Question

The above passage has been taken from which of the following judgments, which decided the state of affairs relating to internet ban in Jammu & Kashmir?

• A. Sita Ram Yechury v. Union of India
• B. Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India
• C. In Re: State of Jammu & Kashmir
• D. Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu & Kashmir
• A. The limitations of state action sanctioned under the Constitution.
• B. The powers of the President under Article 370 of the Constitution.
• C. The extent of restrictions to be imposed by the State on the exercise of Fundamental Rights
• D. The proportionality of powers and duties under the Constitution.
• A. The application of Part-III is subject to the interest of the majority and it overrides the rights of an individual.
• B. The state may act in derogation of the Fundamental Rights of the people to achieve a higher public good and the social equilibrium.
• C. The Fundamental Rights of citizens are secondary and the authority of State over its citizens is primary and of utmost importance.
• D. The above approach is suitable only for the American Constitution as no limitation on rights is mentioned in the text of the Constitution.
• A. Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India.
• B. Irtiqa Iqbal v. Union of India
• C. Kapil Sibal v. Union of India
• D. None of the above.
• A. A complete internet ban for indefinite period in a state effected by terrorism, insurgency and local militia.
• B. A slowdown of the internet speed in a State, affecting the Right of Free speech and expression and trade, business and occupation
• C. House arrest of eminent political leaders for an indefinite period
• D. A complete lockdown in an area effected by militant attacks for an indefinite period.
• A. Legality, which postulates the existence of law which is enacted to restrict the application of Fundamental Rights.
• B. Need, defined in terms of a legitimate State aim.
• C. Proportionality, which ensures a rational nexus between the objects and the means adopted to achieve them.
• D. Consequence, which the restriction would ensue after its application.
• A. Freedom of Speech and Expression
• B. Right to carry out trade, business and occupation
• C. Right to Life
• D. All of the above.
• A. The Secretary to the Government of India in the Ministry of Home Affairs.
• B. The Secretary to the Government of India in the Ministry of Information andBroadcasting
• C. A District Magistrate, exercising his powers under S.144 of the Cr. P. C
• D. The Chief Secretary to the Government of State in the Ministry of Home Affairs.
• A. Any Bill to alter the boundaries of the State shall be introduced in the Parliament after the recommendation of the Governor of the State.
• B. No Bill can be introduced in the Parliament for the alteration of the boundaries of the State without the consent of the Legislature of the State.
• C. No Bill can be introduced in the Parliament for the alteration of the boundaries of the State without the consent of the Constituent Assembly of the State.
• D. No Bill can be introduced in the Parliament for the alteration of the boundaries of the State without the consent of the President.
• A. The Act has amended Schedule 1 of the Constitution
• B. The Act has amended Article 4 of the Constitution
• C. The Act has amended Schedule 4 of the Constitution.
• D. None of the above.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is B

The correct Option is (B):Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India

Answer 2

The passage discusses proportionality in the specific context of restrictions on internet access, and the question asks which judgment dealing with the Jammu & Kashmir internet shutdown this passage is drawn from.

1. Option (A): Sita Ram Yechury v. Union of India is not a decision associated with the internet shutdown litigation or the proportionality standard applied to it; there is no such recognised judgment on this subject.
2. Option (B): Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India is precisely the judgment that reviewed the restrictions imposed in Jammu & Kashmir, including the internet suspension, and it is here that the Supreme Court elaborated the proportionality standard, including the "steam hammer to crack a nut" formulation, to test the validity of such restrictions.
3. Option (C): In Re: State of Jammu & Kashmir is not the case that develops this proportionality reasoning on internet restrictions; it does not match the specific analysis excerpted in the passage.
4. Option (D): Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu & Kashmir concerns a different set of facts relating to personal liberty and unlawful detention of a legislator, not the internet shutdown or the proportionality doctrine discussed here.

Only Anuradha Bhasin directly addresses the legality of the Jammu & Kashmir internet restrictions and develops the proportionality analysis that the passage reproduces.

Therefore, the correct answer is Option (B): Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India.

Answer 3

The correct Option is (C):The extent of restrictions to be imposed by the State on the exercise of Fundamental Rights

Answer 4

The passage is discussing proportionality as the test for measuring how far a restriction on a right may go, and the question asks which issue this discussion of proportionality is really about.

