Constitution Day Quiz : Answers To Multiple Choice Questions On Constitution [Part 1]

1. In Supriyo v. Union of India, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held :

(a) Right to marry is a fundamental right.

(b) Right to marry is not a fundamental right.

(c) Right to marry is not a fundamental right but the right to recognition of a civil union is a fundamental right.

(d) (b) and (c) .

Answer : (b). The Constitution Bench unanimously held that right to marry is not a fundamental right.

2. When Governors withhold assent to a Bill, what should be the next step taken by them :

(a) The Governor must return the bill as soon as possible to the legislature for reconsideration.

(b) The Governor must refer the Bill to the President for assent.

(c) The Governor must refer the bill to the Chief Minister.

(d) The Governor need not do anything further.

Answer : (a). The Supreme Court recently held in State of Punjab v. Principal Secretary to Governor of Punjab(2023) that a Governor, on withholding assent to a bill, must return it to the legislature. In State of Telangana v. Hon'ble Secretary to Her Excellency the Governor(2023), the Supreme Court observed that as per the proviso to Article 200, the Governor must return the bill "as soon as possible".

3. What has the Supreme Court held about the right of a religious denomination to excommunicate?

(a) The Supreme Court has held that the right to excommunicate is a part of fundamental rights under Articles 25 and 26.

(b) The Supreme Court has held that excommunication infringes constitutional morality and can’t be claimed as a fundamental right by a religious denomination.

(c) The Supreme Court has held that a religious denomination’s right to excommunicate must prevail over an individual’s right to practice religion.

(d) The Supreme Court has prima facie expressed that excommunication violates constitutional morality and has referred the matter to a 9-judge bench for an authoritative pronouncement.

Answer : (d). In Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr(2023), a 5-judge bench of the Supreme Court prima facie observed that excommunication violates the principles of constitutional morality. However, since a coordinate bench in Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb v. State of Bombay(1962) struck down a legislation prohibiting excommunication, the matter was referred to a larger bench. Noting that the issues relating to the ambit of religious freedom were subject matter of the Sabarimala reference pending before a 9-judge bench, the bench referred the Dawoodi Bohra case to that bench. 

4. Government bars the telecast of a TV channel on the ground that it airs only views critical of the government policies. What do you think about the Government action?

(a) The Government action is valid as Article 19(2) enables it to restrict the expression of views which are against the State.

(b) The Government action is valid as the freedom of the press is also coupled with the duty to support the Government policies.

(c) The Government action is unconstitutional because criticism of governmental policy is not a ground stipulated in Article 19(2).

(d) The Government action is unconstitutional but not illegal because the grant of statutory license of the channel is subject to the condition that it should support the government policies.

Answer : (c). "Criticism of governmental policy can by no stretch of imagination be brought within the fold of any of the grounds stipulated in Article 19(2)", held the Supreme Court in Madhyamam Broadcasting Ltd vs Union of India and others(2023).

5. Citizens can claim fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution only if they perform their fundamental duties under Article 51A.

(a) The statement is correct because only those who perform their duties can make a moral claim for rights.

(b) The statement is correct because only lazy and irresponsible persons think only of their rights without considering their duties.

(c) The statement is correct because for the development of the country, citizens must be concerned more about their duties than their rights.

(d) The statement is wrong because the Constitutionally guaranteed rights are not conditional on the individuals performing their fundamental duties.

Answer : (d).  

6. According to the Constitution, India is :

(a) A Union of States.

(b) A Federation of States.

(c) Confederation of States.

(d) Assembly of States.

Answer : (a). Article 1 describes India as a "Union of States".

7. Which of the following statements is correct :

(a) Our Constitution only recognises the concept of “cooperative federalism”.

(b) Our Constitution recognises the concept of “uncooperative federalism” along with “cooperative federalism”

(c) Our Constitution does not recognise “uncooperative federalism”.

(d) Our Constitution only recognises the concept of “uncooperative federalism”.

