UNIT-4 MCQs Total points 328/328 Date’ 30th October 2023 Time: 10.10 am - 10.50 am Total MCQs =82 — Full Marks=328 Four marks will be awarded for each correct answer, and one mark will be deducted for each wrong answer. Article 21 and 22 328 of 328 points v S CoOo@°0 O00 ®@ ‘Procedure established by law’ was borrowed in the Constitution of India 4/4 from Article 31 of the Constitution USA Japanese v UK Australian Framers of the Constitution of India substituted in place of the original 4/4 phrase ‘due process of law’ - procedure established by law v procedure established by just, fair and reasonable law procedure established by just, fair and unreasonable law procedure established natural lawo@o°0 < S @©ooo @ooo The framers of the Constitution of India wanted to use specific words with 4/4 definitive meaning under Article 21, leaving little room for judicial creativi and therefore, - due process of law was preferred over procedure established by law procedure established by law wad preferred over just fair and reasonable law procedure established by law was preferred over due process of law v just fair and reasonable law was preferred over due process of law The marginal note of Article 21 is - ala life and personal liberty life and personal liberty of cit en Protection of life and personal liberty of persons Protection of life and personal liberty v Right under Article 21 is available to- 4/4 a) natural person b) legal person c) citizen d) foreigner a) b) c) and d) vThe adjective ‘liberty’ was used to qualify the noun ‘personal’ under Article 4/4 21 O Tue @ False v VY Inwhat year was the A. K. Gopalan vs. Union of India case decided? aa © 1947 @ 1950 v O 1954 O 1962 What was the primary issue raised in the A. K. Gopalan case? ala CO Freedom of the press © Right to education ©@ Preventive detention v CO Freedom of religionWho was the Chief Justice of India when the A. K. Gopalan case was 44 decided? @ Hy. Kania v © ™ Patanjali Sastri O BR Ambedkar © ©. Rajagopalachari Inthe A. K. Gopalan case, what did the Supreme Court hold regarding the 4/4 scope of Article 217 © Itheld that Article 21 only protected the right to life and personal liberty. v © Itheld that Article 21 encompassed a wide range of rights. © Itheld that Article 21 was not applicable in this case. © Itheld that Article 21 was unconstitutional. What was the impact of the A. K. Gopalan case on the interpretation of 4/4 fundamental rights in India? © Itexpanded the scope of fundamental rights. ©@ Itrestricted the scope of fundamental rights. v © Ithad no impact on the interpretation of fundamental rights. © Itled to the repeal of fundamental rights.< OO@°0 < S OoO0o@°0 OO@°0 Which landmark case eventually overruled the decision in the A. K. Gopalan4/4 case with regard to the interpretation of fundamental rights? Keshavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India v Golaknath vs. State of Punjab Kesavananda Bharati vs. Union of India AK Gopalan case the petitioner was put behind bars under the - 4/4 Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA) Preventive Detention Act (PDA) v Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) Who said - 4/4 Article 21 meant the state-enacted law and did not carry with it any abstract notion of justice or fairness and it would give no guarantee against possible legislative vagaries Chief Justice Kania Justice Das v Justice Mukherjea Justice Fazal AliS @ooo CoO0o@°O Who said - ala ‘Subject to the limitations imposed by the Constitution, the legislature was supreme in India. Therefore, if within the sphere of its authority, the legislature abused its power, the courts could not provide a remedy Chief Justice Kania Justice Fazal Ali Justice Mukherjea Justice Das v Who said - 4/4 The provisions of Articles 19, 21 and 22 were not mutually exclusive, and there was considerable overlapping between them. Chief Justice Kania Justice Fazal Ali v Justice Mukherjea Justice DasY Who said- aa if the term personal liberty is interpreted so liberally as to include the freedoms guaranteed under Article 19 the whole purpose of restricting the scope of Article 19 (1) rights limited to citizens alone would get defeated © Justice HJ. Kania © Justice M. Patanjali Sastri CO Shri B.R. Ambedkar © MHMSeervai v In Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1963 SC 1295, the majority 4/4 interpreted personal liberty to include the right to privacy O Tue @ False v Justice Subba Rao gave the famous minority opinion regarding right to. 4/4 privacy in Kharak Singh case @ Tue