Jindal Global Law School Admissions 2025
Ranked #1 Law School in India & South Asia by QS- World University Rankings | Merit cum means scholarships | Application Deadline: 31st Jan'25
26 Questions around this concept.
Read the passage and answer the question that follow.
Article 32 is one of the fundamental rights listed in the Constitution that each citizen is entitled to. Article 32 deals with the ‘Right to Constitutional Remedies’, or affirms the right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred in Part III of the Constitution. It states that the Supreme Court “shall have the power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part”. The right guaranteed by this Article “shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this Constitution”.
The article is included in Part III of the Constitution with other fundamental rights including Equality, Freedom of Speech and Expression, Life and Personal Liberty, and Freedom of Religion. Only if any of these fundamental rights are violated can a person can approach the Supreme Court directly under Article 32.
During the Constituent Assembly debates in December 1948, a discussion on this fundamental right (in the draft, it is referred to as Article 25), Dr B R Ambedkar had said, “If I was asked to name any particular Article in this Constitution as the most important — an Article without which this Constitution would be a nullity — I could not refer to any other Article except this one. It is the very soul of the Constitution and the very heart of it…” He said the rights invested with the Supreme Court through this Article could not be taken away unless the Constitution itself is amended and hence it was “one of the greatest safeguards that can be provided for the safety and security of the individual”.
The Supreme Court of India has been entrusted in upholding this article, Article 32 or heart as the soul of the Constitution of India as rightly addressed by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar who has been a pioneer in the speculations and creation of our Constitution. There are definitely some limitations to it too, first of all, it is to be kept in mind that no fundamental right is absolute because even the right to life is subjected to the point that the offender, convicted criminals have to undergo the death penalty in pursuance of the commission of some heinous crimes. Any person, when unduly deprived of their fundamental rights can approach the Supreme Court, without following a lengthy process.
Question:
B is the proprietor of the land. He straightforwardly moves toward the high court after his property was attached by the excise department, then, at that point?
Read the passage and answer the question that follow.
Article 32 is one of the fundamental rights listed in the Constitution that each citizen is entitled to. Article 32 deals with the ‘Right to Constitutional Remedies’, or affirms the right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred in Part III of the Constitution. It states that the Supreme Court “shall have the power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part”. The right guaranteed by this Article “shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this Constitution”.
The article is included in Part III of the Constitution with other fundamental rights including Equality, Freedom of Speech and Expression, Life and Personal Liberty, and Freedom of Religion. Only if any of these fundamental rights are violated can a person can approach the Supreme Court directly under Article 32.
During the Constituent Assembly debates in December 1948, a discussion on this fundamental right (in the draft, it is referred to as Article 25), Dr B R Ambedkar had said, “If I was asked to name any particular Article in this Constitution as the most important — an Article without which this Constitution would be a nullity — I could not refer to any other Article except this one. It is the very soul of the Constitution and the very heart of it…” He said the rights invested with the Supreme Court through this Article could not be taken away unless the Constitution itself is amended and hence it was “one of the greatest safeguards that can be provided for the safety and security of the individual”.
The Supreme Court of India has been entrusted in upholding this article, Article 32 or heart as the soul of the Constitution of India as rightly addressed by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar who has been a pioneer in the speculations and creation of our Constitution. There are definitely some limitations to it too, first of all, it is to be kept in mind that no fundamental right is absolute because even the right to life is subjected to the point that the offender, convicted criminals have to undergo the death penalty in pursuance of the commission of some heinous crimes. Any person, when unduly deprived of their fundamental rights can approach the Supreme Court, without following a lengthy process.
Question:
There is a case in the District Court and the court has no jurisdiction to deliver judgements in such matters. All things considered, the District Court Judge attempts the case and delivers his decision and an application is made by A (the oppressed party by such decision) to the High Court. Therefore, the force of giving Writs, the High Court will give which Writ to quash the order of district court
Read the passage and answer the question that follow.
Article 32 is one of the fundamental rights listed in the Constitution that each citizen is entitled to. Article 32 deals with the ‘Right to Constitutional Remedies’, or affirms the right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred in Part III of the Constitution. It states that the Supreme Court “shall have the power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part”. The right guaranteed by this Article “shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this Constitution”.
