Judiciary & Judicial Review

Statement 1 is incorrect: Police Custody means that the police have the physical custody of the accused while Judicial Custody means an accused is in the custody of the concerned Magistrate. In Police custody, the accused is lodged in a police station lockup while in Judicial Custody, he is locked up in the jail. Statement 2 is correct: During Judicial Custody, the police officer in charge of the case is not allowed to interrogate the suspect. However, the court may allow the interrogations to be conducted if it opines the interrogation is necessary under the facts produced before the court. However, during police custody, the police officer in charge of the case may interrogate the suspect.

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.

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.

Option A is correct. In a federal system, power is distributed between the central government and the states. There can be disputes about the division of power or interpretation of the Constitution.
An independent judiciary acts as an impartial umpire to settle these disputes and uphold the Constitution. It ensures that both the central government and the states function within their constitutional boundaries.The other options, while relevant to Indian polity, are not exclusive to federal systems Option B is incorrect. The Union Legislature having elected representatives from constituent units is a common feature in both federal and some unitary states with devolved power. Option C is incorrect. The Union Cabinet having elected representatives from regional parties is not a defining characteristic of federalism. Political party affiliation doesn't necessarily determine the federal structure. Option D is incorrect. The Fundamental Rights being enforceable by Courts of Law, while essential for a democracy, this feature exists even in some non-federal states.

The right to privacy in India is not explicitly mentioned in a single article of the Constitution. However, it is considered an intrinsic part of the fundamental right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21. This recognition came about through a landmark Supreme Court judgment in 2017, K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd) vs Union of India. The court ruled that the right to privacy is an inseparable part of the right to life and personal liberty, and is protected under Article 21.

Statement 1 is not correct: The Government had launched a scheme viz Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme of Government of India, 1993. As per the scheme, Temporary status would be conferred on all casual labourers who were in employment and who have rendered a continuous service of at least one year, which means that they must have been engaged for at least 240 days (206 days in case of offices observing 5 days week). Statement 2 is correct: The Supreme Court has decreed that casual workers are also entitled to social security benefits as stipulated in the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. The Court's ruling stemmed from its interpretation of Section 2(f) of the EPF Act, wherein the definition of an "employee" encompasses a broad scope, including any individual engaged directly or indirectly in connection with an establishment's work and receiving wages. A bench of the Supreme Court affirmed this viewpoint. Statement 3 is correct: The government has the authority to specify through a notification that an establishment or industry is obligated to disburse wages exclusively via its bank account.

* 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.

Statement 1 is incorrect: The Supreme Court ruled that Aadhaar metadata cannot be stored for more than six months, which invalidated the provision in the Aadhaar Act that allowed the storage of such data for up to five years. Statement 2 is correct: The Supreme Court struck down Section 57 which allowed private corporations to verify Aadhaar data. The Court held this provision unconstitutional, as it was seen to violate privacy rights. Statement 3 is incorrect: The 2018 Supreme Court judgment declared that making Aadhaar mandatory for services beyond welfare schemes, including financial services like insurance or for preventing money laundering, was unconstitutional. In response to this ruling, the IRDAI issued an advisory in 2019, clarifying that Aadhaar is not mandatory for obtaining insurance. It also withdrew its earlier 2017 policy that had made Aadhaar compulsory for insurance in the context of anti-money laundering measures. Statement 4 is correct: In the Aadhaar verdict, the Supreme Court upheld Section 7 of the Aadhaar Act, which allows the Central or State Governments to make Aadhaar authentication mandatory for receiving subsidies, benefits, or services funded by the Consolidated Fund of India. The Court defined welfare schemes as those funded by the Consolidated Fund of India, thus validating the use of Aadhaar for such schemes. Therefore, the correct answer is B. 2 and 4 only.

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.

In 1885, Bhikaji filed a petition for "restitution of conjugal rights" after 12 years of marriage. Rukhmabai, who was married as a child, refused to live with her husband. Justice Pinhey ruled that Rukhmabai could not be forced into marriage against her will. In 1887, Rukhmabai chose to go to jail instead of living with her husband. Queen Victoria dissolved the marriage in 1888 after Rukhmabai wrote a letter to her. Dadaji accepted monetary compensation to dissolve the marriage. This case influenced the Age of Consent Act of 1891.