v O FalseoOoO0O®@ S < OoO0@°O In Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1963 SC 1295 the petitioner 4/4 contended that- right under Articles 21 and 19 (1)(a) and (d) were infringed v right under Articles 21 and 19 (1)(g) were infringed right under Articles 21 and 23 were infringed right under Articles 21 and 20 were infringed Right to personal liberty under Article 21 had many attributes, some of 4/4 which were already guaranteed under article 19 (1), this would mean that a law interfering with some such aspect of personal liberty must satisfy the requirements of both articles 19 and 21. The aforesaid observation was made by Justice in Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1963 SC 1295. Ayyangar Subba Rao v H. J. Kania MukherjeaVY Since movement within the territory of India is covered under Article 19 (1) 4/4 (d) the residue, i.e. the right to move outside the territory of India, must be understood to be comprised of the guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21 The above opinion of the majority was expressed in - © Karak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1963 SC 1295 © Ak Gopalan vs State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27 © Satwant singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam, AIR 1967 SC 1836 v © RC Cooper v. Union of India, (1970) 1 SCC 248, VY InAK Gopalan, the majority adjudge the constitutionality of the preventive 4/4 detention law on the touchstone of Article 19 O Tue @ False v In RC Cooper v. Union of India, (1970) 1 SCC 248 the judge bench 4/4 debunked the theory of non-application of Article 19 in conjunction with another Article, 31 or 21.The provisions of The Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971, were 4/4 examined for their conformity with Article 19 in © Maneka Gandhi v. Union of india, AIR 1978 SC 597 © RC Cooper v. Union of India, (1970) 1 SCC 248, © Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam, AIR 1967 SC 1836 ©@ Haradhan Saha v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1974 SC 2154 v Y_ After the Supreme Court decision in that personal liberty 4/4 under article 21 included within its fold the right to travel abroad, Parliament passed the Passport Act 1967, and clothed the then existing executive authority of the Government of India with law in the matter of- Issue, impounding and cancellation of passports. © Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam v © Haradhan Saha v. State of West Bengal © Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India © Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India it was held that ‘procedure established 4/4 by law’ under Article 21 does not meant ‘fair and reasonable procedure’ O Tne @ False vYn Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India judge bench held that aya fundamental rights guaranteed under different articles overlapped with each other and did not constitute exclusive separate zones @7 v Os oun On. Y Anon-citizen like a corporation cannot invoke Article 21 for claiming the 4/4 right to freedom of the press under Article 19 (1) (a) and the right to freedom of trade and business under Article 19 (1)(9) O Te @ False v Y_ The notional distinction between the right and the directive is also getting 4/4 gradually obliterated and it is no longer possible to accuse the court that it is giving less than due importance to the directives as was alleged in the past, @ Tne v O FalseOOO ®@ K OoO0@°0 < oOo@°0 In order to expand the ambit of Article 21 Judges have generally borrowed 4/4 the content from- a) Directive Principles of State Policy b) from International conventions to which India is a party c) from International conventions to which India is not a party 4) Constitutional assembly debate a) and b) v a) andc) a) 0) and d) a) and d) A large number of ... rights have been judicially created most of | 4/4 these rights are part of the right to life. moral unenumerated v unnecessary unethical Which of the following may be called a concomitant right under Article 21? 