List I List II (a) M. Nagaraj vs Union of India (i) Case on National Security (b) Indira Sawhney vs Union of India (ii) To provide reservations in promotions for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (c) Mohini Jain vs State of Karnataka (iii) Application of creamy layer to O.B.C. quota (d) A.K. Roy vs Union of India (iv) On capitation fees
Matching Landmark Indian Supreme Court Cases
This section details the matching of significant Supreme Court cases from List-I with their respective legal domains in List-II.
Case (a): M. Nagaraj vs Union of India
This judgment concerned the constitutional amendments enabling reservations in promotions for Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST). The court stipulated conditions for implementing such reservations.
Correct Match: (a) – (ii) To provide reservations in promotions for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
Case (b): Indira Sawhney vs Union of India
Renowned as the Mandal Commission case, this ruling upheld reservations for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in public employment. It notably introduced the 'creamy layer' principle to exclude the affluent sections of OBCs.
Correct Match: (b) – (iii) Application of creamy layer to O.B.C. quota
Case (c): Mohini Jain vs State of Karnataka
The Supreme Court declared the right to education as fundamental. This case specifically addressed the issue of capitation fees charged by private professional colleges, stating they violated this right.
Correct Match: (c) – (iv) On capitation fees
Case (d): A.K. Roy vs Union of India
This case involved a challenge to the constitutional validity of the National Security Act, 1980. The Court upheld the Act but emphasized safeguards for personal liberty against preventive detention.
Correct Match: (d) – (i) Case on National Security
Final Answer Synthesis
Combining the matches derived from the analysis:
- M. Nagaraj vs Union of India relates to SC/ST promotions in government jobs (ii).
- Indira Sawhney vs Union of India concerns the creamy layer in OBC quotas (iii).
- Mohini Jain vs State of Karnataka addresses capitation fees in education (iv).
- A.K. Roy vs Union of India pertains to the National Security Act (i).
The correct sequence is therefore (a)–(ii), (b)–(iii), (c)–(iv), (d)–(i).
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 :