Answer : (b). In Union of India and Anr versus M/s Mohit Minerals Through Director(2022), the Supreme Court discussed the concept of "uncooperative federalism" along with "cooperative federalism" and observed that a degree of contestation between the Centre and the States is also good for democracy. "Indian federalism is a dialogue between cooperative and uncooperative federalism", observed the Court. The decision was in the context of GST council recommendations.

8. Can the Preamble to the Constitution of India be amended? Choose the most correct answer.

(a) The Preamble cannot be amended as it is not a part of the Constitution.

(b) Preamble cannot be amended as only the Articles of the Constitution can be amended using the powers under Article 368.

(c) Preamble can be amended by the Parliament but without altering the basic structure of the Constitution.

(d) A Constitutional amendment is not necessary to amend the Preamble and it can be amended through an ordinary legislative amendment bill.

Answer : (c). In Kesavananda Bharati case, the Supreme Court held that the Preamble can be amended subject to the basic structure doctrine.

9. How many Constitution Amendment Acts have been enacted so far?

(a) 106

(b) 128

(c) 104

(d) 103

Answer : (a). The latest amendment is the Constitution (106th Amendment) Act 2023, which provides for women's reservation in legislatures. 

10. Can the Governor order a floor test to settle an intra-party dispute?

(a) Yes

(b) No

(c) This issue is yet to be answered.

Answer : (b). In Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary to Governor of Maharashtra (2023), a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that a Governor cannot order a floor test to settle an intra-party dispute as the Governor cannot enter the political arena.

11. Government can claim absolute immunity from disclosure on grounds of national security.

(a) Yes.

(b) No

(c) Depends on the factual situation.

Answer : (b). In Manohar Lal Sharma versus Union of India(2021- Pegasus case), the Supreme Court held that mere invocation of the ground of national security will not give a "free pass" to the State from disclosure. In Madhyamam Broadcasting Ltd vs Union of India and others (2023), the Court held that national security concerns will not completely abrogate the principles of natural justice and that the State cannot claim absolute immunity.

12. A State action, which has no discriminatory intention, results in disadvantage to a particular group, infringing their rights.

(a) The action is not unconstitutional because there is no discriminatory intent.

(b) The action is unconstitutional because it has the effect of discrimination.

(c) The State action cannot be challenged on the sole ground that it affects the right of only a particular group.

(d) The State Action is not unconstitutional because only direct discrimination is prohibited under the Constitution.

Answer : (b). In Lt Col Nitisha vs. Union of India(2021), the Supreme Court explained the concept of "indirect discrimination" and held that an action will be unconstitutional if it has a discriminatory effect on a particular section, though it was facially neutral and lacked discriminatory intent.

13. Can fundamental rights under Article 19 and 21 be enforced against private entities?

(a) Yes

(b) No

(c) The issue is yet to be settled by the Supreme Court.

Answer : (a). In Kaushal Kishore v. Union of India (2023), the Supreme Court held by 4:1 majority that Articles 19 and 21 can be enforced against private entities. Justice BV Nagarathna dissented 

14. The union parliament passes a law reserving seats in the Lok Sabha, the lower house of state legislatures, and the Delhi legislative assembly, for a certain section of the population. Does the law need to be ratified by at least one-half of the states?

(a) Yes

(b) No

Answer : (b). The procedural limitation on the parliament’s constituent power contained in the proviso to Article 368(2) is attracted only when an amendment directly affects Articles 54 (election of president), 55 (manner of election of president), 73 (executive powers of the Union), 162 (executive powers of states), 241 (high courts for union territories), or any of the articles contained in Chapter IV of Part V (union judiciary), Chapter V of Part VI (high courts in states), and Chapter I of Part XI (distribution of legislative powers). Similarly, before modifying any of the lists in the Seventh Schedule, altering the representation of states in the parliament, or amending the provisions of Article 368 itself, the concurrence of at least one-half of the states is required. For more reading, refer here.

15. Is violation of the principles of separation of powers a ground to declare a legislation as unconstitutional?

(a) Yes.

(b) No.

(c) The issue is yet to be settled by the Supreme Court.

