Limitations on Fundamental Rights (Art.31-A,31-B, 31 C, 335, 358 & 359) — 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. In Basheshar Nath v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1959), what did the Supreme Court hold about a citizen's ability to waive a Fundamental Right?

   • A citizen can freely waive any Fundamental Right by written consent
   • A Fundamental Right cannot be waived, even voluntarily, since there can be no estoppel against the Constitution (correct answer)
   • Only Article 19 rights can be waived
   • Waiver is permitted only for Directive Principles

   Explanation. Basheshar Nath held that Fundamental Rights cannot be waived even by voluntary consent, since fundamental rights rest on public policy and there can be no estoppel against the Constitution.

2. What is the doctrine of severability, as applied to a law that partly violates a Fundamental Right?

   • The entire statute is always struck down if any part is unconstitutional
   • Only the unconstitutional part of the statute is struck down, and the valid remaining part is allowed to stand, if the two are truly separable (correct answer)
   • The law is suspended pending a Presidential reference
   • Severability applies only to Directive Principles

   Explanation. Under the doctrine of severability, only the offending, unconstitutional portion of a statute is struck down, provided it can be separated from the valid remainder without changing the law's essential character.

3. What is Article 13(2) of the Constitution's core mandate?

   • The State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges Fundamental Rights, and any law made in contravention is void to that extent (correct answer)
   • Parliament can amend Fundamental Rights freely
   • Only High Courts can declare a law void
   • It applies only to pre-constitutional laws

   Explanation. Article 13(2) bars the State from making laws that take away or abridge Fundamental Rights, rendering any contravening law void to the extent of the contravention.

4. Under Article 19(2)-(6), restrictions on the freedoms guaranteed by Article 19(1) must satisfy which standard?

   • They must simply be enacted by a competent legislature, with no further test
   • They must be 'reasonable restrictions' imposed in the interest of specified grounds such as public order, sovereignty and integrity of India, morality, etc. (correct answer)
   • They must be approved by a two-thirds parliamentary majority
   • They may be arbitrary as long as they are in writing

   Explanation. Restrictions on Article 19(1) freedoms must be 'reasonable' and confined to the specific grounds listed in clauses (2) to (6), such as public order, decency, morality, sovereignty and integrity of India.

5. What does Article 33 empower Parliament to do?

   • Restrict or abrogate Fundamental Rights in their application to members of the armed forces, para-military forces, and analogous forces, to ensure discipline (correct answer)
   • Suspend all Fundamental Rights during peacetime
   • Remove judicial review entirely
   • Amend the Preamble

   Explanation. Article 33 empowers Parliament to restrict or abrogate Fundamental Rights as applied to members of the armed forces and analogous forces, to ensure proper discharge of duties and maintenance of discipline.

6. What protection does Article 34 provide in relation to martial law?

   • It bans martial law absolutely under all circumstances
   • It empowers Parliament to indemnify persons for acts done in connection with the maintenance or restoration of order in an area under martial law (correct answer)
   • It gives State Governments power to declare martial law independently
   • It applies only during wartime with a foreign country

   Explanation. Article 34 allows Parliament to indemnify any person for acts done in connection with maintaining or restoring order in an area where martial law was in force.

7. What is the significance of Article 35 in relation to legislation on certain Fundamental Rights matters?

   • It vests exclusive power in Parliament (not State Legislatures) to make laws giving effect to certain rights, such as Articles 16(3), 32(3), 33 and 34 (correct answer)
   • It abolishes Fundamental Rights entirely
   • It applies only to Directive Principles
   • It transfers all legislative power to the judiciary

   Explanation. Article 35 reserves exclusive legislative competence to Parliament (excluding State Legislatures) for laws under Articles 16(3), 32(3), 33 and 34, and for prescribing punishment for acts declared offences under Part III.

