CONSTITUTION

PASSAGE
The Court's basic structure doctrine can plausibly be seen as an attempt to defend the
Constitution against certain perceived immediate threats to democracy and civil liberties in a
specific political context. Even though the Indian Constitution does not, unlike, for example, the
German Constitution, explicitly identify features as basic and unalterable, such an interpretation
does not seem far-fetched. However, the Court has not defined what is basic, possibly on the
grounds that it can evolve over time.
But here again there are difficulties. For example, who today will defend the right to property,
which the Constitution's founding fathers included in the fundamental rights, as a basic feature?
In fact, over the decade of the 1950s, the Supreme Court struck down a series of land reforms on
the basis of this clause. Again, it is unlikely that there are many today who will defend the
Court's stand on this issue, much less question the wisdom of the land reforms law themselves,
however limited they may have been in their drafting and implementation, and their contribution
to the nation's economic progress, social justice, and political stability. In other words, what is
considered basic also changes. Hence, when considering constitutional interpretations, we have
to ask the broader question: what kind of society and polity do we want to live in and how can
that be achieved?
That the Court, in spite of its doctrine, was not able to prevent the Emergency and its excesses,
shows only its limitations in the real world, but does not discredit the attempt itself. In fact,
judicial pronouncements are a part of the creation of public opinion, not something separate and
different from it. Lacking the use of force and popular mobilization that the executive and the
legislature have at their command, the judiciary has only its prestige and legitimacy in society to
enforce its decisions against those pillars of the state. Thus, it is unfair to denigrate the judges as
unelected and a small group taking decisions behind closed doors. If they are to be characterized
in such a manner, then why not do away with them altogether or at least with their power of
judicial review? Or, why not appoint them by election as is done in certain instances in some
countries?

1. Based on the author's argument why do you think the Court formulated the basic
structure doctrine?
A. To retain the judicial power
B. To avoid the states from breaking away from the Union.
C. To ensure that civil liberties and democratic polity are not made more stringent.
D. To ensure that some political expediency does not subvert the Constitution, especially
with regard to our chosen way of democracy and civil liberties.

2. Based on the author's reasoning in the passage above why did not the courts define the
basic structure?
A. It is presumed that it will evolve with the passage of time.
 B. Every aspect of the Constitution need not be defined.
C. Except for Germany, no other country has defined it.
D. We did not perceive the immediate need at the time of adopting the Constitution.

3. Based on the essence in the passage above, how does the author support the above
conclusion?
A. It is natural for human beings to change their priorities over a period of time.
B. The requirement for social justice needed a change in the right to property as a
fundamental right as per the public opinion.
C. The Court changes its laws in accordance to the change in society.
D. Landlords were earlier considered a burden on society but no longer so.

4. Based on the author's reasoning in the passage above, why is it difficult to define what
the basic structure is?
A. There is no accepted definition of a basic structure.
B. The Indian Constitution was made on the outlines of the German Constitution.
C. What is "basic" today can change with time.
D. It is an abstract idea.

5. In spite of the enunciation of the basic structure doctrine, why was the Court not able to
prevent the Emergency and its excesses?
A. Since there was no definition, the Court did not know what to protect.
B. The Court does not have the forceful means to prevent such excesses unlike the other
organs of the state.
C. They do not have the mandate to overrule the elected government.
D. They are not an elected body like the legislature.

6. Based on the essence in the passage above, which of the following should be considered
by the judiciary while interpreting the Constitution?
A. How to ensure that the laws are in line with the basic and unalterable features of the
Constitution.
B. How should the judiciary overcome the lack of use of force and popular
mobilization?
C. How to achieve the kind of society and polity that is desired by the public?
D. How to deal with public prejudices against the judiciary?

7. Based on the author's arguments in the passage above, which of the following point is
least inferential as a part of the argument related to the Indian judiciary made in the above
passage?
A. Prestige in society
 B. Ability to contribute to public opinion.
C. Legitimacy
D. Popular mobilization of society.

8. Parliament passed a law blocking legal recourse to the Courts in case of Industrial
Disasters. Law states that disaster complaint can only be filed in the disaster tribunals.
Judicial Review is a part of the Basic Features of the Constitution. Ratlam witnessed a
leak of methyl isocyanides claiming many lives. A PIL was filed challenging the law.
Based on the author's reasoning and basic feature of judicial review in the passage above,
decide the fate of petition?
A. Petition will be dismissed since the court can only consider legal questions but cannot
doubt the legislative wisdom.
B. Petition will be entertained since judicial review is a basic feature and any ouster of
the court intervention violates basic structure doctrine.
C. Petition will be dismissed since the PIL is not a correct route to ameliorate the
suffering of the industrial disasters.
D. Petition will be entertained since the court is the ultimate vanguard in the domain of
environmental protection. Environmental Protection is part of basic feature.

