DAILY CURRENT AFFAIRS QUIZ – 29 January 2025

Answer. C

Assertion (A) is true: Article 1 of the Indian Constitution characterizes India as a “Union of states,” even though its political system operates with federal structure and functions.

Reason (R) is false:

• The formation of the Indian polity did not arise from an agreement among its constituent states. There was no assertion of indestructibility or any provision allowing these units to secede, as in the case of the United States.
• The Indian constitution designates India as a Union, emphasizing its indivisibility, while individual states within it may undergo changes or new ones may be established. However, the integrity of India as a whole is permanent and cannot be dissolved.
• Unlike the United States, India was not created through a gathering of states.
• Importantly, in the Indian political system, states do not possess the right to secede from the Union. While states do maintain a degree of autonomy within their designated spheres as defined by the Constitution, their existence is not absolute or permanent, and this structure primarily serves to accommodate India’s diversity for improved governance.

Ans. D

Explanation:

Right to Equality includes:

• Equality before law
• equal protection of laws
• Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth: equal access to shops, hotels, wells, tanks, bathing ghats, roads etc.
• Equality of opportunity in public employment
• Abolition of Untouchability
• Abolition of titles

Equality of opportunity means that all sections of the society enjoy equal opportunities. But in a society where there are various kinds of social inequalities, what does equal opportunity mean? The Constitution clarifies that the government can implement special schemes and measures for improving the conditions of certain sections of society: children, women, and the socially and educationally backward classes. In fact, Article 16(4) of the constitution explicitly clarifies that a policy like reservation will not be seen as a violation of the right to equality. This is required for the fulfilment of the right to equality of opportunity.

Answer d

Explanation:

The Parliament (under Article 32) can empower any other court to issue writs. Since no such provision has been made so far, only the Supreme Court and the high courts can issue the writs and not any other court. Before 1950, only the High Courts of Calcutta, Bombay, and Madras had the power to issue the writs. Article 226 now empowers all the high courts to issue the writs. Hence statement 1 is correct.

• The Supreme Court can issue writs only for the enforcement of fundamental rights whereas a high court can issue writs not only for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights but also for any other purpose. The expression for any other purpose refers to the enforcement of an ordinary legal right. Thus, the writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, in this respect, is narrower than that of the high court. Hence statement 2 is correct.
• A remedy under Article 32 is in itself a Fundamental Right and hence, the Supreme Court may not refuse to exercise its writ jurisdiction. On the other hand, a remedy under Article 226 is discretionary and hence, a high court may refuse to exercise its writ jurisdiction. Hence statement 3 is correct.

Answer A (only 2nd statement is correct)

Explanation:

The term ‘law’ in Article 13 has been given a wide connotation so as to include the following:

(a) Permanent laws enacted by the Parliament or the state legislatures; (2nd statement is correct)

(b) Temporary laws like ordinances issued by the president or the state governors; (1st statement is incorrect)

(c) Statutory instruments in the nature of delegated legislation (executive legislation) like order, bye-law, rule, regulation or notification; (3rd statement is correct)

(d) Non-legislative sources of law, that is, custom or usage having the force of law.

Thus, not only a legislation but any of the above can be challenged in the courts as violating a Fundamental Right and hence, can be declared as void. Further, Article 13 declares that a constitutional amendment is not a law and hence cannot be challenged. However, the Supreme Court held in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) that a Constitutional amendment can be challenged on the ground that it violates a fundamental right that forms a part of the ‘basic structure’ of the Constitution and hence, can be declared as void.

Answer d

Explanation:

• Article 13 declares that all laws that are inconsistent with or in derogation of any of the fundamental rights shall be void. In other words, it expressly provides for the doctrine of judicial review. This power has been conferred on the Supreme Court (Article 32) and the high courts (Article 226) that can declare a law unconstitutional and invalid on the ground of contravention of any of the Fundamental Rights. The term ‘law’ in Article 13 has been given a wide connotation so as to include the following:
• Permanent laws enacted by the Parliament or the state legislatures;
• Temporary laws like ordinances issued by the president or the state governors;
• Statutory instruments in the nature of delegated legislation (executive legislation) like order, bye- law, rule, regulation or notification; and
• Non-legislative sources of law, that is, custom or usage having the force of law.