8. Can Fundamental Rights themselves be amended by Parliament under Article 368?

   • No, Fundamental Rights can never be touched under any circumstances
   • Yes, but such amendments cannot damage or destroy the basic structure of the Constitution, as held in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) (correct answer)
   • Yes, without any limitation whatsoever
   • This question has never been judicially settled

   Explanation. Kesavananda Bharati held that while Parliament can amend Fundamental Rights under Article 368, such amendments cannot damage or destroy the Constitution's basic structure.

9. What category of laws does Article 31A primarily protect from challenge under Articles 14 and 19?

   • Laws providing for acquisition of estates and agrarian reform measures (correct answer)
   • Laws regulating stock exchanges
   • Criminal procedure laws
   • Laws on foreign trade

   Explanation. Article 31A protects laws providing for the acquisition of estates and other agrarian reform measures from challenge under Articles 14 and 19.

10. What is the effect of placing a law in the Ninth Schedule under Article 31B?

    • The law is automatically repealed after 10 years
    • The law is immunised from challenge on the ground of inconsistency with Part III, subject to the basic structure limitation for post-1973 insertions (correct answer)
    • The law becomes a Directive Principle
    • The law can only be challenged in a High Court, not the Supreme Court

    Explanation. Article 31B shields Ninth Schedule laws from being void for inconsistency with Fundamental Rights, though I.R. Coelho later subjected post-1973 insertions to basic-structure review.

11. In I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007), what cut-off date did the Supreme Court fix for reviewing Ninth Schedule laws against the basic structure?

    • 26 January 1950
    • 24 April 1973 (correct answer)
    • 42nd Amendment date, 1976
    • There is no fixed cut-off date

    Explanation. I.R. Coelho fixed 24 April 1973, the date of the Kesavananda Bharati judgment, as the cut-off for basic-structure review of Ninth Schedule insertions.

12. In Shankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India (1951), a five-Judge Bench upheld the First Amendment. It held that:

    • An amendment under Article 368 is not "law" under Article 13(2) (correct answer)
    • Parliament cannot abridge Part III
    • The Ninth Schedule is void
    • Article 31A is void

    Explanation. Shankari Prasad upheld the First Amendment and held that an amendment under Article 368 is not "law" under Article 13(2). In I.C. Golak Nath (1967), eleven Judges reversed this by 6:5.

13. What does Article 31C protect?

    • Laws giving effect to the Directive Principles in Article 39(b) and (c) from challenge under Articles 14 and 19 (correct answer)
    • All laws passed by State Legislatures
    • Only laws relating to defence
    • Laws relating to elections

    Explanation. Article 31C protects laws implementing Article 39(b) and (c) — equitable distribution of material resources and prevention of concentration of wealth — from challenge under Articles 14 and 19.

14. In Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980), what did the Supreme Court hold about the extended version of Article 31C introduced by the 42nd Amendment?

    • It was fully valid and unchallengeable
    • The provision giving Directive Principles in general primacy over all Fundamental Rights was unconstitutional, as it damaged the basic structure's balance between Parts III and IV (correct answer)
    • It applied only to Union laws
    • It was never actually challenged in court

    Explanation. Minerva Mills struck down the 42nd Amendment's extension of Article 31C (covering all Directive Principles, not just 39(b)/(c)), holding that the harmony and balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles is part of the basic structure.

15. What two-stage test did I.R. Coelho establish for reviewing a post-1973 Ninth Schedule law?

    • First, whether it violates Fundamental Rights; second, if so, whether the violation is severe enough to damage the basic structure (correct answer)
    • First, whether it was passed unanimously; second, whether the President assented
    • First, a population test; second, an economic impact test
    • There is only a single-stage test, not two stages

    Explanation. I.R. Coelho requires first testing whether a post-1973 Ninth Schedule law violates Fundamental Rights (particularly Articles 14, 19, 21), and only then whether that violation damages the basic structure.

16. Why did Parliament originally introduce Article 31A, 31B and the Ninth Schedule via the First Amendment, 1951?

    • To protect zamindari abolition and agrarian reform laws from being struck down under Articles 14 and 19 following adverse court rulings (correct answer)
    • To create a new fundamental right to property
    • To abolish the Supreme Court's jurisdiction entirely
    • To regulate religious institutions

    Explanation. The First Amendment introduced Article 31A, 31B, and the Ninth Schedule specifically to protect zamindari-abolition and agrarian-reform legislation, which courts had begun striking down as violating Articles 14 and 19.