The article is included in Part III of the Constitution with other fundamental rights including Equality, Freedom of Speech and Expression, Life and Personal Liberty, and Freedom of Religion. Only if any of these fundamental rights are violated can a person can approach the Supreme Court directly under Article 32.
During the Constituent Assembly debates in December 1948, a discussion on this fundamental right (in the draft, it is referred to as Article 25), Dr B R Ambedkar had said, “If I was asked to name any particular Article in this Constitution as the most important — an Article without which this Constitution would be a nullity — I could not refer to any other Article except this one. It is the very soul of the Constitution and the very heart of it…” He said the rights invested with the Supreme Court through this Article could not be taken away unless the Constitution itself is amended and hence it was “one of the greatest safeguards that can be provided for the safety and security of the individual”.
The Supreme Court of India has been entrusted in upholding this article, Article 32 or heart as the soul of the Constitution of India as rightly addressed by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar who has been a pioneer in the speculations and creation of our Constitution. There are definitely some limitations to it too, first of all, it is to be kept in mind that no fundamental right is absolute because even the right to life is subjected to the point that the offender, convicted criminals have to undergo the death penalty in pursuance of the commission of some heinous crimes. Any person, when unduly deprived of their fundamental rights can approach the Supreme Court, without following a lengthy process.
Question:
Mohit is a public servant who has an obligation towards B which he needs to satisfy as indicated by the law yet he doesn't satisfy the obligation. B is distressed by this non-execution and hence moves toward the High Court for requesting the satisfaction of the obligation by A. Here the High Court on being fulfilled that the situation of B is bona fide and there is an obligation which ought to be satisfied, will give which writ?
Passage 6
Read the passage and answer the questions that follow.
In Himmat Lal v. Police Commissioner, Bombay, 1973 AIR 87, it was held that the impugned rules framed by the respondent under section 33(1) of the Bombay Police Act 1951, are not ultra vires section 33 (1) in so far as they require prior permission for holding meetings. Sub-section 33 (1) proceeds on the basis that the public has a right to hold assemblies and take processions on. It is necessary to regulate the conduct and behaviour or action of' persons constituting such assemblies or processions in order to safeguard the rights of citizens and in order to preserve public order. The word 'regulate' would include the power to prescribe that permission in writing should be taken a few days before the holding of a meeting on a public street. The impugned rules do not prohibit the holding of meetings but only prescribe that permission should be taken.
Section 33(1) does not violate Art. 19(1) (b), and Art. 19 (1) (a) is not attracted to the facts of the case. The sub-section has nothing to do with the formation of assemblies and processions but only deals with persons as members of assemblies and processions. The sub-section enables the Commissioner to make rules to regulate the assemblies and processions. Without such rules, in crowded public streets, it would be impossible for citizens to enjoy their various rights. Indeed, the section may be said to have been enacted in aid of the rights under Art. 19 (1) (a) and 19(1)(d). It could not be contended by the respondent that as under the Common Law of England, no one has a right to hold a meeting on a highway, and the same law prevails in India. And therefore, the word 'regulate' means a right to prohibit the holding of a meeting also. In India, the law has developed on slightly different lines, and a citizen in India had, before the Constitution, a right to hold meetings on public streets subject to the control of the appropriate authority regarding the time and place of the meetings and subject to considerations of public order While prior to the coming into force of the Constitution, the right to assemble could have been abridged or taken away by law, after the coming into force of the Constitution, the right cannot be abridged except by imposing reasonable restrictions. There is nothing wrong in requiring prior permission to be obtained before holding a public meeting on a public street, for the right which flows from Art. 19(1)(b) is not a right to hold a meeting at any place and time.
Question:
A labour of the Shyam Steel Private. Ltd, unfortunately, died in an accident while working inside the plant. The labour while working was not wearing protective gear in the assigned department which could have saved him from an unfortunate accident. The labourers of Shyam Steel Private Limited decided to hold a strike the other day. They demanded justice for the family of the deceased labour with 20 lakhs as compensation. The labourers also demanded a safe environment to work where they should be provided protective gear by the company. They went on strike for two hours by blocking the road which caused inconvenience to other public in communication. The manager held all the labourers liable for infringing the rights of others and blocking their passage. Decide.
Passage 6
Read the passage and answer the questions that follow.
