Type 1: EVIDENCE INFERENCE

Examine the logical coherence between the following legislative actions and their constitutional validity:

1. Evidence 1: Article 13 declares all laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights void, specifically defining 'law' to include temporary executive orders. Inference 1: Therefore, an Ordinance promulgated by the President is fully subject to judicial review and can be struck down for violating Part III.

2. Evidence 2: Article 35 centralizes the authority to enforce specific Fundamental Rights solely within the national legislature. Inference 2: Consequently, both the Union Parliament and State Legislatures possess concurrent power to make these enforcement laws.

3. Evidence 3: A ruling government wishes to permanently remove the Right to Freedom of Assembly from the Constitution. Inference 3: They cannot achieve this via an ordinary bill; they must pass a Constitutional Amendment Act, subject to the Basic Structure doctrine.

⚡ Generate AI Quick Summary

Correct Option: A

Article 13 declares any law inconsistent with Fundamental Rights void, making both temporary executive Ordinances and ordinary bills subject to judicial review. Consequently, Fundamental Rights can only be amended or repealed via a Constitutional Amendment Act, not an ordinary bill. Furthermore, Article 35 grants Parliament—not State Legislatures—the exclusive power to make laws enforcing these rights.

A. Only Inference 1 and Inference 3 logically follow.
B. Only Inference 2 logically follows from its Evidence.
C. Only Inference 1 and Inference 2 logically follow.
D. All inferences logically follow.

Solution

Evidence 1 and Inference 1 are coherent. Ordinances are explicitly 'laws' under Art 13 and thus challengeable.
Evidence 2 and Inference 2 are contradictory. Article 35 grants this power ONLY to Parliament, explicitly denying it to state legislatures to ensure uniformity. The correct counterpart is the denial of concurrent jurisdiction.
Evidence 3 and Inference 3 are coherent. Ordinary bills cannot alter Part III; only Article 368 Constitutional Amendments can, provided they survive the Basic Structure test.
Type 2: ASSERTION REASON

Consider the following Assertion and Reasons:

1. Assertion (A): A State Legislature cannot pass a local statute to prescribe specific punishments for the practice of untouchability.

2. Reason (R1): Article 35 strips State Legislatures of the power to make laws giving effect to specified Fundamental Rights, vesting it exclusively in the Union Parliament.

3. Reason (R2): The Supreme Court ruled that untouchability is protected by presidential Ordinances, which are immune to judicial review.

A. Both A and R1 are true, and R1 is the correct explanation of A.
B. Both A and R1 are true, but R1 is not the correct explanation of A.
C. A is true, but both R1 and R2 are false.
D. A is false, and R1 is true.

Solution

The Assertion is correct. States cannot pass Part III penal laws.
Reason (R1) is true and correctly explains the assertion. Article 35 ensures national uniformity by giving Parliament a monopoly.
Reason (R2) is factually false. Untouchability is a crime (Art 17), and Ordinances are NEVER immune to judicial review (Art 13). The correct counterpart is the vulnerability of Ordinances to review.
Type 3: SCENARIO

Imagine you are a legal analyst reviewing a new executive strategy. The government wants to bypass a hostile Parliament to restrict free speech. They plan to issue a Presidential Ordinance to temporarily suspend the right, and simultaneously pass an ordinary bill in the lower house to permanently repeal it. What are the constitutional flaws in this strategy?

1. Statement 1: The strategy is flawless because Ordinances bypass Article 13, and ordinary bills can alter Part III.

2. Statement 2: The strategy fails because Ordinances are subject to judicial review under Article 13 and can be struck down, and repealing a Fundamental Right requires a Constitutional Amendment, not an ordinary bill.

3. Statement 3: The strategy fails only because State Legislatures must also approve the Ordinance.

A. Only Statement 1 is appropriate.
B. Only Statement 2 is appropriate.
C. Only Statement 3 is appropriate.
D. None of the statements are appropriate.

Solution

Statement 1 is incorrect. It ignores the protections of Article 13 and Article 368. The correct counterpart is the constitutional shield around Part III.
Statement 2 is correct. It identifies that Article 13 catches Ordinances, and altering the Constitution requires a special amendment, making ordinary bills useless for this purpose.
Statement 3 is incorrect. States have no role in enforcing/altering Fundamental Rights.
Type 4: HOW MANY

Consider the following statements regarding the legal mechanics of Fundamental Rights:

1. 1. Article 13 formally declares that any temporary Ordinance inconsistent with a Fundamental Right shall be deemed void.

2. 2. The Parliament holds the authority to repeal a Fundamental Right through the simple passage of an ordinary legislative act.

3. 3. Article 35 grants both the Union and State governments concurrent power to draft laws enforcing civil rights.

4. 4. Any Constitutional Amendment Act seeking to curtail a Fundamental Right is subject to the 'Basic Structure' doctrine.

A. Only one statement is correct
B. Only two statements are correct
C. Only three statements are correct
D. All four statements are correct

Solution

Statement 1 is correct. Ordinances are 'law' under Art 13.
Statement 2 is incorrect. It requires a Constitutional Amendment Act. The correct counterpart is the necessity of Article 368 procedures.
Statement 3 is incorrect. Article 35 grants EXCLUSIVE power to the Union Parliament. The correct counterpart is parliamentary monopoly.
Statement 4 is correct. Established by Kesavananda Bharati.
Thus, exactly two statements are correct.

🚨 The Examiner's Trap

Test-takers often assume 'Ordinances' have special executive immunity from judicial review. They also frequently confuse the process to amend a right (requires Constitutional Amendment) with the process to enforce a right (requires Parliamentary law under Art 35, which states cannot do).

Concept Flow Mapping

Article 13
Subjects Ordinances To
Judicial Review
Fundamental Rights
Require
Constitutional Amendment Act for Repeal
Article 35
Grants Exclusive Power To
Parliament

Logic Quest

"If a State Governor issues a temporary Ordinance that violates the Right to Equality, is it immune from being challenged in court?"

Not practicing the latest UPSC exam pattern questions is a serious miss-out that can drastically reduce your chances of getting through Prelims. This interactive engine is specifically designed to help you practice highly probable UPSC Practice Questions across all emerging analytical formats: Type 1 (Evidence-Inference), Type 2 (Assertion-Reason), Type 3 (Scenario-Based), and the dreaded Type 4 (Multi-Statement "How Many").