17. What does Article 335 require the State to consider in making appointments to services and posts, while maintaining efficiency of administration?

    • The claims of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (correct answer)
    • The claims of religious majorities only
    • Regional quotas for each district
    • Seniority in private employment

    Explanation. Article 335 directs the State to take into account the claims of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in making appointments, consistent with maintaining administrative efficiency.

18. In State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas (1976), what specific measure did the Court uphold as consistent with Article 335?

    • Rule 13AA giving SC/ST employees extra time to pass a departmental promotion test (correct answer)
    • A complete ban on promotion tests for all employees
    • Reservation of 100% of promotion posts for SC/ST employees
    • Abolition of the promotion test system entirely

    Explanation. Kerala gave Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe clerks extra time to pass a promotion test. The Court held that extra time does not harm efficiency, since the test itself did not change.

19. What was the vote split in State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas, and who dissented?

    • Unanimous 7:0
    • 5:2, with Khanna and Gupta, JJ. dissenting (correct answer)
    • 4:3, with the Chief Justice dissenting
    • 6:1, with Justice H.R. Khanna dissenting

    Explanation. A seven-Judge Bench upheld the rule by 5:2, with Khanna and Gupta, JJ. dissenting. The majority held that Article 16(1) does not demand a rigid, formal equality.

20. What is the effect of Article 358 during a Proclamation of Emergency declared on the ground of war or external aggression?

    • It automatically suspends all Fundamental Rights
    • It automatically suspends the six freedoms under Article 19, freeing the State to make laws or take executive action that would otherwise be restricted by Article 19 (correct answer)
    • It suspends only Article 21
    • It has no effect on Fundamental Rights

    Explanation. Article 358 automatically suspends Article 19's freedoms during a war/external-aggression Emergency, without requiring a separate Presidential order, unlike Article 359.

21. How does the mechanism of Article 359 differ from Article 358?

    • Article 359 requires a specific Presidential order to suspend the right to move courts for enforcement of specified Fundamental Rights (other than Articles 20 and 21); it is not automatic like Article 358 (correct answer)
    • Article 359 applies only to Article 19
    • Article 359 is automatic and needs no Presidential order
    • There is no material difference between the two

    Explanation. Unlike Article 358's automatic suspension of Article 19, Article 359 requires the President to specifically order suspension of the right to move any court for enforcing named Fundamental Rights during an Emergency.

22. In ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976), what did the majority hold about habeas corpus petitions during the Article 359 suspension?

    • Habeas corpus petitions challenging detention could not be maintained at all during the suspension (correct answer)
    • Habeas corpus petitions remained fully available regardless of the suspension
    • Habeas corpus applied only to foreign nationals
    • The issue was left undecided

    Explanation. The majority in ADM Jabalpur held that once Article 359 validly suspended the right to move courts to enforce Article 21, no habeas corpus petition challenging detention could be maintained.

23. Which Judge dissented alone in ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976)?

    • Justice H.R. Khanna (correct answer)
    • Justice Krishna Iyer
    • No dissent was recorded in ADM Jabalpur
    • Justice Bhagwati

    Explanation. A 4:1 Bench held that no habeas corpus petition could be heard while the order suspended Article 21. Khanna, J. alone dissented. He held that personal liberty exists without Article 21.

24. What amendment permanently altered the scope of Article 359 in response to ADM Jabalpur?

    • The 44th Amendment, 1978, which excluded Articles 20 and 21 from the reach of any Article 359 order (correct answer)
    • The 42nd Amendment, 1976, which expanded Article 359
    • The 24th Amendment, 1971
    • No amendment was ever made in response

    Explanation. The 44th Amendment, 1978 amended Article 359 to permanently exclude Articles 20 and 21 from suspension by any future Presidential order, ensuring the ADM Jabalpur outcome could not recur.