Bombay High Court stays census duty requisition for private unaided school staff

Statement 1 is correct: Under Article 128, the Chief Justice of India may, at any time, with the previous consent of the President, request a retired Judge of the Supreme Court or a retired Judge of a High Court (who is duly qualified) to sit and act as a Judge of the Supreme Court. Statement 2 is not correct: Although there is no explicit Article in the Constitution equivalent to Article 137 (which grants review power to the SC) for High Courts, the High Courts are "Courts of Record" under Article 215. As a Court of Record, a High Court has the inherent power to review its own orders and judgments to correct any patent error or prevent a miscarriage of justice. This has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in various rulings.

Statement 1 is Incorrect: The Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board (PNGRB) was constituted under the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board Act, 2006.
The independent regulator, Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), set up under the TRAI Act of 1997, was the first independent regulator in India. Hence, statement 1 is not correct. Statement 2 is correct: PNGRB is tasked to protect the interests of consumers and entities engaged in specified activities relating to petroleum, petroleum products and natural gas and to promote competitive markets and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Statement 3 is correct: The Appellate Tribunal established under Section 110 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (Central Act 36 of 2003) shall be the Appellate Tribunal to appeal against the decisions of the PNGRB.

Statement 1 is incorrect. High Courts have the power to declare central laws unconstitutional. This power is derived from their inherent jurisdiction to uphold the Constitution. Statement 2 is incorrect. While the Supreme Court cannot question the amending power of the Parliament, it can review the constitutional validity of an amendment. The landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala established the doctrine of the 'basic structure' of the Constitution. Any amendment that violates this basic structure can be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

The power of the Judiciary to pronounce upon the constitutionality of laws and executive orders. Judicial Review in India refers to the power of the Judiciary to examine laws and executive actions to ensure they comply with the Constitution of India. This power allows the courts to strike down any law or executive order that is found to be unconstitutional, thereby upholding the supremacy of the Constitution. Judicial Review is an essential feature of the Basic Structure Doctrine, ensuring the protection of fundamental rights and the separation of powers between the legislature, executive, and judiciary. Thus, Judicial Review acts as a safeguard against unconstitutional actions and reinforces the rule of law in India.

Statement 1 is incorrect: The term "basic structure" is not explicitly mentioned in the Indian Constitution. It was first propounded by the Supreme Court in the landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973). The Court ruled that while Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution under Article 368, there are certain features of the Constitution that form its basic structure and cannot be altered or destroyed through amendments by Parliament. Although the basic structure doctrine includes elements such as federalism, secularism, democracy, and fundamental rights, these features are not explicitly listed as the 'basic structure' in the Constitution itself. Statement 2 is incorrect: The Constitution of India does not explicitly mention the power of judicial review. Instead, this power is derived from various provisions, particularly Articles 13, 32, 131-136, 143, 226, and 246. Judicial review allows the Supreme Court and High Courts to examine the constitutionality of legislative and executive actions, ensuring they do not violate fundamental rights or other constitutional provisions. This power is essential in maintaining the supremacy of the Constitution and protecting citizens' rights. Hence, neither of the statements is correct.

* The First Amendment Act, of 1951, added the fourth clause to Article 15 that empowered the government to make any law for the upliftment of socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled * Tribes. The added clause elucidates that in case such special provisions are introduced, they cannot be said to be breaching Article 15 and Article 29(2) of the Constitution. * The need to insert this clause was felt after the decision of the Supreme Court in the State of Madras v. Srimathi Champakam (1951). According to the facts of this case, the Madras government issued an Order that provided reservation on the grounds of religion, race, and caste. This Order was contended to be in breach of Article 15(1) of the Indian Constitution. The Court also gave a literal interpretation to the constitutional provisions and held that reserving seats in public institutions for backward classes violates Articles 15(1) and 29(2). Therefore, to nullify the effect of similar judicial pronouncements, Article 15 was amended. * Similarly, Article 19(1)(a) grants the right to free speech and expression to Indian citizens. This right is considered an essential feature of democracy. However, Article 19(2) specifies the restrictions that can curtail this freedom. The First Amendment to the Indian Constitution altered these restrictions by widening their ambit. The second change, via the Amendment Act of 1951, was made to Clause 6 of Article 19. Note: UPSC deleted this question when the final answer key was issued.

* The correct answer is D. a part of the Constitution but has no legal effect independently of other parts. * The Preamble of the Indian Constitution sets out the guiding principles and objectives of the document. While it is an integral part of the Constitution (Kesavananda Bharati case), it cannot be directly enforced in a court of law. * The Supreme Court of India has clarified that the Preamble can be used to interpret ambiguous provisions within the Constitution, but cannot be used to strike down laws as unconstitutional on its own. It serves as a guiding light for understanding the spirit and intent of the Constitution.

Article 142 of the Indian Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to pass orders and decrees necessary to ensure "complete justice" in any case before it. This power is vast and extraordinary. Article 142 allows the Supreme Court to ensure that ordinary laws comply with the Constitution and that complete justice is delivered. Even if an ordinary law creates limitations, the Supreme Court can override it using Article 142 to achieve a just outcome.

Statement 1 is correct: The Ninth Schedule was introduced through the First Constitutional Amendment (1951) to protect certain laws from judicial review, even if they violated Fundamental Rights (Part III of the Constitution). Statement 2 is incorrect: The protection under the Ninth Schedule is not absolute. As per the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) and reaffirmed in the I.R. Coelho case (2007), laws placed in the Ninth Schedule after April 24, 1973, can still be challenged if they violate the "Basic Structure" of the Constitution. Thus, while the Ninth Schedule provides a degree of protection, the Supreme Court retains the power to review laws that undermine the Constitution’s core principles. Hence, the correct answer is option (a) 1 only.

Statement 1 is Correct: The key difference lies in Parliamentary Supremacy. In the British model, Parliament is considered sovereign. This means its legislative powers are supreme, and its laws cannot be challenged by any other body. In India, the Constitution is supreme. Parliament's power to legislate is limited by the Constitution. The judiciary can review laws passed by Parliament and strike them down if they violate the Constitution. Statement 2 is also Correct: This is a specific example of the limitation on Parliament's power in India. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has the authority to review amendments made to existing laws (Acts) and determine if they are constitutional. This power of judicial review ensures the Constitution remains the supreme law.