Public Section Preview
Predicted Questions with Model Answers
Q1 (5 marks — 50 words): What is the significance of Article 32 of the Indian Constitution?
Model Answer:
Article 32 grants every citizen the right to move the Supreme Court for enforcement of Fundamental Rights. Dr. Ambedkar called it the "heart and soul of the Constitution." The Court can issue five writs — Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Certiorari, Prohibition, and Quo Warranto. Article 32 itself is a Fundamental Right, non-suspendable except under Article 359 during emergencies.
(51 words)
Q2 (5 marks — 50 words): Distinguish between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy.
Model Answer:
Fundamental Rights (Part III, Art. 12–35) are justiciable — courts can enforce them against the state. DPSPs (Part IV, Art. 36–51) are non-justiciable guidelines for governance. FRs are negative obligations (state shall not); DPSPs are positive obligations (state shall strive). Both are equally fundamental — Minerva Mills (1980) mandated harmonious balance between them.
(52 words)
Q3 (5 marks — 50 words): Write a short note on Fundamental Duties under Article 51A.
Model Answer:
Article 51A (added by 42nd Amendment 1976, Swaran Singh Committee) prescribes 10 Fundamental Duties for Indian citizens; the 86th Amendment 2002 added an 11th — parents' duty to provide education to children aged 6–14. Duties include upholding the Constitution, defending the country, protecting the environment, and developing scientific temper. They are non-justiciable but Parliament may enforce them through legislation.
(57 words)
Q4 (10 marks — 150 words): Critically examine the relationship between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy. How have courts resolved conflicts between the two?
Model Answer:
Fundamental Rights (Part III) and Directive Principles (Part IV) represent two facets of the same constitutional vision — individual liberty and social justice. The original Constitution was silent on supremacy in case of conflict, leading to a decade-long judicial tug-of-war.
Initially, courts gave primacy to Fundamental Rights (Shankari Prasad, 1951). Parliament responded with the 25th Amendment (1971), giving select DPSPs (Art. 39b, 39c) primacy over Arts. 14 and 19. The 42nd Amendment (1976) extended this to all DPSPs. The Supreme Court, in Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980), struck down this blanket override, holding that the balance between FRs and DPSPs is itself part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution.
The current position, settled through Unni Krishnan (1993) and subsequent decisions, is that courts must harmoniously construe the two — neither has absolute supremacy. DPSPs can inform and expand the interpretation of FRs, and Parliament can abridge FRs to give effect to DPSPs, provided the Basic Structure is not violated. This creative tension has allowed courts to read socio-economic rights (right to livelihood, education, health) into Article 21, effectively giving DPSPs indirect justiciability.
(165 words)
Q5 (10 marks — 150 words): Discuss the composition and working of the Constituent Assembly of India. What were its major sources of inspiration?
Model Answer:
The Constituent Assembly was constituted in December 1946 under the Cabinet Mission Plan; after Partition, its membership stood at 299. Dr. Rajendra Prasad presided; Dr. B.R. Ambedkar chaired the seven-member Drafting Committee. The Assembly deliberated for 2 years, 11 months, and 18 days (166 sitting days), considering 2,473 amendments (284 accepted).
The Constitution drew from multiple sources: the Government of India Act 1935 (federal structure, emergencies), British Constitution (parliamentary system, rule of law, writs), US Constitution (Fundamental Rights, judicial review, preamble), Irish Constitution (DPSPs, nominated Rajya Sabha members), Australian Constitution (Concurrent List, joint sitting), USSR Constitution (Fundamental Duties, socialist ideals), Canadian Constitution (residual powers with the Centre), and the Weimar Constitution (emergency provisions).
The drafting reflected the founders' dual commitment to liberal individual rights and social transformation. Dr. Ambedkar warned in his final speech that constitutional morality — adherence to constitutional values — was not innate but had to be cultivated; without it, the democratic framework could not survive.
(162 words)
Q6 (5 marks — 50 words): Explain the 'reasonable classification' doctrine under Article 14.
Model Answer:
Article 14 guarantees equality but permits reasonable classification — treating like alike and unlike differently. A valid classification requires: (i) intelligible differentia — a genuine, identifiable difference between grouped persons/objects; and (ii) rational nexus — the differentia must reasonably relate to the legislative objective. Arbitrary, unreasonable, or capricious classifications violate Article 14 (Ameerunnissa Begum, 1953; Ram Krishna Dalmia, 1958).
(54 words)