Daily Static Quiz Prelims Practice 2027
- Statement 1: Article 25 guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practise and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality, health and other Fundamental Rights.
- Statement 2: The Supreme Court has held that the right to propagate religion under Article 25 includes the right to convert another person to one's own religion by force or inducement.
Statement 1 is correct — Article 25(1) guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practise and propagate religion, expressly subject to public order, morality, health and the rest of Part III. Statement 2 is incorrect — in Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1977), the Supreme Court held that "propagate" means transmitting or spreading one's religion through exposition of its tenets, and does not extend to converting another person by force, fraud, or inducement.
- A. Article 26 1. Freedom from payment of taxes for promotion of a particular religion
- B. Article 27 2. Freedom of religious instruction in certain educational institutions
- C. Article 28 3. Freedom to manage religious affairs
- D. Article 29 4. Protection of interests of minorities
Article 26 grants every religious denomination freedom to manage its own religious affairs, establish institutions, and administer property. Article 27 ensures no person is compelled to pay a tax whose proceeds promote a particular religion. Article 28 deals with freedom regarding attendance at religious instruction in educational institutions, especially those wholly State-funded. Article 29 protects minorities' right to conserve their distinct language, script and culture — giving A-3, B-1, C-2, D-4, a foundational Articles 25–30 sequence frequently tested through matching.
Option (b) is correct — Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) established the Basic Structure doctrine: Parliament has wide amending powers but cannot alter the Constitution's basic structure, including core Fundamental Rights. Option (a) is wrong — Golaknath (1967) held the opposite, that Fundamental Rights lay beyond Parliament's amending power. Option (c) is wrong — Minerva Mills (1980) held that harmony between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles is itself part of the Basic Structure, not unconditional DPSP supremacy. Option (d) is wrong — it was the Maneka Gandhi case (1978) that established the "Golden Triangle" of Articles 14, 19 and 21; A.K. Gopalan (1950) originally held these articles mutually exclusive, the opposite position, later overruled.
- Habeas Corpus — Produces a person unlawfully detained before the court
- Mandamus — Commands a public authority to perform a duty it has failed to perform
- Certiorari — Quashes an order already passed by a lower court or tribunal
- Quo Warranto — Restrains a lower court from proceeding with a case beyond its jurisdiction
Pairs 1, 2 and 3 are correctly matched. Habeas Corpus ("you may have the body") produces an unlawfully or arbitrarily detained person before the court; Mandamus ("we command") directs a public authority to perform a duty it has failed to perform; and Certiorari ("to be certified") is issued by a higher court to quash an order already passed by a lower court or tribunal acting without or beyond jurisdiction. Pair 4 is incorrect — that description belongs to Prohibition, not Quo Warranto, which actually questions a person's legal right to hold a public office, a common writ-swap trap.
- Fundamental Rights can be enforced against private individuals in all circumstances without exception.
- The Ninth Schedule of the Constitution was originally intended to protect land reform laws from judicial review on the ground of violation of Fundamental Rights.
- Following the I.R. Coelho case (2007), laws placed in the Ninth Schedule after 24 April 1973 are open to judicial review if they violate the Basic Structure.
- Fundamental Rights, once conferred, can never be amended under any circumstances by Parliament.
Statements 2 and 3 are correct. The Ninth Schedule, inserted by the First Amendment (1951), was designed to shield land reform and zamindari abolition laws from being struck down for violating Fundamental Rights, particularly the Right to Property. In I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007), the Supreme Court held that Ninth Schedule laws inserted after 24 April 1973 (the date of Kesavananda Bharati) are open to judicial review if they damage the Basic Structure. Statement 1 is incorrect — most Fundamental Rights bind only the State; only a few, like Articles 15(2), 17, 23 and 24, apply against private individuals. Statement 4 is incorrect — Fundamental Rights can be amended by Parliament under Article 368, subject only to the Basic Structure constraint clarified in Kesavananda Bharati.