In Himmat Lal v. Police Commissioner, Bombay, 1973 AIR 87, it was held that the impugned rules framed by the respondent under section 33(1) of the Bombay Police Act 1951, are not ultra vires section 33 (1) in so far as they require prior permission for holding meetings. Sub-section 33 (1) proceeds on the basis that the public has a right to hold assemblies and take processions on. It is necessary to regulate the conduct and behaviour or action of' persons constituting such assemblies or processions in order to safeguard the rights of citizens and in order to preserve public order. The word 'regulate' would include the power to prescribe that permission in writing should be taken a few days before the holding of a meeting on a public street. The impugned rules do not prohibit the holding of meetings but only prescribe that permission should be taken.
Section 33(1) does not violate Art. 19(1) (b), and Art. 19 (1) (a) is not attracted to the facts of the case. The sub-section has nothing to do with the formation of assemblies and processions but only deals with persons as members of assemblies and processions. The sub-section enables the Commissioner to make rules to regulate the assemblies and processions. Without such rules, in crowded public streets, it would be impossible for citizens to enjoy their various rights. Indeed, the section may be said to have been enacted in aid of the rights under Art. 19 (1) (a) and 19(1)(d). It could not be contended by the respondent that as under the Common Law of England, no one has a right to hold a meeting on a highway, and the same law prevails in India. And therefore, the word 'regulate' means a right to prohibit the holding of a meeting also. In India, the law has developed on slightly different lines, and a citizen in India had, before the Constitution, a right to hold meetings on public streets subject to the control of the appropriate authority regarding the time and place of the meetings and subject to considerations of public order While prior to the coming into force of the Constitution, the right to assemble could have been abridged or taken away by law, after the coming into force of the Constitution, the right cannot be abridged except by imposing reasonable restrictions. There is nothing wrong in requiring prior permission to be obtained before holding a public meeting on a public street, for the right which flows from Art. 19(1)(b) is not a right to hold a meeting at any place and time.
Question:
X is a local goon who is involved in several petty criminal activities. One day, he is caught by the police and all his offences have been taken into account, for which he has been sentenced to 15 years imprisonment. When he returns, his neighbour Y files an extended statement for his past crimes since he does not feel safe when X is out of prison. Decide.
Passage 3
Read the passage and answer the question that follow.
In the case of SmtUjjam Bai vs State of U.P, it was held that “The objection there taken on behalf of the State was in the following terms: "That the imposition of an illegal tax will not entitle the citizen to invoke Article 32 but he must resort to remedies available under ordinary law or proceed under Article 226 of the Constitution, in view of the fact that the right to be exempted from the payment of tax cannot be said to be a fundamental right which comes within the purview of Article 32 ".This contention was repelled because of the following observations in the Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar ( 1955 (2) SCR 603, 618.) :" We are unable to agree with the above conclusion. In reaching the conclusion the High Court appears to have overlooked the fact that the main contention of the appellant company, as set forth in its petition, is that the Act, in so far as it purports to tax a non-resident dealer in respect of an inter-State sale or purchase of goods, is ultra vires the Constitution and wholly illegal. "The other cases referred to in that judgment were Mohammad Yasin v. Town Area Committee, Jalalabad (1952 SCR 572.); State of Bombay v. United Motors (1953 SCR 1069, 1077.); HimmatlalHarilal Mehta v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1954 SCR 1122.) and Bidi Supply Co. v. Union of India (1956 SCR 257, 271, 277.). Thus, the decision in that case was based on decisions none of which supports the proposition that a misconstruction by a quasi-judicial tribunal of a notification under the provision of a statute which is intra vires is a violation of Article 19(1)(g). On the other hand, they were all cases where the imposition of tax or license fee or executive action was sought to be supported by an ultra vires provision of the law and was therefore void and violative of Article 19(1)(g). As this distinction was not kept in view the remedy by way of petition under Article 32 was held to be available. The question as now raised was not argued in Kailash Nath&'s case.”
Question:
The Supreme Court will have the ability to give headings or orders or writs as per the Right to Constitutional Remedies. Which of the accompanying writs can be given by the Supreme Court for the enforcement of any of the basic fundamental rights?
