Constitution Of India MCQ question and answer | Law MCQ question

The 9^th Schedule of the Indian Constitution was introduced by the First Amendment in 1951 to protect land reform and other laws from being challenged in courts on the grounds of violation of Fundamental Rights.

Initially, the laws placed under the 9^th Schedule were immune from judicial review, meaning they could not be challenged even if they violated Fundamental Rights.

However, in the landmark judgement of I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007), the Supreme Court ruled that laws placed under the 9^th Schedule after April 24, 1973 (the date of the Kesavananda Bharati case) are open to judicial review if they violate the basic structure of the Constitution.

This means that any law included in the 9^th Schedule after this cutoff date can be challenged in court if it damages the basic structure or infringes upon Fundamental Rights.

Therefore, the correct answer is Option A: Can be challenged in a court of law.

The correct answer is C: Finance Minister.

Let's break down why:

The question asks who presents the "annual financial statement" (also known as the budget) to Parliament.

* The President (Option A): The President is the head of state, but doesn't directly handle financial matters like the budget presentation.
The president role is more ceremonial and supervisory.
* The Prime Minister (Option B): The Prime Minister is the head of the government but, while influential, the direct responsibility of presenting the budget lies with the Finance Minister.
The Prime Minister oversees the general functioning.
* The Finance Minister (Option C): The Finance Minister is specifically responsible for managing the country's finances. This includes preparing and presenting the annual budget (the "annual financial statement") to Parliament.

* The Speaker of the House (Option D): The Speaker presides over the proceedings of the Lok Sabha (the Lower House of Parliament) and maintains order.
They do not present the budget.

Therefore, the Finance Minister is the one who lays the annual financial statement before both Houses of Parliament.

Article 19 of the Constitution of India: Article 19 guarantees certain fundamental rights related to freedom of speech and expression, movement, assembly, association, profession, and residence. These rights are essential for a democratic society and ensure that citizens can express themselves freely within reasonable restrictions imposed by the state.

Correct Answer: Option B - Available only to citizens of India

Reason: The fundamental rights under Article 19 are explicitly granted only to citizens of India. These rights include:
   >>   Freedom of speech and expression
   >>   Freedom to assemble peacefully without arms
   >>   Freedom to form associations or unions
   >>   Freedom to move freely throughout the territory of India
   >>   Freedom to reside and settle in any part of India
   >>   Freedom to practice any profession, occupation, trade, or business

Why Other Options Are Incorrect:
Option A: Available to all persons in India - Incorrect because Article 19 is specifically limited to Indian citizens and does not extend to foreigners or non-citizens.
Option C: Available to persons of foreign origin - Incorrect because foreigners in India do not enjoy Article 19 rights, though they may have other fundamental rights like those under Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty).
Option D: Both B and C above - Incorrect because Article 19 does not apply to persons of foreign origin, making this option incorrect.

Conclusion: Only Indian citizens are entitled to the fundamental freedoms guaranteed under Article 19, making Option B the correct answer.

The correct answer is Option C: Minerva Mills v. UOI.
Let's break down why:

Article 368 of the Indian Constitution deals with the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution.

The 42nd Amendment Act of 1976 made significant changes to the Constitution, including adding clauses to Article 368.

Article 368(4), inserted by the 42nd Amendment, essentially tried to limit the power of judicial review over constitutional amendments.
It stated that any amendment made under Article 368 could not be challenged in any court on any ground.

However, the Supreme Court, in the landmark case of Minerva Mills v. Union of India (UOI) in 1980, declared Article 368(4) as unconstitutional and invalid.

The Court held that Article 368(4) violated the basic structure of the Constitution.
The power of judicial review is a fundamental aspect of the basic structure,
and the Parliament cannot take it away through amendments.

Let's look at why the other options are incorrect:
Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain: This case dealt with election disputes and the 39th Amendment, not Article 368(4) directly.
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala: This case established the doctrine of basic structure of the Constitution, but it was before the 42nd Amendment.
Golak Nath v. State of Punjab: This case initially restricted Parliament's power to amend fundamental rights but was later overturned by the Kesavananda Bharati case.

Therefore, Minerva Mills v. UOI is the only case where Article 368(4), inserted by the 42nd Amendment, was declared invalid.