Variant 01 Standard Evaluation
Examine the logical coherence between the following legal evidence and constitutional inferences regarding foreign nationals in India:
1. Evidence 1: A foreign national is denied a public employment contract by the Indian government based solely on their origin. Inference 1: The national can successfully sue the government for violating their Article 16 rights.
2. Evidence 2: A foreign tourist attempts to establish a religious institution to manage their faith's affairs while in India. Inference 2: The state cannot arbitrarily ban this, as Article 26 is universally accessible.
3. Evidence 3: A non-citizen files a petition asserting their constitutional right to the freedom of speech and expression. Inference 3: The judiciary must uphold this petition, as Article 19 protects all individuals on Indian soil.
Solution & Analysis
Answer: A
Evidence 1 and Inference 1 are contradictory. Article 16 (equality in public employment) is exclusively for citizens. The correct counterpart is that foreigners have no standing under Article 16.
Evidence 2 and Inference 2 are coherent. Article 26 (managing religious affairs) is available to all persons, citizens and foreigners alike.
Evidence 3 and Inference 3 are contradictory. Article 19 freedoms (including speech) are strictly reserved for citizens. The correct counterpart is that foreigners cannot invoke Article 19.