Public Section Preview
Predicted Questions with Model Answers
Q1 (5 marks — 50 words): What is constitutional morality? How has the Supreme Court applied it in recent cases?
Model Answer:
Constitutional morality, a concept invoked by Dr. Ambedkar, means adherence to constitutional values — democratic processes, individual rights, institutional procedures — over popular (majoritarian) norms. The Supreme Court applied it in Navtej Singh Johar (2018) to decriminalise consensual homosexuality despite public opposition, and in Sabarimala (2018) to allow women's entry into a temple despite religious custom. Constitutional morality protects minorities from majority overreach.
(56 words)
Q2 (5 marks — 50 words): Explain transformative constitutionalism and its significance for India.
Model Answer:
Transformative constitutionalism holds that a constitution is not static but a tool for social transformation — dismantling hierarchies of caste, gender, and class. India's Constitution, through the Preamble's goals of equality and dignity and expansive interpretation of Article 21 (right to life), has been read as actively advancing social change. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud is its principal judicial proponent in India.
(55 words)
Q3 (5 marks — 50 words): What did the Supreme Court hold in the K.S. Puttaswamy case (2017)?
Model Answer:
In K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), a unanimous 9-judge bench declared the Right to Privacy a Fundamental Right under Article 21 (right to life and liberty). It overruled M.P. Sharma (1954) and Kharak Singh (1963). Privacy includes informational privacy, decisional autonomy, and bodily integrity. The ruling prompted the Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 and shaped the Navtej Johar judgment.
(57 words)
Q4 (10 marks — 150 words): Critically analyse the Supreme Court's approach to constitutional morality in recent judgments. Is the Court overstepping into the domain of social engineering?
Model Answer:
Constitutional morality — adherence to constitutional values over popular sentiment — has become the defining principle of Indian constitutional jurisprudence since 2017. The Supreme Court's invocation of this concept in Navtej Singh Johar (2018) (decriminalising consensual homosexuality), Sabarimala (2018) (allowing women's temple entry), and Shayara Bano (2017) (striking down instant triple talaq) represents a consistent pattern: the Court using the Constitution to protect minorities from majoritarian social norms.
Critics argue this constitutes judicial overreach — courts substituting their social vision for that of elected legislatures. The counter-argument, rooted in Ambedkar's insight, is that constitutional democracy requires more than majoritarianism: it requires institutional protection of the individual against collective coercion. The Constituent Assembly deliberately created an independent judiciary to be precisely this check.
The limits of constitutional morality are becoming visible in Supriyo (2023), where the same Court deferred to Parliament on same-sex marriage — suggesting the Court self-limits when the issue involves active policy creation (not just removal of unconstitutional restrictions). This calibrated approach — striking down restrictions, deferring on entitlements — may represent the Court's sustainable doctrine: constitutional morality as a shield for individual rights, not a sword for judicial policy-making.
(170 words)
Q5 (5 marks — 50 words): What were the key changes made by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 compared to the Indian Penal Code 1860?
Model Answer:
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023, which replaced the IPC 1860 from 1 July 2024, introduced: (i) specific provisions on terrorism and organised crime; (ii) replaced sedition (Section 124A IPC) with Section 152 targeting acts against India's sovereignty and integrity; (iii) strengthened offences against women and children; (iv) community service as punishment for minor offences. It retained IPC's structure but aligned language with Indian constitutional values.
(58 words)
Q6 (5 marks — 50 words): What is the Citizenship Amendment Act 2019 and why is it constitutionally controversial?
Model Answer:
The CAA 2019 provides expedited citizenship to non-Muslim minorities (Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, Christians) from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan who entered India before 31 December 2014, facing religious persecution. Constitutional controversy: critics argue it discriminates on religion, violating Article 14 (equality before law). The government defends it as remedial — protecting persecuted minorities from specific theocratic states. Rules notified March 2024; SC petitions pending.
(57 words)