9. The Parliament passed an amendment to the effect that Democracy is no longer a part of
the Constitution. To that effect a law was passed that election of the Prime Minister and
President cannot be question in any court of law. The amendment was challenged on the
ground that it violates the basic structure. However, the Supreme Court upheld the
validity of the amendment on the ground that elimination of democracy can lead to
massive growth and efficiency in the economy. Based on the essence of the passage, what
would be the author's stand on the ruling?
A. Author would welcome the ruling since the Article 368 confers untrammeled and
unhindered power to amend the constitution on the Parliament.
B. Author would not welcome the ruling since the fundamental rights are essential to the
Constitution and as per the Keshavananda Bharti case, the basic structure cannot be
amended.
C. Author would welcome the ruling since democracy hurts economic growth and
development and only dictatorship is beneficial for growth.
D. Author would not welcome the ruling since democracy is a part of basic structure.

10. Parliament enacted a Panchayati Raj Law (PRL). PRL seeks to devolve and decentralize
the Union and States power on the Urban and Rural Local bodies. States filed the suit
against the Union contending infringement and demolition of Democracy. Based on the
inference drawn, what should be the Supreme Court's ruling on the devolution and
decentralization?
 A. Supreme Court should give favorable ruling on the devolution and decentralization
since the law is invalid as it did not consult the States. States are integral part of
federal structure in a polity.
B. Supreme Court should give adverse ruling on the devolution and decentralization
since the law is invalid as it weakens the Union and State level democracy.
C. Supreme Court should give favorable ruling on the devolution and decentralization
since it will strengthen the grass root democracy. Thus, strengthening the basic
feature of democracy.
D. Supreme Court should give adverse ruling on the devolution and decentralization
since the law has tinkered with the constitutional federation as envisaged by the
founding fathers in the Constituent Assembly.

PASSAGE 2
The doctrine of res judicata requires that a party should not be allowed to file same matter
repeatedly against the other party either in the same court or in other competent court and that
the decision given by one court should be accepted as final subject to any appeal, revision or
review. The doctrine is founded on the principle that it is in the interest of the public at large that
a finality should be attached to the binding decisions pronounced by courts of competent
jurisdiction, and it is also in the public interest that individuals should not be vexed twice over
with the same kind of litigation. This apart, the object of the doctrine is to ensure that ultimately
there should be an end to litigation. Doctrine of res judicata is embodied in Section 11 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which governs the procedure to be followed in civil matters.
Section 11 is inapplicable to writ jurisdictions. The Supreme Court has observed that though the
rule is technical in nature yet the general doctrine of res judicata is based on public policy and
therefore, it cannot be treated as irrelevant or inadmissible even in dealing with fundamental
rights in petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The court observed that if a
writ petition filed by a party under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is considered on
merits as a contested matter and is dismissed, the decision thus pronounced would continue to
bind the parties unless it is otherwise modified or reversed in appeal or other appropriate
proceedings permissible under the Constitution of India. It would not be open to a party to ignore
the judgment of the High Court and move Supreme Court under Article 32 by an original petition
made on the same facts and for obtaining the same or similar orders or writs. If the petition filed
in the High Court under Article 226 is dismissed but not on the merits, then the dismissal of the
writ petition would not constitute a bar to a subsequent petition under Article 32, however if the
petition is dismissed without passing a speaking order, then such dismissal cannot be treated as
creating a bar of res judicata.
1. Which of the following is res judicata applicable to?
A. Civil suits
B. Writ petitions
C. Both (A) and (B)
D. None of the above.
2. Doctrine of res judicata is applicable to writs if:
A. The decision is on merits
B. Order is a speaking order.
C. Both (A) and (B)
D. Neither (A) nor (B)

3. On which of the following is the doctrine of res judicata based?

A. No one should be vexed twice for the same cause more than once.
B. It is in the interest of public that finality should be attached to the decisions of
courts.
C. There should be an end to litigation.
D. All of these.

4. Which of the following is correct?

A. If a writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the
same is rejected on merits by a speaking order, another petition under Article
32 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable being barred by res
judicata.
B. The doctrine of res judicata is founded on the principle that it is in the interest
of the public at large that finality should be attached to the binding decisions
pronounced by courts of competent jurisdiction.
C. Technical rule of res judicata only prevents multiple filing of petitions under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India between same parties over the same
matter and is not applicable to petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of
India.
D. Both (A) and (B).

5. Mr. X was dismissed from service by his employer after a proper enquiry. Mr. X
challenged his dismissal in High Court by a petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. However, the High Court dismissed the petition citing that
Mr. X has an alternative remedy available. Mr. X took recourse to the alternative
remedy before the appropriate forum, but Mr. X’s legal action is opposed by the
employer on the basis of res judicata. Based on these facts, which of the following
is the most appropriate?
A. Res judicata is applicable.
B. Res judicata is not applicable.
C. Since the matter relates to livelihood and life of the person, technical rule of
res judicata should not be applied.
D. Both (B) and (C)