1. Option (A): "The limitations of state action sanctioned under the Constitution" describes the boundary on what the state itself may do in general, which is close to but broader than what the passage discusses, since the passage is really about how far a right can be curtailed rather than every limitation on state power as such.
2. Option (B): The powers of the President under Article 370 have nothing to do with the proportionality discussion in the passage, which concerns balancing rights against state interests, not the specific procedure for altering the status of a state or union territory.
3. Option (C): The passage's discussion, from the "steam hammer to crack a nut" analogy to the requirement that a restriction not exceed what is necessary to serve a legitimate interest, is squarely about how much the state may cut into the exercise of Fundamental Rights, which is exactly the extent-of-restriction question this option describes.
4. Option (D): "The proportionality of powers and duties under the Constitution" reframes proportionality as a general balance between different constitutional organs' powers, which is not the subject of the passage; the passage speaks only about restricting rights, not distributing powers.

The passage's own language about ensuring restrictions are no more intrusive than necessary to achieve a legitimate aim is a direct description of testing the extent of permissible restriction on Fundamental Rights.

So, the correct answer is Option (C): The extent of restrictions to be imposed by the State on the exercise of Fundamental Rights.

Answer 5

The correct Option is (B):The state may act in derogation of the Fundamental Rights of the people to achieve a higher public good and the social equilibrium.

Answer 6

The passage contrasts Dworkin's "rights as trumps" view, where a right cannot be overridden even for a public good, with the more restrained approach the Indian Constitution actually follows, and the question asks which statement correctly explains that limitation on the all-or-nothing approach.

1. Option (A): This claims the application of Part III is subject to majority interest and is overridden by it, which goes further than the passage; the passage is not saying rights are subordinate to majority interest generally, it is explaining that Part III itself contains built-in, structured limitations rather than treating rights as absolute trumps.
2. Option (B): The passage explains that unlike the Dworkinian model, the Indian Constitution's Part III comes with inbuilt restrictions, meaning the legislature or executive can, within those structured limits, act to restrict a right in pursuit of a legitimate public good, provided the restriction meets the proportionality standard; this matches the passage's own reasoning about why the all-or-nothing approach is not fully suitable here.
3. Option (C): This describes Fundamental Rights as merely "secondary" to state authority, which is a much stronger and more absolute claim than anything the passage says; the passage does not subordinate rights generally, it only notes that Part III has structured limitations built into its text.
4. Option (D): This says the all-or-nothing approach fits the American Constitution because it has no textual limitation on rights, but frames the Indian position only in negative terms without capturing what the passage affirmatively says about why India's structure permits proportionate restriction; it is an incomplete restatement rather than the actual explanation given.

The passage's own explanation is that the built-in restrictions within Part III allow proportionate curtailment of a right for a legitimate public purpose, unlike Dworkin's all-or-nothing framework, which is precisely what option (B) states.

Thus, the correct answer is Option (B): The state may act in derogation of the Fundamental Rights of the people to achieve a higher public good and the social equilibrium.

Answer 7

The correct Option is (A):Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India.

Answer 8

The question asks which decision recognised that access to the internet is protected under Article 19 of the Constitution, and each option must be checked for whether it actually addresses that specific holding.

1. Option (A): Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India is the judgment in which the Supreme Court held that the freedom of speech and expression and the freedom to carry on trade or business using the internet are protected under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 19(1)(g) respectively, making internet access itself a facet of these fundamental freedoms.
2. Option (B): "Irtiqa Iqbal v. Union of India" is not a recognised Supreme Court decision on internet access or Article 19; no such holding on this point is attributed to this name.
3. Option (C): "Kapil Sibal v. Union of India" likewise is not a judgment establishing internet access as an Article 19 right; the name does not correspond to any authority on this question.
4. Option (D): Since Anuradha Bhasin does supply exactly this holding, "none of the above" cannot be correct.

Anuradha Bhasin is the only option that corresponds to an actual Supreme Court decision, and it is precisely the decision that reads internet access into Article 19's freedoms.

Hence, the correct answer is Option (A): Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India.

Answer 9

The correct Option is (B):A slowdown of the internet speed in a State, affecting the Right of Free speech and expression and trade, business and occupation

Answer 10

The proportionality test asks whether a restriction goes no further than necessary to achieve a legitimate aim, so this question is best solved by comparing the severity and duration of each restriction against a less severe alternative.

