List - I List - II (a) S.R. Chaudhuri vs. State of Punjab (i) Ban on smoking at public places (b) Murali S. Deora vs. Union of India (ii) Two extra increments to the existing employees on earning Higher Qualification (c) Food Corporation of India vs. Bharatiya Khadya Nigam Karmachari Sangh (iii) Classifications based on the number of children for elected post in Panchayat (d) Javed vs. State of Haryana (iv) Non - member cannot be re-appointed as minister if he fails to get elected within six months.
Case Matching Analysis
This question requires matching specific legal cases from List I with their corresponding rulings or principles from List II.
Case Names (List I)
(a) S.R. Chaudhuri vs. State of Punjab: This case concerned the eligibility of ministers, particularly non-members needing to get elected within a specified time.
(b) Murali S. Deora vs. Union of India: A significant judgment mandating the prohibition of smoking in public places to protect public health.
(c) Food Corporation of India vs. Bharatiya Khadya Nigam Karmachari Sangh: This judgment dealt with employee service conditions, including the provision of extra increments for acquiring higher qualifications.
(d) Javed vs. State of Haryana: This case reviewed the constitutional validity of disqualification criteria for Panchayat elections based on the number of children.
Ruling Principles (List II)
- (i) Ban on smoking at public places: This principle directly relates to the Murali S. Deora vs. Union of India case.
- (ii) Two extra increments to the existing employees on earning Higher Qualification: This ruling applies to the service conditions discussed in the Food Corporation of India case.
- (iii) Classifications based on the number of children for elected post in Panchayat: This is the central issue addressed in the Javed vs. State of Haryana case.
- (iv) Non - member cannot be re-appointed as minister if he fails to get elected within six months: This principle was established in the S.R. Chaudhuri vs. State of Punjab case.
Correct Matching Selection
Based on the analysis, the correct pairings are:
- (a) matches with (iv)
- (b) matches with (i)
- (c) matches with (ii)
- (d) matches with (iii)
This corresponds to the code (a)-(iv), (b)-(i), (c)-(ii), (d)-(iii).
Important Questions from Constitution Law
- Which criteria are used in legislations for treating juveniles differently from young adults?
(a) Physical development
(b) Economic development
(c) Intellectual development
(d) Socio emotional development
Select the most suitable option : - Read Assertion (A) and Reason(R) and answer using the codes given below :
Assertion (A) : The writ of Habeas Corpus can be granted to enable the detainee to argue his case in person.
Reason (R) : Because R Vs. Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Wynne (1992) decided so.
Codes : - Which of the following are matched incorrectly ?
i. Habeas Corpus – ‘To produce the body’
ii. Quo warranto – ‘Issued to a lower court to stop proceedings in a case’.
iii. Prohibition – ‘Issued to a lower court quashing a decision or order’
iv. Mandamus – ‘Commands a person to perform a public duty’. - Read Assertion (A) and Reason (R) to answer using codes given below :
Assertion (A) : One of the two Acts enacted under List I Entry 66 and the other under List III Entry 25 can be repugnant to each other.
Reason (R) : Because in Annamalai University Vs. Secretary of Inf. and Tourism Department decided so.
Codes : - Read Assertion (A) and Reason (R) and answer using the codes given below :
Assertion (A) : The power under 368 of the Constitution is a constituent power subject to the constitutional scheme as to distribution of legislative power according to entries in the Seventh Schedule.
Reason (R) : Because Sasanka Sekhar Maity Vs. Union of India decided so.
Codes :
