Q1. Which of the following constitutional provisions does not require special majority of any kind?
a) Approval of National Emergency (initial proclamation)
b) Creation of new states or alteration of boundaries
c) Removal of Supreme Court Judge
d) Amendment of Seventh Schedule
Answer: b) Creation of new states or alteration of boundaries
Explanation: Article 3 requires only ordinary legislation → simple majority in Parliament.
Q2. According to the Kihoto Hollohan judgment, judicial review of the Speaker’s decision is available at which stage?
a) Before disqualification proceedings begin
b) During pendency of proceedings
c) Only after the Speaker’s final decision
d) Only after approval by Parliament
Answer: c) Only after the Speaker’s final decision
Explanation:
- The Supreme Court in the Kihoto Hollohan case held that the Speaker acts as a tribunal under the Tenth Schedule.
- Judicial review is available only after the final decision, not at the interlocutory or pendency stage, to prevent disruption of legislative proceedings.
Q3. With reference to different types of majorities in the Indian Parliament, consider the following statements:
- Effective majority is always greater than simple majority
- Special majority under Article 368 can never be less than absolute majority
- Simple majority is sufficient for passing a no-confidence motion even when the House strength is reduced due to vacancies
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
a) 1 and 2 only
b) 2 only
c) 1 and 3 only
d) 1, 2 and 3
Answer: b) 2 only
Explanation:
- Statement 1 wrong: Effective majority can be numerically less than simple majority if many vacancies exist (effective strength is total membership minus vacancies).
- Statement 2 correct: Special majority (total membership + 2/3rd present & voting) is always ≥ absolute majority.
- Statement 3 wrong: No-confidence motion requires simple majority of members present and voting, not of total membership.
Q4. The Supreme Court judgment in Kihoto Hollohan vs Zachillhu (1992) primarily upheld the constitutional validity of which of the following provisions?
a) Anti-defection law under the Tenth Schedule
b) Provision relating to split in a political party
c) Special majority requirement for constitutional amendments
d) Procedure for removal of judges of the Supreme Court
Answer: a) Anti-defection law under the Tenth Schedule
Explanation:
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Tenth Schedule (anti-defection law), while holding that the Speaker’s decision is subject to judicial review after the final order. The split provision was removed later by the 91st Constitutional Amendment Act, 2003, not by this judgment.
Q5. Which one of the following is not a situation where effective majority is required?
a) Removal of Deputy Chairman of Rajya Sabha
b) Removal of Speaker of Lok Sabha
c) Removal of a Judge of Supreme Court
d) Removal of Deputy Speaker of Lok Sabha
Answer: c) Removal of a Judge of Supreme Court
Explanation: Removal of Judge requires special majority (2/3rd present & voting) in both Houses, not effective majority.