1. Option (A): A complete internet ban for an indefinite period, even in an area affected by terrorism or insurgency, fails proportionality because "indefinite" and "complete" together go beyond what is necessary; the state must consider whether a less restrictive, time-bound, or partial measure could achieve the same security aim.
2. Option (B): A slowdown of internet speed is a calibrated, less intrusive measure than a total ban; it still allows some exercise of the rights under Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) while addressing the underlying security or public order concern, which is the kind of narrowly tailored restriction that satisfies the "necessity" and "least restrictive means" limbs of the proportionality test.
3. Option (C): House arrest of political leaders for an indefinite period is a severe restriction on personal liberty with no defined endpoint, which fails proportionality for the same reason as an indefinite total ban, the absence of any time limit or periodic review makes it excessive.
4. Option (D): A complete lockdown of an area for an indefinite period, even where militant attacks have occurred, again lacks the defined, reviewable limits that proportionality requires, and its totality makes it a broader intrusion than the situation may need.

Among the four, only the internet slowdown avoids both the "complete" and "indefinite" features that make the other three restrictions constitutionally excessive, since it is calibrated rather than total and can be reviewed and adjusted rather than open-ended.

Therefore, the correct answer is Option (B): A slowdown of the internet speed in a State, affecting the Right of Free speech and expression and trade, business and occupation.

Answer 11

The correct Option is (D):Consequence, which the restriction would ensue after its application.

Answer 12

The Supreme Court has laid down a structured, multi-part test for validating any restriction on a Fundamental Right, and this question asks which of the listed elements is not actually one of those recognised components.

1. Option (A): Legality, the requirement that a law must actually exist authorising the restriction, is the first and most basic limb of the test; without an enacted law, no restriction can be justified at all, so this is a genuine essential.
2. Option (B): Need, expressed as a legitimate state aim, is the second limb, requiring that the restriction actually serve a legitimate governmental purpose rather than an arbitrary or extraneous one; this too is a recognised essential.
3. Option (C): Proportionality, ensuring a rational nexus between the means adopted and the object sought to be achieved, is the third limb and the centrepiece of the test discussed throughout this passage; it is unquestionably an essential.
4. Option (D): "Consequence," meaning the effect the restriction would have after being applied, is not one of the recognised limbs of this test. The fourth limb actually recognised by the Court is procedural safeguards against abuse of the power to restrict, not an inquiry into after-the-fact consequences; "consequence" as framed here does not correspond to any of the four established requirements.

Legality, need, and proportionality are all textbook limbs of the test for validating restrictions on Fundamental Rights, while "consequence" does not correspond to the fourth limb, procedural safeguards, or to any other recognised element of the test.

So, the correct answer is Option (D): Consequence, which the restriction would ensue after its application.

Answer 13

The correct Option is (D):All of the above.

Answer 14

The question asks which Fundamental Right(s) the right to access the internet helps a person exercise. The safest way to answer is to test the internet's role against each right named in the options rather than picking one in isolation.

1. Option A (Freedom of Speech and Expression): The internet is one of the widest platforms for expressing opinions, publishing content, and receiving information, so restricting it directly restricts speech under Article 19(1)(a). In Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, the Supreme Court expressly held that the freedom of speech and expression through the internet is part of Article 19(1)(a). This option is correct on its own terms.
2. Option B (Right to carry on trade, business and occupation): A large share of commerce, banking, and professional work today runs through the internet. The Court in the same case also recognised that the freedom to conduct trade or business through the internet falls within Article 19(1)(g). This option is also independently correct.
3. Option C (Right to Life): Access to information, education, healthcare services, and livelihood opportunities increasingly depends on internet connectivity, and courts, including the Kerala High Court in Faheema Shirin v. State of Kerala, have linked internet access to the right to live with dignity and to education under Article 21. This option, too, holds up.
4. Option D (All of the above): Since each of the first three options is independently supportable, none of them can be excluded, which means the only option that accounts for the full picture is the one that includes all three.

Because the internet enables speech, trade, and the broader right to a dignified life at the same time, no single right captures its full utility, so the comprehensive option is the accurate one.

Hence, the correct answer is Option D: All of the above.

Answer 15

The correct Option is (A):The Secretary to the Government of India in the Ministry of Home Affairs.

Answer 16

This question tests knowledge of who is authorised to order internet or telecom suspension under the 2017 Rules framed under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. The Rules identify specific competent authorities, so checking each option against that scheme settles the answer.