Read the given passage and answer the following question
What Is Writ? The answer is here- A Writ is a formal written order issued by a government entity in the name of the sovereign power. In most cases, this government entity is a court. In modern democratic countries, the administrative authorities are vested with vast discretionary powers. The exercise of those powers often becomes subjective in the absence of specific guidelines etc. Hence the need for control of the discretionary powers is essential to ensure that the 'Rule of Law' exist in all governmental actions. The judicial review of administrative actions in the form of writ jurisdiction is to ensure that the decisions taken by the authorities are legal, rational, proper, just, fair, and reasonable. Safeguard of fundamental rights and assurance of natural justice are the most important components of writ jurisdictions.
Articles 32 and 226 of the constitution of India have been designedhave designed for the enforcement of fundamental rights and a judicial review of administrative actions, in the form of writs. It is a constitutional remedy available to a person to bring his complaint or grievance against any administrative action to the notice of the court. Safeguard of fundamental rights and assurance of natural justice are the most important components of writ jurisdictions.
Writ jurisdiction is exercised by the Supreme Court and the High Courts only. This power is conferred to Supreme Court by Article 32 and to high courts by Article 226.
Article 32(1) guarantees a person the right to move the Supreme Court for the enforcement of fundamental rights guaranteed by part III of the constitution.
Article 32(2) empowers the Supreme Court to issue directions or orders or writs in the nature of Habeas Corpus, Certiorari, Prohibition, mandamus, and Quo-warranto for the enforcement of fundamental rights.
Article 226 empowers the state high courts to issue directions, orders, or writs as mentioned above for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for 'any other purpose'. i.e., High courts can exercise the power of writs not only for the enforcement of fundamental rights but also for a 'non-fundamental right'.
Question:
Rukmani Devi joined as an ad-hoc employee for the post of data entry in the Customs department in the year 1990. The minimum qualification was a bachelor's degree. Rukmani Devi was in her final year at that time when she joined as a data entry operator. Later in year 1995 Rukmani Devi was made a permanent employee based on experience. One X filed a writ petition of Quo warranto challenging the appointment of Rukmani Devi. Decide.
Ranked #1 Law School in India & South Asia by QS- World University Rankings | Merit cum means scholarships | Application Deadline: 31st Jan'25
Ranked #28 amongst Institutions in India by NIRF | Ranked #1 in India for Academic Reputation by QS University Rankings | 16.6 LPA Highest CTC
Read the following passage and answer the questions below
The Constitution of India has conferred innumerable rights on the protection of labour. The Articles 21, 23, 24, 38, 39, 39-A, 41, 42, 43, 43-A and 47 of the Constitution, are calculated to give an idea of the conditions under which labour can be had for work and also of the responsibility of the Government towards the labour to secure for them social order and living wages, keeping with the economic and political conditions of the country. The ideal of ‘equal pay for equal work’ enumerated in Article 39(d) which is further enforced through the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976. In the Pre-Constitutional era, the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Labour (1929) for granting recognition to unions was sought to be implemented by the Trade Unions (Amendment) Act, 1947 which was never brought into force. Subsequently, the Trade Unions Bill introduced in Parliament in 1950 proposed a mechanism for recognition, but the bill lapsed. Article 24 of the Constitution of India is also enforceable against private citizens and lays down a prohibition against the employment of children below the age of fourteen years in any factory or mine or any other hazardous employment. This is also in consonance with Articles 39(e) and (f) in Part IV of the Constitution which emphasizes the need to protect the health and strength of workers, and also to protect children against exploitation. The Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 specifically prohibits the employment of children in certain industries deemed to be hazardous and provides the scope for extending such prohibition to other sectors. In Randhir Singh v. Union of India(AIR 1982 SC 879), the Supreme Court has held that although the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' is not expressly declared by our Constitution to be a fundamental right, but it is certainly a constitutional goal under Articles 14, 16 and 39 (c) of the Constitution. Article 42 is one of the hall marks of the Indian Constitution as it takes into consideration the very specific context of pregnancy related discrimination. It is in this context that the Government of India went on to enact the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 which enables women in the labour force who have been employed for 160 days in a year to provide leave with pay and medical benefit.
Question : The Principle of Equal Pay for Equal work is:
An airline refuses to hire a pilot who does not meet the minimum vision requirements necessary for safe flying. Is this a violation of the right to equality?
Benefits of the Fundamental Rights :
7 Fundamental Rights are as follows
"Stay in the loop. Receive exam news, study resources, and expert advice!"