Answer : (a). In Madras Bar Association v. Union of India (2021), the Supreme Court held -"..separation of powers forms part of the basic structure of the Constitution. Violation of separation of powers would result in infringement of Article 14 of the Constitution."

16. The Preamble to the Constitution declares India as……..

(a) Sovereign, Democratic, Republic

(b) Sovereign, Socialist, Secular, Democratic, Republic

(c) Socialist, Democratic, Republic

(d) Sovereign, Socialist, Democratic, Republic.

Answer : (b).

17. In which of the following judgments the Supreme Court held that the “manifest arbitrariness” can be a ground to strike down a legislation?

(a) Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017)

(b) State of A.P. v. McDowell & Co

(c) Hindustan Construction Company Ltd and another v. Union of India (2019)

(d) (a) and (c)

Answer : (d). In Shayara Bano, Justice Nariman's judgment held that "manifest arbitrariness" can be a ground to strike down a legislation. The precedent in McDowell holding to the contrary was overruled. In Hindustan Construction Company Ltd and another v. Union of India, the principle of "manifest arbitrariness" was applied to strike down Section 87 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

18. Is the presumption of Constitutionality applicable to the Indian Penal Code?

(a) Yes, because all legislations have a presumption of constitutionality.

(b) No, because no legislation has any presumption of constitutionality.

(c) No, because a pre-constitutional statute has no presumption of constitutionality.

(d) Yes, because pre-constitutional statutes are presumed to be constitutional.

Answer : (c). In Navtej Johar v. Union of India(2018), the Supreme Court (Justice Nariman's judgment) held that no presumption of constitutionality attaches to a pre-constitutional statute like Indian Penal Code.

19. In which Constitution Bench judgment the Supreme Court discussed the concept of "triple chain of accountability" :

(a) Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra (2023).

(b) Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India (2023).

(c) Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India (2023).

(d) Janhit Abhiyan v.Union of India (2023).

Answer : (b). The Constitution Bench applied this principle to hold that the elected government of the NCT of Delhi has the power to control the civil servants serving it.

20. Which Article of the Constitution was described by Dr.Ambedkar as the “very soul of the Constitution and the very heart of it.”

(a) Article 21

(c) Article 32

(d) Article 14

(e) Article 19

Answer : (c).

21. The ceiling limit of 50% for reservation :

(a) cannot be breached under any circumstance.

(b) is flexible and can be crossed by showing appropriate justifications.

(d) is a part of basic structure of the Constitution.

(d) (a) and (d).

Answer : (b). In Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India(2022), the Supreme Court, while upholding the EWS quota (by 3:2), observed that the 50% ceiling limit was "not inflexible".

22. Discrimination on the ground of 'sexual orientation' violates Article 15 of the Constitution

(a) No, because Article 15 speaks of discrimination on the ground only of sex.

(b) Yes, because 'sex' under Article 15 also includes 'sexual orientation'.

(c) Yes, because Article 15 expressly mentions sexual orientation as a prohibited ground.

(d) (b) and (c),

Answer : (b). In Navtej Johar v. Union of India (2018), while decriminalising consensual homosexuality, the Supreme Court observed that discrimination on the ground of 'sex', which is prohibited as per Article 15, also includes 'sexual orientation'.

23. What is the minimum number of Judges who are to sit for the purpose of deciding any case involving a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of this Constitution?

(a) 5

(b) 3

(c) 7

(d) 9

Answer : (a). This is as per Article 145(3)

24. If a reference or a review is pending against a Supreme Court judgment, is the High Court bound to follow it?

(a) Yes

(b) No

(c) High Court should defer its decision till the Supreme Court decides the review/reference.

(d) High Court has the discretion to take an independent decision.

Answer : (a). In UT of Ladakh v. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference(2023), the Supreme Court reiterated that the High Courts cannot refuse to follow a Supreme Court decision merely because a review or a reference is pending against it.

25. Can the Supreme Court invoke the powers under Article 142 to annul a marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown?

(a) Yes

(b) No

(c) The issue is yet to be decided in a pending reference.

Answer : (a). A Constitution Bench settled this issue in the recent decision in Shilpa Shialesh v. Varun Sreenivasan (2023).