Application and Judicial Interpretation — MCQs

All questions with answers and explanations

Read the full set here, or use the practice card above to test yourself one question at a time.

1. Which case first established the 'harmonious construction' rule for reading Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles together?

   • State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951)
   • In re The Kerala Education Bill (1957) (correct answer)
   • Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980)
   • Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967)

   Explanation. Chief Justice S.R. Das laid down the harmonious construction rule in the 1957 advisory opinion on the Kerala Education Bill.

2. In re The Kerala Education Bill reached the Supreme Court through which constitutional route?

   • A writ petition under Article 32
   • A Presidential reference under Article 143 (correct answer)
   • An appeal under Article 136
   • A suit under Article 131

   Explanation. The President referred the Bill to the Supreme Court for an advisory opinion under Article 143.

3. In State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas (1976), the Court read Article 16 together with which Directive Principle?

   • Article 39
   • Article 44
   • Article 46 (correct answer)
   • Article 51

   Explanation. The Court read Article 16's equality guarantee together with Article 46's promise to protect SC/ST educational and economic interests.

4. Unni Krishnan, J.P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993) held that the right to education up to age 14 forms part of which Fundamental Right?

   • Article 19
   • Article 21 (correct answer)
   • Article 25
   • Article 29

   Explanation. The Court held that the right to life under Article 21 includes a right to education up to age 14, drawing on Articles 41, 45 and 46.

5. The Unni Krishnan judgment directly influenced which later constitutional amendment?

   • 42nd Amendment
   • 44th Amendment
   • 86th Amendment (correct answer)
   • 97th Amendment

   Explanation. The reasoning in Unni Krishnan fed directly into the 86th Amendment, which introduced Article 21A.

6. A poor accused asks for a free lawyer under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. The court:

   • Cannot help, because Article 39A is not enforceable
   • Enforces the Act, which carries Article 39A into effect (correct answer)
   • Enforces Article 39A directly by writ
   • Refuses, because only the legislature may act

   Explanation. Article 39A led to the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. The court enforces the Act, not Article 39A by itself, and so respects Article 37.

7. Which Act was enacted to give practical effect to Article 39A's promise of free legal aid?

   • The Advocates Act, 1961
   • The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (correct answer)
   • The Right to Information Act, 2005
   • The Consumer Protection Act, 1986

   Explanation. The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 was enacted specifically to implement Article 39A.

8. Which of these correctly restates what Article 37 continues to bar, even after In re Kerala Education Bill?

   • Using a Directive Principle to interpret a Fundamental Right
   • A petitioner seeking a writ purely on the ground that a Directive Principle has not been implemented (correct answer)
   • Parliament enacting legislation based on a Directive Principle
   • A court referring to a Directive Principle while deciding the reasonableness of a restriction

   Explanation. Article 37 still bars direct enforcement — a writ cannot be founded purely on the non-implementation of a Directive Principle.

9. The 73rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1992, which established Panchayati Raj institutions, gives effect to which Article?

   • Article 38
   • Article 40 (correct answer)
   • Article 43
   • Article 48

   Explanation. Article 40 directs the State to organise village panchayats; the 73rd Amendment is its constitutional fulfilment.

10. Under Article 37, the Directive Principles in Part IV are:

    • Enforceable by writ like Fundamental Rights
    • Not enforceable by any court, but fundamental in the governance of the country (correct answer)
    • Not binding on the State at all
    • Binding only on private persons

    Explanation. Article 37 says Part IV is not enforceable by any court. The principles are nevertheless fundamental in the governance of the country, and the State must apply them in making laws.

11. In Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985), the Supreme Court held that the right to life under Article 21 includes the right to livelihood, drawing that content from which Directive Principles?

    • Article 44 and 45
    • Article 39(a) and 41 (correct answer)
    • Article 48 and 48A
    • Article 50 and 51

    Explanation. The Court drew the right to livelihood from Article 39(a) (adequate means of livelihood) and Article 41 (right to work).

12. In Randhir Singh v. Union of India (1982), 'equal pay for equal work' was made enforceable in substance by reading it into which Articles?

    • Article 19 and 21
    • Article 14 and 16 (correct answer)
    • Article 32 and 226
    • Article 39A and 40

    Explanation. The Court held that equal pay for equal work, though only Article 39(d), is deducible from and enforceable through Articles 14 and 16.