{"id":93557,"date":"2025-06-01T11:52:51","date_gmt":"2025-06-01T11:52:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/?p=93557"},"modified":"2025-06-01T11:52:51","modified_gmt":"2025-06-01T11:52:51","slug":"which-one-of-the-following-actions-decisions-declarations-has-not-been","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/which-one-of-the-following-actions-decisions-declarations-has-not-been\/","title":{"rendered":"Which one of the following actions\/decisions\/declarations has not been"},"content":{"rendered":"

Which one of the following actions\/decisions\/declarations has not been treated final under the Constitution of India?<\/p>\n

[amp_mcq option1=”Dispensation of an enquiry into the misconduct of a civil servant on the ground that it was not practicable to hold the enquiry” option2=”A declaration made in a law made by the Parliament that it was for giving effect to the Directive Principle relating to economic system with a view to control concentration of wealth” option3=”Advice tendered by the Ministers to the President of India” option4=”Decision of the Speaker of the House of the People regarding disqualification of a member of that House on the ground of defection” correct=”option2″]<\/p>\n

\n
\n
This question was previously asked in<\/div>\n
UPSC Combined Section Officer – 2019-20<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
Download PDF<\/a>Attempt Online<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\nThe declaration made in a law made by the Parliament that it was for giving effect to the Directive Principle relating to economic system with a view to control concentration of wealth (under Article 31C) has not been treated final under the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court.
\n<\/section>\n
\nA) Dispensation of enquiry into civil servant misconduct (Article 311(2) proviso): The grounds for dispensing enquiry are subject to judicial review, thus not treated final.
\nB) A declaration made in a law under Article 31C (regarding 39(b)\/(c)): The 25th Amendment Act added Article 31C, which included a clause stating that a declaration by Parliament that a law is for giving effect to Article 39(b) or (c) shall not be called in question in any court. However, the Supreme Court in the Minerva Mills case (1980) held that judicial review is a basic feature of the Constitution and struck down this finality clause. Therefore, the declaration is not treated as final; courts can examine if the law has a direct and reasonable nexus with the DPSP it seeks to implement.
\nC) Advice tendered by the Ministers to the President (Article 74(2)): Article 74(2) explicitly states that the question of whether any, and if so what, advice was tendered by Ministers to the President shall not be inquired into by any court. This means the *content* of the advice is treated as final and non-justiciable by courts.
\nD) Decision of the Speaker regarding disqualification on the ground of defection (10th Schedule, Para 6): The 52nd Amendment Act (10th Schedule) initially stated that the Speaker’s decision on disqualification due to defection is final. However, the Supreme Court in the Kihoto Hollohan case (1993) ruled that the Speaker’s decision under the Tenth Schedule is subject to judicial review on grounds of mala fide, perversity, etc., thus not treated final.
\n<\/section>\n
\nAmong the options where finality was intended by law but overturned by courts (B and D), option B directly refers to a legislative *declaration* whose finality was specifically challenged and removed by the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the basic structure doctrine, making it a prime example of something not treated final despite legislative intent. Option C is explicitly made final by the Constitution itself regarding court inquiry into advice content. Option A is administrative action subject to standard judicial review of grounds.
