Q60. Which landmark case is commonly recognised as one of India’s earliest Public Interest Litigations?
[UP Police SI, 15 March 2026, Shift 2]
(A) Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India
(B) Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar
(C) Golaknath v. State of Punjab
(D) Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala
Answer: (B) Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar
Explanation: Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979) exposed the plight of undertrial prisoners and advanced the constitutional right to speedy trial. Its public-interest approach helped open judicial remedies to vulnerable people beyond the traditional private-dispute model.
Q59. In which case did the Supreme Court caution against PILs filed for personal disputes or vindictive purposes?
[UP Police SI, 15 March 2026, Shift 2]
(A) Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar
(B) Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan
(C) M. C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath
(D) Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal
Answer: (D) Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal
Explanation: Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal (2004) stressed that PIL must genuinely advance public interest. Courts should reject petitions motivated by publicity, private rivalry or malice, since such proceedings misuse judicial time and undermine access to justice.
Q58. Which is a distinctive feature of the Indian judiciary?
[IB Security Assistant (Executive), 30 September 2025, Shift 2]
(A) The Supreme Court possesses the power of judicial review
(B) The judiciary is an extension of the executive
(C) The judiciary is directly elected
(D) The judiciary cannot review legislation
Answer: (A) The Supreme Court possesses the power of judicial review
Explanation: The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution and may invalidate unconstitutional laws or executive acts. This role helps secure fundamental rights and checks governmental excess. Judges are not popularly elected, and judicial independence distinguishes courts from the executive branch.
Q57. How did Public Interest Litigation emerge in India as an instrument of judicial activism?
[RRB NTPC (UG) CBT-I, 8 September 2025, Shift 3]
(A) Through the 42nd Amendment, 1976
(B) Through the Lok Adalat system in 2005
(C) Through public-interest cases entertained by the Supreme Court around 1979
(D) During the Emergency of 1975–77
Answer: (C) Through public-interest cases entertained by the Supreme Court around 1979
Explanation: Around 1979, cases concerning disadvantaged people demonstrated the growing acceptance of litigation brought in the public interest. Courts relaxed rigid standing requirements, making it easier for public-minded petitioners to raise violations affecting people who lacked resources or representation.
Q56. What is the primary purpose of judicial review in India?
[RRB NTPC (UG) CBT-I, 4 September 2025, Shift 2]
(A) To examine the constitutionality of laws
(B) To amend the Constitution
(C) To appoint ministers
(D) To elect judges
Answer: (A) To examine the constitutionality of laws
Explanation: Judicial review measures laws and governmental actions against the Constitution, rather than selecting ministers or judges. By striking down unconstitutional provisions when cases require it, courts protect rights, preserve federal limits and uphold the Constitution as supreme law.
Q55. Public Interest Litigation in India is primarily associated with:
[RRB NTPC (UG) CBT-I, 29 August 2025, Shift 3]
(A) Police investigations
(B) Judicial activism
(C) Election Commission
(D) Judicial review
Answer: (B) Judicial activism
Explanation: PIL reflects the judiciary’s activist development of access-to-justice procedures. A bona fide petitioner may raise matters affecting the community or disadvantaged persons. Unlike ordinary private litigation, its purpose is public redress, not an individual’s personal advantage.
Q54. Which statement correctly describes the scope of judicial review in India?
[RRB NTPC (UG) CBT-I, 28 August 2025, Shift 1]
(A) Only the Supreme Court can invalidate unconstitutional laws
(B) Judicial review is expressly named in Article 13
(C) Both the Supreme Court and High Courts can strike down unconstitutional laws
(D) Courts can review laws only after Parliament grants approval
Answer: (C) Both the Supreme Court and High Courts can strike down unconstitutional laws
Explanation: Judicial review may be exercised by the Supreme Court and High Courts. Article 13 invalidates laws inconsistent with fundamental rights, while Articles 32 and 226 provide important remedies. The Constitution does not require advance parliamentary permission for such judicial scrutiny.
Q53. Consider the statements:
(1) The Constitution expressly uses the term “judicial review”.
(2) Judicial review forms part of the basic structure.
(3) Ordinary legislation may abolish judicial review.
Which is correct?
[AP High Court Common Recruitment Exam, 24 August 2025, Shift 3]
(A) 2 and 3 only
(B) 2 only
(C) 1 only
(D) 1, 2 and 3
Answer: (B) 2 only
Explanation: The phrase judicial review is not expressly used in India’s constitutional text, but several provisions confer the power. The Supreme Court recognises judicial review as part of the basic structure, beyond abolition through ordinary legislation or destructive constitutional amendment.
Q52. In which case did the Supreme Court articulate limits on constitutional amendments that protect basic features, including judicial review?
[RRB NTPC (UG) CBT-I, 20 August 2025, Shift 3]
(A) Shah Bano case
(B) Shankari Prasad case
(C) Kesavananda Bharati case
(D) Golaknath case
Answer: (C) Kesavananda Bharati case
Explanation: Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) established the basic-structure doctrine. Parliament may amend the Constitution, but it cannot destroy its essential identity. Judicial review was subsequently reaffirmed as a protected basic feature in later Supreme Court rulings.
Q51. In which case did the United States Supreme Court establish judicial review as a constitutional principle?
[UGC NET Law, 25 June 2025, Shift 2]
(A) Marbury v. Madison
(B) North Wales Police v. Evans
(C) Minerva v. State of Georgia
(D) Reg v. Home Secretary
Answer: (A) Marbury v. Madison
Explanation: Marbury v. Madison (1803), decided under Chief Justice John Marshall, is the landmark American decision associated with the judicial power to invalidate legislation inconsistent with the Constitution. The American model later influenced constitutional review in India.