1. Option A (Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India): Rule 2 of the 2017 Rules names the Union Home Secretary as the officer competent to order suspension for matters concerning the Government of India, and this authority governs the exercise of this specific emergency power at the Union level.
2. Option B (Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting): the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting deals with broadcasting and media content, not telecom suspension, and has no role under these Rules, so this option is incorrect.
3. Option C (a District Magistrate under Section 144 CrPC): a District Magistrate's power under Section 144 CrPC is a separate, general public-order power used to restrict assembly or movement; it is not the specific mechanism created by the 2017 Telecom Suspension Rules, so this option does not fit here.
4. Option D (Chief Secretary of the State in the Ministry of Home Affairs): the 2017 Rules assign the state-level power to the Secretary in-charge of the Home Department of the State Government, a designation distinct from the Chief Secretary named here, so this option does not match the Rules' actual wording.

Testing the four options against the text of the 2017 Rules leaves the Union Home Secretary as the officer whose designation matches the Rules precisely.

Therefore, the correct answer is Option A: The Secretary to the Government of India in the Ministry of Home Affairs.

Answer 17

The correct Option is (B):No Bill can be introduced in the Parliament for the alteration of the boundaries of the State without the consent of the Legislature of the State.

Answer 18

This question is about the special constitutional position of Jammu and Kashmir under Article 370 before it was altered in August 2019, specifically regarding Parliament's ordinary Article 3 power to change a state's boundaries. Each option proposes a different safeguard, so checking which one actually existed for J&K resolves the question.

1. Option A (Governor's recommendation): Article 3 in its general form requires the President to refer a boundary bill to the concerned State Legislature for its views, not a recommendation from the Governor as a precondition to introduction, so this option misstates the mechanism.
2. Option B (consent of the State Legislature): Article 370(1)(d), through the Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, added a special proviso to Article 3 for J&K requiring that no such bill be introduced in Parliament without the consent of the State's Legislature. Since the State's Constituent Assembly had already dissolved itself in 1957 after framing the State Constitution, the Legislature was the body whose consent mattered by the relevant period. This matches the special constitutional safeguard actually in force.
3. Option C (consent of the Constituent Assembly): the J&K Constituent Assembly ceased to exist after 1957 once it had framed the State's Constitution and dissolved itself, so it could not have been the body giving consent at any time reasonably close to 2019.
4. Option D (consent of the President): the President's role in Article 3 is to recommend or refer the bill, not to give a separate consent that operates as the special safeguard for J&K, so this option conflates two different constitutional actors.

Only the Legislature-consent safeguard reflects the extra protection Article 370 carved out for J&K's boundaries, distinguishing it from the ordinary Article 3 procedure applicable to other states.

Hence, the correct answer is Option B: No Bill can be introduced in the Parliament for the alteration of the boundaries of the State without the consent of the Legislature of the State.

Answer 19

The correct Option is (B):The Act has amended Article 4 of the Constitution

Answer 20

The Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019 is a law made under Article 3 of the Constitution, and Article 4 is the provision that explains what such a law can do to the Constitution's Schedules without being treated as a formal constitutional amendment. Reading each option against that framework identifies the false statement.

1. Option A (amended Schedule 1): the First Schedule lists the states and their territorial extent; since the Act reorganised J&K into the Union Territories of J&K and Ladakh, it necessarily altered the entries in Schedule 1, so this statement is true.
2. Option B (amended Article 4): Article 4 is the enabling constitutional provision that permits laws under Articles 2 and 3 to make incidental changes to the First and Fourth Schedules; the Reorganisation Act operates under the authority of Article 4, it does not rewrite or amend the text of Article 4 itself. Describing the Act as having amended Article 4 confuses the source of the power with its result, making this statement inaccurate.
3. Option C (amended Schedule 4): the Fourth Schedule allocates Rajya Sabha seats to each state; reorganising J&K into Union Territories required corresponding changes to that allocation, so this statement is also true.
4. Option D (None of the above): since one of the three specific statements, Option B, is inaccurate, none of the above cannot be the answer.

The Act changes the Schedules that list states and seat allocations, using the power Article 4 grants, but it does not touch the wording of Article 4 itself, which is precisely the distinction the question is testing.

Therefore, the correct answer is Option B: The Act has amended Article 4 of the Constitution, which is the statement that is not true.