UPSC Prelims Practice Questions — No urgent hearing on Central Park closure: SC

Q1. With reference to the grounds on which a law may impose reasonable restrictions on the right of citizens to assemble peaceably and without arms, consider the following grounds: Which of the grounds given above is/are permissible under the Constitution of India?

  1. Public order
  2. Decency or morality
  3. Sovereignty and integrity of India
  • A. 1 and 3 only
  • B. 1 only
  • C. 1, 2 and 3
  • D. 2 and 3 only

Q2. Consider the following statements: Which of the following is correct in respect of the above statements?

  1. The Supreme Court has recognised peaceful protest as a fundamental right flowing from the freedoms of speech and of assembly under Article 19(1).
  2. The Constitution permits the State to impose reasonable restrictions on the freedom of assembly in the interests of public order.
  • A. Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct and Statement-II explains Statement-I
  • B. Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct, but Statement-II does not explain Statement-I
  • C. Statement-I is correct, but Statement-II is incorrect
  • D. Statement-I is incorrect, but Statement-II is correct

Q3. The Supreme Court declined an urgent hearing of a plea against a municipal order closing a public park ahead of a political protest. The Bench observed that the interests of protesters, of petty vendors and of those maintaining law and order were all related. It added that it would exercise its constitutional jurisdiction if there was loss of business. Which of the following inferences can validly be drawn from the above?

  1. By declining the urgent hearing, the Court has not upheld the closure order on its merits.
  2. The Court regards the maintenance of law and order as overriding the right to protest in every situation.
  3. The Court has found that the closure order violated the vendors' right to livelihood.
  • A. 2 and 3 only
  • B. 1 only
  • C. 1, 2 and 3
  • D. 1 and 2 only

Q4. With reference to the constitutional protection available to a street vendor, consider the following statements: Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

  1. The right to carry on a trade under Article 19(1)(g) is guaranteed only to citizens, whereas the protection of life and personal liberty under Article 21 extends to every person.
  2. Reasonable restrictions on the right to carry on a trade may be imposed in the interests of the general public, a ground broader than those on which the freedom of assembly may be restricted.
  • A. 1 only
  • B. 2 only
  • C. Both 1 and 2
  • D. Neither 1 nor 2

Q5. Consider the following statements: Which of the following is correct in respect of the above statements?

  1. In the Olga Tellis case (1985), the Supreme Court held that the right to livelihood is part of the right to life, yet it upheld the eviction of pavement dwellers in Bombay.
  2. Article 21 does not bar every deprivation of life or personal liberty; it permits a deprivation carried out according to a procedure established by law that is fair, just and reasonable.
  • A. Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct and Statement-II explains Statement-I
  • B. Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct, but Statement-II does not explain Statement-I
  • C. Statement-I is correct, but Statement-II is incorrect
  • D. Statement-I is incorrect, but Statement-II is correct

Q6. With reference to the writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, consider the following statements: Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

  1. The Supreme Court may issue only the five named writs and cannot issue any other directions or orders for enforcing fundamental rights.
  2. Parliament may suspend the right to move the Supreme Court under Article 32 by enacting an ordinary law.
  3. Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise, within its local limits, the powers that the Supreme Court exercises under Article 32.
  • A. 1, 2 and 3
  • B. 1 and 2 only
  • C. 2 and 3 only
  • D. 3 only

Q7. Suppose a District Magistrate keeps a central public square closed to all assemblies for several months by issuing a fresh prohibitory order under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 each time the previous order lapses. Going by the Supreme Court's 2020 reasoning on the predecessor provision, Section 144 of the CrPC, how would this practice most likely be viewed?

  • A. As valid in every case, since each fresh order is a new exercise of power that cures earlier defects
  • B. As valid only with legislative approval, since prolonged restrictions need the sanction of the State Legislature
  • C. As an abuse of the power, since repeated orders turn an urgent preventive measure into a standing restriction
  • D. As beyond judicial review, since the power is executive and lies outside the writ jurisdiction of courts