4/4 right to remain alive right to the sanctity of bodily limbs and sense-organs v right to food, shelter and clothing all the aboveY concomitant rights can subsume within the scope of the right to life the 4/4 whole of part IIl and part IV of the constitution and many more things. @ Tre v O False VY. The concomitant right to life has eliminated the distinction between a legal 4/4 right and a purely moral or social right. Now a right is a legally protected interest out of which some can be perfect and some can be imperfect. @ Te v O False VY. The right to livelihood is because it only protects a person al possessed of the means of livelihood from being deprived of it without cause and proper hearing O perfect @ imperfect v Right to primary education as recognised in AIR 1993 SC 2178 was aa oo right, ©@ perfect v CO imperfectS Oo@o0Oo OoOo@°0 OO@°0 By the term ‘life’, something more is meant than mere animal aa existence. The inhibition against its deprivation extends to all those limbs and faculties by which life is enjoyed. The above observation was made by Field, J. in- Dred Scott v. Sandford Munn v. Illinois. v ‘Schenck v. United States. Plessy v. Ferguson Francis Coralie v. Union Territory of Delhi, (1981) 1 SCC608 recognised- 4/4 the right to die with human dignity active euthanasia the right to live with human dignity v passive euthanasia After the enactment of the Constitution Act 2002 Article 21-4 4/4 has been inserted into the Constitution. (Eighty-Seventh Amendment) (Eighty-Sixth Amendment) v (Eighty-Fifth Amendment) (Eighty-Fourth Amendment)S @©ooo S o@o°0 OoO@°0 The Supreme Court in Mohini Jain case declared education as a ala concomitant right related to the right to life and held that right to education extended to - Primary Education stage child up to 14 years of age all stages, including Medical and Technical Education v all stages, excluding Medical and Technical Education The Supreme Court recognised the right to education as part of Article 21. 4/4 in- Mohini Jain v, State of Kerala Mohini Jain v. Union of India Mohini Jain v. State of Tamil Nadu Mohini Jain v, State of Karmataka v The Supreme Court......... judge bench, in the year 1992, declared right to 4/4 education as fundamental right. seven five threeS CoO0O0®@ S Oo@o°0 S CoO0®@ In Unni Krishnan, a of the court slightly modified the scope of 4/4 right to education and limited it to education at the primary level. full bench division bench constitution bench v 7 judge bench In the Court unanimously ruled that education 4/4 could not be commercialized and held that no capitation fee could be charged from any candidate in any form whatever. Unni Krishnan v. Andhra Pradesh v Unni Krishnan v. Kerala Unni Krishnan v. Karnataka Unni Krishnan v, Union of India In Unni Krishnan case the Supreme court created a judicially enforceable 4/4 right to education in a sense as part of the right to life under article 21 of the constitution. limited v absolute unqualified unbounded< Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, (1985) 3 SCC 545 is known for 4/4 right to work right to equal wages right to environment @ooo right to livelihood Which of the following is famously known as pavement dwellers case? 4/4 © Maneka Gandhi case ©@ Olga Tellis case © Sheela Barse case © Rudal Shah case The Supreme Court of India has recognised ‘right to earn livelihood’ by 4/4 illegal or Immoral means. O Tue @ FalseVY Right to livelihood was recognized by the Supreme Court under Article 21, 4/4 while doing so the Court referred and gave special attention to the following directives - a) Article 39 (a) b) Article 40 ©) Article 41 4d) Article 42 a) and d) a) and b) a) andc) v b) and d) Co@O0°0 V_ The state may by affirmative action, be compelled to provide adequate 4/4 means of livelihood or work to the citizens for the implementation of right to livelihood. O Tue @ False v V Itis guaranteed that the constitutional rights shall be enforced by public 4/4 law remedies, and these remedies are not available for the enforcement of ordinary legal rights if an equally effective alternative remedy is available. @ Te v O FalseS OoOo@°0 S CoO0@°O In Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra, (1983) 2 SCC 96 the Court - 44 ina series of hearings passed several orders with a view to ensuring proper treatment of the victims of Bhagalpur blinding incident and their possible rehabilitation in life directed the putting up of women prisoners and suspects in separate lockups / manned by women constables and its surprise inspection by judicial officers ordered the state to pay the victim rupees 30000 in addition to the rupees 5000 it, had already paid All the above Which of the following cases is related to infamous Bhagalpur blinding 4/4 incident? Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra, (1983) 2 SCC 96 Khatri v. State of Bihar (1981) 1SCC 627 vY Rudal Shah v. State of Bihar (1983) 4SCC 41 Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993) 2 SCC 746 In which of the following cases the petitioner had been kept in illegal 4/4 detention for 14 long years. The court ordered the state to pay him Rs. 35000/- and called it palliative and not compensation. Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993) 2 SCC 746 Rudal Shah v. State of Bihar (1983) 4SCC 41 v Khatri v. State of Bihar (1981) 1SCC 627 Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra, (1983) 2 SCC 96S OOO ®@ @®@©ooo In Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, (1985) 4SCC 677 the court 4/4 asked the respondent state to pay Rs. 50000/- to the petitioner for illegal detention, the court characterized it as - compensation v penalty damages palliative In Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993) 2 SCC 746, the Court awarded 4/4 Rs. 150000/- as to the mother for the death of her son in police custody palliative penalty damages compensation v The defence of sovereign immunity as decided in Kasturi Lal Ralia Ram 4/4 Jain v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1965) 1 SCR 375 is available in a public law remedy as well True False vOoO0@°0 In Bodhissattwa Gautam v. Subhra Chakraborty, AIR 1996 SC 922 , the Court4/4 ordered - in a civil matter that the accused should pay to the complainant interim compensation at the rate of Rs.1000/- per month during the pendency of the case in a civil matter that the accused should pay to the complainant compensation of Rs.1000/- in a criminal matter that the accused should pay to the complainant interim = compensation at the rate of Rs.1000/- per month during the pendency of the case in a criminal matter that the accused should pay to the complainant compensation of Rs.1000/- "Public law remedies can be made available even between purely private 4/4 parties’, The aforesaid observation was made in the following case that, dealt with matter related to compensation in gangrape of a Bangladeshi woman- Bodhissattwa Gautam v. Subhra Chakraborty, AIR 1996 SC 922, Chairman Railway Board v. Chandrima Das, AIR 2000 SC 988 v Kasturi Lal Ralia Ram Jain v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1965) 1 SCR 375 Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993) 2 SCC 746S lo Omeme) S OoOo@°0 CoO0®@ Ina class action brought before the Supreme Court Vishakav. Stateof 4/4 Rajasthan, A judge bench of the Supreme Court issued certain directions in the nature of guidelines requiring both the public sector and the private sector employers to adopt strict measures against acts of sexual harassment two three v five seven The Parliament has enacted the Sexual Harassment of Women at 4/4 Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 to the Supreme Court guideline, issued in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan. supplement overrule replace v avoid Right to live in a pollution-free environment is a........ right recognised 4/4 under Article 21 of the Constitution. group v constitutional directive and not a fundamental duty and not a moral right but not aS @©ooo S OoOo@°0 CoOO0®@ The insertion of Articles 48-A and 51-A(g) by the Constitution aya ( has enabled the court to draw on these provisions to interpret the scope of Article 21 in respect of environmental matters 44th Amendment Act 1978 42nd Amendment Act 1976 v 24th Amendment Act 1971 ‘Ist Amendment Act 1951 In Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 647, 44 Justice .... was sure that sustainable development, a balancing concept between ecology and development, had become part of the customary International Law Chandrachud Katju KNSingh Kuldeep Singh v In which of the following cases the Court emphasized that rules and 4a regulations demarketing the respective jurisdiction of the hospitals could not override either the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution or the ethical duty which the doctor owed to humanity Parmanand Katara v. Union of India, (1989) 4 SCC 286 v CERC v. Union of India, AIR 1995 SC 922 Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1996 C2426 Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, (1996) 3 SCC< o@go°0 S OO0O@°0 < CoO0®@ In CERC v. Union of India, AIR 1995 SC 922 the Court dealt with health 4/4 rights worker exposed to insecticides asbestos v MIC gas oleum gas In. a arriving at its decision, the court reasoned that 4/4 the state in India being a welfare state was under a duty to provide the necessary medical aid to the needy and for this it must improve and enlarge the necessary medical facilities Parmanand Katara v. Union of India, (1989) 4 SCC 286 CERC v. Union of