Landmark Judgments — Indian Polity

Q.1

WBCS Prelims 2019

Which section of the Indian Penal Code deals with adultery ?

A. 496

B. 497

C. 498

D. 499

Explanation

Why Correct: Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code defined adultery as a criminal offense until the Supreme Court struck it down as unconstitutional in 2018.
Distractor Analysis: Section 496 covers fraudulent marriage ceremonies. Section 498 addresses cruelty by a husband or his relatives toward a married woman. Section 499 defines defamation.
Takeaway: The Supreme Court's 2018 Joseph Shine v. Union of India judgment decriminalized adultery, declaring Section 497 unconstitutional for violating Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution.

Answer or skip previous question to unlock.

Q.2

WBCS Prelims 2012

The verdict of the Supreme Court in which of the following cases has made the imposition of the President's rule in any state under article 356 of constitution difficult ?

A. A.K Gopalan vs. Union of India

B. S.R Bommai vs. Union of India (regarding the state of Karnataka)

C. Kaveri water dispute case between two Southern States

D. None of the above

Explanation

Why Correct: The Supreme Court's 1994 S.R. Bommai vs. Union of India judgment established strict guidelines for imposing President's Rule under Article 356, requiring the central government to prove a breakdown of constitutional machinery and making the imposition subject to judicial review.
Distractor Analysis: A.K. Gopalan vs. Union of India (1950) dealt with preventive detention laws under Article 21. The Kaveri water dispute case involves interstate water sharing between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu under Article 262, not Article 356.
Takeaway: The Bommai case also held that the President's satisfaction under Article 356 is not beyond judicial scrutiny, and the imposition can be struck down if found malafide or based on irrelevant grounds.

Answer or skip previous question to unlock.

Q.3

WBCS Prelims 2007

In which year the Supreme Court of India dismissed the petitions of the cement, fertilizer and sugar industries challenging the Jute Packaging Material Act, 1987?

A. 1980

B. 1990

C. 1993

D. 1996

Explanation

Why Correct: The Supreme Court upheld the Jute Packaging Material Act, 1987 in 1993, dismissing challenges from industries that argued it violated their freedom to choose packaging materials under Article 19(1)(g).
Distractor Analysis: 1980 predates the Act itself. 1990 saw economic liberalization policies but no Supreme Court judgment on this specific Act. 1996 witnessed the Supreme Court's Vishaka guidelines establishing sexual harassment prevention measures in workplaces.
Takeaway: The Jute Packaging Material Act mandates use of jute for packing certain commodities to protect the jute industry and promote eco-friendly packaging, supporting rural employment.

Answer or skip previous question to unlock.

Q.4

WBPSC Miscellaneous Prelims 2018

“Basic structure” doctrine has been declared by the Supreme Court in

A. Ajay Hasia Case

B. R. D. Shetty Case

C. Keshavananda Bharati Case

D. Valsama Case

Explanation

Why Correct: The Supreme Court in Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) propounded the basic structure doctrine, holding that Parliament cannot amend the Constitution's basic features.
Distractor Analysis: Ajay Hasia case dealt with direct selection by UPSC; R. D. Shetty case pertained to natural justice; Valsama case is not a landmark for basic structure.
Takeaway: Basic structure doctrine is a cornerstone of Indian constitutional law; other key cases: Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) and Minerva Mills (1980).

Answer or skip previous question to unlock.

Q.5

WBCS prelims 2024

A verdict was delivered by a Seven Judge Bench headed by Hon'ble Chief Justice of India on sub-categorization of Scheduled Castes in 2024. The relevant litigation was between—

A. E. V. Chinnaiah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh

B. Indra Sawhney Vs. Union of India

C. Association for Democratic Reforms Vs. Election Commission of India

D. Indra Sawhney Vs. Association for Democratic Reforms

Explanation

Why Correct: The 2024 Seven Judge Bench verdict on sub-categorization of Scheduled Castes was delivered in State of Punjab Vs. Davinder Singh. It overruled the earlier E. V. Chinnaiah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh judgment, which had held that sub-classification of Scheduled Castes was impermissible. Among the listed choices, E. V. Chinnaiah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh is therefore the relevant foundational litigation.
Distractor Analysis: Indra Sawhney Vs. Union of India (1992) is the landmark case that upheld the 27% reservation for OBCs and introduced the concept of the 'creamy layer', but it did not deal with sub-categorization of Scheduled Castes. Association for Democratic Reforms Vs. Election Commission of India concerns electoral reforms, not caste reservation. Indra Sawhney Vs. Association for Democratic Reforms is not a real case title.
Takeaway: State of Punjab Vs. Davinder Singh (2024) overruled E. V. Chinnaiah (2004) and allowed states to sub-classify Scheduled Castes for more targeted distribution of reservation benefits.

Sign in to Papersetters