Article 33 of the Constitution empowers Parliament to modify the application of Fundamental Rights to members of the armed forces, police forces, intelligence personnel, and persons employed in telecommunication systems related to these forces/bureaus, to ensure the proper discharge of their duties and the maintenance of discipline. This statement is correct.
Statement 2: Article 34 empowers Parliament to restrict Fundamental Rights while martial law is in force in any area. This statement is correct.
Statement 3: This statement is incorrect. While Fundamental Rights generally hold a higher position than Directive Principles, Article 31C provides an exception. It states that laws made to give effect to the Directive Principles in Article 39(b) and 39(c) cannot be challenged on the grounds of contravening Articles 14 or 19. Originally, the 42nd Amendment extended this protection to laws implementing any DPSP, but the Supreme Court in the Minerva Mills case struck down this extension, upholding Article 31C only for Articles 39(b) and 39(c). Therefore, Fundamental Rights under Articles 14 and 19 *can* be overridden by laws implementing Articles 39(b) and 39(c).
The relationship between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles has been a subject of judicial interpretation, evolving from giving primacy to FRs (Champakam Dorairajan case) to a balance and harmony (Minerva Mills case), with Article 31C representing a specific constitutional provision giving precedence to certain DPSPs over certain FRs.

Subscribe on YouTube

19. How many Fundamental Rights are guaranteed to Indian citizens under th

How many Fundamental Rights are guaranteed to Indian citizens under the Constitution?

Join Our Telegram Channel
4
6
8
10
This question was previously asked in
UPSC Combined Section Officer – 2019-20
Download PDFAttempt Online
Currently, there are 6 Fundamental Rights guaranteed to Indian citizens under the Constitution.
– Originally, the Constitution provided for 7 Fundamental Rights.
– The Right to Property was removed from the list of Fundamental Rights by the 44th Amendment Act, 1978, and made a legal right under Article 300A.
The six Fundamental Rights are: 1. Right to Equality (Art. 14-18), 2. Right to Freedom (Art. 19-22), 3. Right against Exploitation (Art. 23-24), 4. Right to Freedom of Religion (Art. 25-28), 5. Cultural and Educational Rights (Art. 29-30), 6. Right to Constitutional Remedies (Art. 32).

Subscribe on YouTube

20. Right to freedom of conscience and free profession is guaranteed to a

Right to freedom of conscience and free profession is guaranteed to a Hindu that includes which of the following?
1. Buddhist
2. Jaina
3. Sikh
Select the correct answer using the code given below.

Subscribe on YouTube
1 and 2 only
2 and 3 only
1 and 3 only
1, 2 and 3
This question was previously asked in
UPSC Combined Section Officer – 2019-20
Download PDFAttempt Online
The reference to a Hindu in Article 25 includes Buddhist, Jaina, and Sikh religions.
Article 25 of the Constitution guarantees the freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion.
Explanation II to Article 25 states: “In sub-clause (b) of clause (2), the reference to Hindus shall be construed as including a reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jaina or Buddhist religion, and the reference to Hindu religious institutions shall be construed accordingly.”
Clause 25(2)(b) allows the State to make laws for social welfare and reform or for throwing open Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus.
While this explanation is specific to the context of 25(2)(b), it constitutionally defines the term ‘Hindu’ to include Sikhs, Jains, and Buddhists for this purpose. The question asks about the right guaranteed to a Hindu *that includes which of the following*. Given the context of Article 25 and this explicit explanation within the article, it is clear that for certain constitutional purposes related to religious practice and social reform, the term Hindu encompasses these three religions.
Therefore, a Hindu, for the purpose of the constitutional framework including Article 25, is understood in this specific context to include persons professing the Buddhist, Jaina, and Sikh religions.
This constitutional definition in Article 25 Explanation II is primarily for the purpose of allowing the state to enact social reform laws and to ensure access to public religious institutions, treating these religions similarly for these specific purposes related to state regulation of religious affairs for social welfare. It does not mean that followers of these religions do not have their distinct religious identities or that their fundamental rights are merged into a single ‘Hindu’ identity in all respects.

Join Our Telegram Channel
Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5