India, AIR 1995 SC 922 Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1996 v sc2426 Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, (1996) 3 SCC Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, (1980) 1 SCC 81,is 4/4 known for - prisoner's right v women right children right patient's rightThe Supreme Court in held that everyone has the 4/4 right to leave any country including his own, and to return to his country © Satwant Singh v. D. Ramrathnam, AIR 1967 SC 1836 © Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR1978 SC 597 © Harvinder Kaur v. Harmander Singh, AIR 1984 Del.66 © Satwant Singh as well as Maneka Gandhi case v Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act 1955 providing for restitution of conjugal 4/4 rights, was held to be void for violation of articles 21 and 14 of the Constitution in the case of - © Harvinder Kaur v. Harmander Singh, AIR 1984 Del.66 © T Satitha v. T. Venkata Subhaiah, AIR 1983 AP 356 v © Saroj Rani v. Sudarshan Kumar (1984) 4 SCC 90 © Saroj Rani as well as Harvinder Kaur VY InJustice KS Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC1, nine judges 4/4 bench delivered six conquering opinion @ Tne v CO FalseCoO0®@ v ®©ooo In Justice KS Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1,itwasheld 4/4 that the right to privacy is protected as a fundamental constitutional right under - of the constitution Article 14,19 and 21 v Article 14 Article 19 Article 21 In Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, AIR 2018 SC 4321, the court said 4/4 that carnal intercourse between two people of same-sex in private is derogatory to public morality True False v In Common Cause (A Regd.) Society v. Union of India, AIR 2018 SC 1665 the4/4 Court legalised- active euthanasia active as well as passive euthanasia right to die living wills as well as passive euthanasia vVY _Itwas held in Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty v. Union of India,(2023) that 4/4 a transgender or intersex person in a heterosexual relationship is entitled to marry their partner © Tne v O False VY twas held in Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty v. Union of India,(2023) that 4/4 section 4(c) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 is unconstitutional. The Act recognises marriage only between a ‘male’ and a ‘female’. This discriminates against same-sex couples by denying them matrimonial benefits such as adoption, surrogacy, employment and retirement benefits. O Tue @ False vVY Clauses (1) and (2) of Article 22 give to every person some protection 4/4 against arrest and detention. The rights conferred are : 1. the right to be informed about the grounds of arrest 2. the right to consult a legal practitioner of one's choice and to be defended by him 3. the right to be produced within 24 hours before the nearest magistrate excluding the time necessary to reach his court from the place of arrest 4, the right not to be kept in custody beyond the period of 24 hours without the authority of a magistrate Tand2 1,2 and3 1,3 and 4 @®@ooo 1,2,3 and 4 v VY _Inwhich case the Court made the following observation - “no arrest can be 4/4 made because it is lawful for the police officer to do so. The existence of the power to arrest is one thing. The justification for the exercise of it is quite different. The police officer must be able to justify the arrest apart from his power to do so”. CO ‘State of MP. v. Sobharam, (1966) Supp. SCR 239 © Nandini Satpathy v. PL. Dani, (1978) 3 SCR 608 © DK. Basu v, State of West Bengal, AIR 1997 SC 610 © Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1994 SC 1349 vS ®©®oo9o0 OoO0@°0 D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1997 SC 610 is famous for - 44 looking into the cases of custodial death Issuing guidelines that are required to be followed by the police strictly while making arrest PIL that looked into the problem of custodial violence on an all-india basis as a recurring issue. All the above v In Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty v. Union of India, 4/4 Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1011 of 2022 decided on 17th October 2023 the matter was decided by a bench of - 3 judges 5 judges v 7 judges 2 judges After the Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty v. Union of India, Writ Petition 4/4 (Civil) No. 1011 of 2022 decided on 17th October 2023, same sex marriages are legal True False v This content is neither created nor endorsed ty Google. -Tatms of Sewvice - Privacy Policy, Google Forms