\n<\/section>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Which one of the following actions\/decisions\/declarations has not been treated final under the Constitution of India? [amp_mcq option1=”Dispensation of an enquiry into the misconduct of a civil servant on the ground that it was not practicable to hold the enquiry” option2=”A declaration made in a law made by the Parliament that it was for giving … <\/p>\n

Detailed SolutionWhich one of the following actions\/decisions\/declarations has not been<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1090],"tags":[1483,1099,1172],"class_list":["post-93557","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-upsc-combined-section-officer","tag-2019-20","tag-indian-polity-and-governance","tag-the-governance-system","no-featured-image-padding"],"yoast_head":"\nWhich one of the following actions\/decisions\/declarations has not been<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"The declaration made in a law made by the Parliament that it was for giving effect to the Directive Principle relating to economic system with a view to control concentration of wealth (under Article 31C) has not been treated final under the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. A) Dispensation of enquiry into civil servant misconduct (Article 311(2) proviso): The grounds for dispensing enquiry are subject to judicial review, thus not treated final. B) A declaration made in a law under Article 31C (regarding 39(b)\/(c)): The 25th Amendment Act added Article 31C, which included a clause stating that a declaration by Parliament that a law is for giving effect to Article 39(b) or (c) shall not be called in question in any court. However, the Supreme Court in the Minerva Mills case (1980) held that judicial review is a basic feature of the Constitution and struck down this finality clause. Therefore, the declaration is not treated as final; courts can examine if the law has a direct and reasonable nexus with the DPSP it seeks to implement. C) Advice tendered by the Ministers to the President (Article 74(2)): Article 74(2) explicitly states that the question of whether any, and if so what, advice was tendered by Ministers to the President shall not be inquired into by any court. This means the *content* of the advice is treated as final and non-justiciable by courts. D) Decision of the Speaker regarding disqualification on the ground of defection (10th Schedule, Para 6): The 52nd Amendment Act (10th Schedule) initially stated that the Speaker's decision on disqualification due to defection is final. However, the Supreme Court in the Kihoto Hollohan case (1993) ruled that the Speaker's decision under the Tenth Schedule is subject to judicial review on grounds of mala fide, perversity, etc., thus not treated final.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/which-one-of-the-following-actions-decisions-declarations-has-not-been\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Which one of the following actions\/decisions\/declarations has not been\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"The declaration made in a law made by the Parliament that it was for giving effect to the Directive Principle relating to economic system with a view to control concentration of wealth (under Article 31C) has not been treated final under the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. A) Dispensation of enquiry into civil servant misconduct (Article 311(2) proviso): The grounds for dispensing enquiry are subject to judicial review, thus not treated final. B) A declaration made in a law under Article 31C (regarding 39(b)\/(c)): The 25th Amendment Act added Article 31C, which included a clause stating that a declaration by Parliament that a law is for giving effect to Article 39(b) or (c) shall not be called in question in any court. However, the Supreme Court in the Minerva Mills case (1980) held that judicial review is a basic feature of the Constitution and struck down this finality clause. Therefore, the declaration is not treated as final; courts can examine if the law has a direct and reasonable nexus with the DPSP it seeks to implement. C) Advice tendered by the Ministers to the President (Article 74(2)): Article 74(2) explicitly states that the question of whether any, and if so what, advice was tendered by Ministers to the President shall not be inquired into by any court. This means the *content* of the advice is treated as final and non-justiciable by courts. D) Decision of the Speaker regarding disqualification on the ground of defection (10th Schedule, Para 6): The 52nd Amendment Act (10th Schedule) initially stated that the Speaker's decision on disqualification due to defection is final. However, the Supreme Court in the Kihoto Hollohan case (1993) ruled that the Speaker's decision under the Tenth Schedule is subject to judicial review on grounds of mala fide, perversity, etc., thus not treated final.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/which-one-of-the-following-actions-decisions-declarations-has-not-been\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"MCQ and Quiz for Exams\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-06-01T11:52:51+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"rawan239\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"rawan239\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"3 minutes\" \/>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Which one of the following actions\/decisions\/declarations has not been","description":"The declaration made in a law made by the Parliament that it was for giving effect to the Directive Principle relating to economic system with a view to control concentration of wealth (under Article 31C) has not been treated final under the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. A) Dispensation of enquiry into civil servant misconduct (Article 311(2) proviso): The grounds for dispensing enquiry are subject to judicial review, thus not treated final. B) A declaration made in a law under Article 31C (regarding 39(b)\/(c)): The 25th Amendment Act added Article 31C, which included a clause stating that a declaration by Parliament that a law is for giving effect to Article 39(b) or (c) shall not be called in question in any court. However, the Supreme Court in the Minerva Mills case (1980) held that judicial review is a basic feature of the Constitution and struck down this finality clause. Therefore, the declaration is not treated as final; courts can examine if the law has a direct and reasonable nexus with the DPSP it seeks to implement. C) Advice tendered by the Ministers to the President (Article 74(2)): Article 74(2) explicitly states that the question of whether any, and if so what, advice was tendered by Ministers to the President shall not be inquired into by any court. This means the *content* of the advice is treated as final and non-justiciable by courts. D) Decision of the Speaker regarding disqualification on the ground of defection (10th Schedule, Para 6): The 52nd Amendment Act (10th Schedule) initially stated that the Speaker's decision on disqualification due to defection is final. However, the Supreme Court in the Kihoto Hollohan case (1993) ruled that the Speaker's decision under the Tenth Schedule is subject to judicial review on grounds of mala fide, perversity, etc., thus not treated final.