Constitution Of India - Study Mode
[#1236] Which of the following observation was not made by the court through J. S. Verma J. (as he then was) in Neelabati Bahera v. State of Orissa, AIR 1993 SC 1960?
Correct Answer
(C) The doctrine of sovereign immunity is not applicable in case of violation of fundamental rights
[#1237] Consider the following statements: The Indian Constitution is: 1. An unwritten constitution 2. A written constitution 3. Largely based on the Government of India Act, 1935. 4. A gift of British Parliament Of these statement
Correct Answer
(B) 2 and 3 are correct
[#1238] In case of repugnancy between the law made by the Parliament and law made by the State Legislature, with respect to any matter enumerated in concurrent list:
Correct Answer
(C) By virtue of Article 254 of Constitution of India, law made by Parliament shall prevail
[#1239] By which of the following Constitutional Amendment Clause (4B) was added to Article 16 of the Constitution?
Correct Answer
(C) 81 st
[#1240] Article 368(4) inserted by the 42 nd Amendment of the Constitution, 1976 declared as invalid by the Supreme Court. In which one of the following cases it was held
Correct Answer
(C) Minerva Mills v. UOI
Explanation
Solution: The correct answer is Option C: Minerva Mills v. UOI . Let's break down why: Article 368 of the Indian Constitution deals with the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution . The 42nd Amendment Act of 1976 made significant changes to the Constitution, including adding clauses to Article 368. Article 368(4) , inserted by the 42nd Amendment, essentially tried to limit the power of judicial review over constitutional amendments. It stated that any amendment made under Article 368 could not be challenged in any court on any ground. However, the Supreme Court, in the landmark case of Minerva Mills v. Union of India (UOI) in 1980 , declared Article 368(4) as unconstitutional and invalid . The Court held that Article 368(4) violated the basic structure of the Constitution . The power of judicial review is a fundamental aspect of the basic structure, and the Parliament cannot take it away through amendments. Let's look at why the other options are incorrect: Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain: This case dealt with election disputes and the 39th Amendment, not Article 368(4) directly. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala: This case established the doctrine of basic structure of the Constitution, but it was before the 42nd Amendment. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab: This case initially restricted Parliament's power to amend fundamental rights but was later overturned by the Kesavananda Bharati case. Therefore, Minerva Mills v. UOI is the only case where Article 368(4), inserted by the 42nd Amendment, was declared invalid.