Fundamental Rights

Article 13 of the Indian Constitution provides for the protection of Fundamental Rights and declares that any law inconsistent with or in derogation of Part III of the Constitution shall be void to the extent of the inconsistency. To prevent the State from bypassing Fundamental Rights through executive or traditional means, Article 13(3)(a) provides a highly expansive definition of the term "law". It explicitly states that "law" includes any Ordinance, order, bye-law, rule, regulation, notification, custom or usage having in the territory of India the force of law. Therefore, the view of 'Y' that the term 'law' includes custom or usage is absolutely correct. Because "custom or usage" is expressly listed in the constitutional text, uncodified traditional practices that hold the force of law are subject to the exact same constitutional scrutiny as formal legislative statutes. 'X' is incorrect in doubting or rejecting the inclusion of custom or usage within the definition of law under Article 13. Thus, regarding the point of contention, only the view of 'Y' is correct. Therefore, the correct option is D.

Each of these constitutional provisions is accurately linked to its correct part within the Constitution of India. ✅ Pair I: Directive Principles of State Policy – Correct
* Article 50 mandates the separation of the judiciary from the executive in the public services of the State. ✅ Pair II: Fundamental Duties – Correct
* Article 51A(f) states that citizens must value and preserve the rich heritage of our composite culture. ✅ Pair III: Fundamental Rights – Correct
* Article 24 prohibits the employment of children below 14 years in hazardous work such as factories or mines.

An Ordinance is a temporary law issued by the President (Article 123) or Governor (Article 213) when the legislature is not in session. It holds the same force as a regular law, but must adhere to constitutional limits. ✅ Statement I: Correct
* An Ordinance can amend any Central Act, just like a Parliamentary law, subject to constitutional provisions. ❌ Statement II: Incorrect
* Ordinances cannot abridge Fundamental Rights as per Article 13(2) of the Constitution. Any such provision is void. ✅ Statement III: Correct
* Ordinances can be given retrospective effect, i.e., they can be enforced from a past date.

* The Supreme Court of India, in its landmark judgment in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) vs Union of India (2017), declared that the Right to Privacy is a fundamental right enshrined in the Constitution of India. * The court held that this right is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the Right to Life and Personal Liberty. *  Article 21: States that 'No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law.' The court interpreted 'personal liberty' broadly to include various aspects of privacy. _While the other options are fundamental rights, they are not directly where the Right to Privacy is placed:_ * Article 15: Prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth. * Article 16: Guarantees equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. * Article 19: Guarantees certain freedoms like speech and expression, assembly, etc.

Writ of Prohibition: * It is a judicial order issued by a higher court (Supreme Court or High Court) to a lower court or tribunal. * It prevents the lower court from exceeding its jurisdiction or acting contrary to law. * Purpose: To stop ongoing proceedings in a case where the lower court lacks jurisdiction or violates legal procedures. * Nature: It is preventive, ensuring the lower court does not act unlawfully rather than correcting a wrong decision after it has occurred. * Example: If a tribunal starts hearing a case that legally falls under the jurisdiction of a civil court, the Writ of Prohibition can halt such proceedings. * Comparison with Certiorari: Prohibition is issued before judgment to stop proceedings, whereas Certiorari is issued after judgment to quash orders passed unlawfully.

* Option (a) is correct: The concept of 'Due Process of Law' primarily means that the procedure through which a person is deprived of life or liberty must be fair, just, and reasonable, following the principles of natural justice. It ensures that laws are not only enacted properly but also applied fairly and reasonably. * Option (b) is not correct: The phrase 'Procedure established by law', used in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, refers to any procedure laid down by law, even if it is unfair. However, after the Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) judgment, the Supreme Court read into Article 21 the American concept of ‘Due Process of Law’, ensuring fairness and reasonableness in both substance and procedure. * Option (c) is not entirely correct: While fair application of law is part of due process, the phrase ‘Due Process of Law’ has a broader meaning that encompasses substantive fairness, procedural justice, and conformity with natural justice. Hence, option (a) captures its essence more accurately. * Option (d) is not correct: Equality before law (Article 14) is a distinct constitutional principle and not equivalent to due process.

* 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.

* Statement 1 is correct: According to Article 355 of the Indian Constitution, it shall be the duty of the Union to protect every State against external aggression and internal disturbance and to ensure that the government of every State is carried on in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution. * Statement 2 is correct: Article 22(3)(b) mentions that individuals detained under preventive detention laws are not initially entitled to consult or be defended by a legal practitioner until the grounds of detention are disclosed to them. Although the constitution allows for exceptions in preventive detention cases, it does not prohibit state governments from providing legal counsel to the detained person. The state has the discretion to offer legal assistance if it wishes. * Statement 3 is incorrect: Section 32(1) of POTA 2002 allows confessions made to a police officer of at least Superintendent rank, overriding certain provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Indian Evidence Act.

* Statement I is correct: It has frequently been argued that reservation is contrary to efficiency and merit. Even the Supreme Court of India appeared to have agreed with this argument in some of its judgments, holding that Article 335 mention of the term efficiency of administration will limit the scope of Article 16(4) provision for reservation in services.  * Statement II is incorrect: Article 335 of the Constitution of India states that the claims of the members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes shall be taken into consideration, consistently with the maintenance of efficiency of administration, in the making of appointments to services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State.  * Article 335 of the Indian Constitution only mentions the efficiency of administration and does not define the same.

Statement 1 is correct: Mandamus is a command issued by the court to a public official asking him to perform his official duties that he has failed or refused to perform. It can also be issued against any public body, a corporation, an inferior court, a tribunal, or a government for the same purpose. It is usually not usable against a private entity unless it is entrusted with a public duty. Statement 2 is correct: As explained above, Mandamus can be used against a government corporation and/or company when it is discharging a "public duty", so the statement is incomplete. Public Duty is Key: Mandamus aims to compel performance of a public duty, not just private functions. Statement 3 is correct: Quo Warranto is issued by the court to inquire into the legality of the claim of a person to a public office. Hence, it prevents illegal usurpation of public office by a person. Unlike the other writs, this can be sought by any interested person and not necessarily by the aggrieved person. Note (on Statement 2): In UPSC Prelims, statements must be judged as written, without adding extra conditions. A company does not become subject to the writ of Mandamus only because it is a Government company. Government ownership by itself is not enough. Since Statement 2 is framed in this limited and absolute sense, and no additional condition like “public duty” is mentioned, the statement is treated as correct.