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/which-one-of-the-following-actions-decisions-declarations-has-not-been\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Which one of the following actions\/decisions\/declarations has not been","og_description":"The declaration made in a law made by the Parliament that it was for giving effect to the Directive Principle relating to economic system with a view to control concentration of wealth (under Article 31C) has not been treated final under the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. A) Dispensation of enquiry into civil servant misconduct (Article 311(2) proviso): The grounds for dispensing enquiry are subject to judicial review, thus not treated final. B) A declaration made in a law under Article 31C (regarding 39(b)\/(c)): The 25th Amendment Act added Article 31C, which included a clause stating that a declaration by Parliament that a law is for giving effect to Article 39(b) or (c) shall not be called in question in any court. However, the Supreme Court in the Minerva Mills case (1980) held that judicial review is a basic feature of the Constitution and struck down this finality clause. Therefore, the declaration is not treated as final; courts can examine if the law has a direct and reasonable nexus with the DPSP it seeks to implement. C) Advice tendered by the Ministers to the President (Article 74(2)): Article 74(2) explicitly states that the question of whether any, and if so what, advice was tendered by Ministers to the President shall not be inquired into by any court. This means the *content* of the advice is treated as final and non-justiciable by courts. D) Decision of the Speaker regarding disqualification on the ground of defection (10th Schedule, Para 6): The 52nd Amendment Act (10th Schedule) initially stated that the Speaker's decision on disqualification due to defection is final. However, the Supreme Court in the Kihoto Hollohan case (1993) ruled that the Speaker's decision under the Tenth Schedule is subject to judicial review on grounds of mala fide, perversity, etc., thus not treated final.","og_url":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/which-one-of-the-following-actions-decisions-declarations-has-not-been\/","og_site_name":"MCQ and Quiz for Exams","article_published_time":"2025-06-01T11:52:51+00:00","author":"rawan239","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"rawan239","Est. reading time":"3 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/which-one-of-the-following-actions-decisions-declarations-has-not-been\/","url":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/which-one-of-the-following-actions-decisions-declarations-has-not-been\/","name":"Which one of the following actions\/decisions\/declarations has not been","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/#website"},"datePublished":"2025-06-01T11:52:51+00:00","dateModified":"2025-06-01T11:52:51+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/#\/schema\/person\/5807dafeb27d2ec82344d6cbd6c3d209"},"description":"The declaration made in a law made by the Parliament that it was for giving effect to the Directive Principle relating to economic system with a view to control concentration of wealth (under Article 31C) has not been treated final under the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. A) Dispensation of enquiry into civil servant misconduct (Article 311(2) proviso): The grounds for dispensing enquiry are subject to judicial review, thus not treated final. B) A declaration made in a law under Article 31C (regarding 39(b)\/(c)): The 25th Amendment Act added Article 31C, which included a clause stating that a declaration by Parliament that a law is for giving effect to Article 39(b) or (c) shall not be called in question in any court. However, the Supreme Court in the Minerva Mills case (1980) held that judicial review is a basic feature of the Constitution and struck down this finality clause. Therefore, the declaration is not treated as final; courts can examine if the law has a direct and reasonable nexus with the DPSP it seeks to implement. C) Advice tendered by the Ministers to the President (Article 74(2)): Article 74(2) explicitly states that the question of whether any, and if so what, advice was tendered by Ministers to the President shall not be inquired into by any court. This means the *content* of the advice is treated as final and non-justiciable by courts. D) Decision of the Speaker regarding disqualification on the ground of defection (10th Schedule, Para 6): The 52nd Amendment Act (10th Schedule) initially stated that the Speaker's decision on disqualification due to defection is final. However, the Supreme Court in the Kihoto Hollohan case (1993) ruled that the Speaker's decision under the Tenth Schedule is subject to judicial review on grounds of mala fide, perversity, etc., thus not treated final.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/which-one-of-the-following-actions-decisions-declarations-has-not-been\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/which-one-of-the-following-actions-decisions-declarations-has-not-been\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/which-one-of-the-following-actions-decisions-declarations-has-not-been\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"UPSC Combined Section Officer","item":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/category\/upsc-combined-section-officer\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"Which one of the following actions\/decisions\/declarations has not been"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/#website","url":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/","name":"MCQ and Quiz for Exams","description":"","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/#\/schema\/person\/5807dafeb27d2ec82344d6cbd6c3d209","name":"rawan239","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/761a7274f9cce048fa5b921221e7934820d74514df93ef195a9d22af0c1c9001?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/761a7274f9cce048fa5b921221e7934820d74514df93ef195a9d22af0c1c9001?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"rawan239"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com"],"url":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/author\/rawan239\/"}]}},"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/93557","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=93557"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/93557\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=93557"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=93557"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=93557"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}