True/False – GK Questions

Free practice for SSC, UPSC, Banking & Railway exams. No login required.

Showing 2101–2120 of 2557 questions
polity hard True/False Navtej Singh Johar Case - Dignity as Foundational Principle Navtej Singh Johar dignity principle critical for UPSC Mains and current affairs exams

In Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court recognized human dignity as foundational principle underlying Fundamental Rights, and held that discrimination based on sexual orientation violates dignity under Article 21.

  1. True
  2. False
polity hard True/False Supriyo Case - Separation of Powers and Marriage Recognition Supriyo separation of powers critical for UPSC Mains and current affairs exams

In Supriyo v. Union of India (2023), the Supreme Court's decision to decline legalizing same-sex marriage while affirming queer rights exemplifies separation of powers: courts protect constitutional values but defer complex policy design to legislature.

  1. True
  2. False
polity hard True/False Navtej Singh Johar Case - Constitutional Morality and Minority Protection Navtej Singh Johar minority protection critical for UPSC Mains and current affairs exams

In Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court emphasized that Constitutional Morality requires the State to protect minorities and individuals against majoritarian impulses, ensuring that democratic legitimacy respects constitutional limits, not just popular will.

  1. True
  2. False
polity hard True/False Supriyo Case - Constitutional Rights Without Marriage Recognition Supriyo constitutional rights critical for UPSC Mains and current affairs exams

In Supriyo v. Union of India (2023), the Supreme Court recognized that constitutional rights like non-discrimination, dignity, and autonomy under Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 protect queer couples even without legislative recognition of same-sex marriage, demonstrating that rights protection is not contingent on specific institutional recognition.

  1. True
  2. False
polity hard True/False Navtej Singh Johar Case - Inclusive Interpretation of Article 15 Navtej Singh Johar Article 15 interpretation critical for UPSC Mains and Judiciary exams

In Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court interpreted 'sex' in Article 15 (prohibition of discrimination) to include sexual orientation and gender identity, ensuring that discrimination based on these grounds violates constitutional guarantees of equality.

  1. True
  2. False
polity hard True/False Supriyo Case - Affirmation of Queer Rights Despite Marriage Non-Recognition Supriyo queer rights affirmation critical for UPSC Mains and current affairs exams

In Supriyo v. Union of India (2023), despite declining to legalize same-sex marriage, the Supreme Court affirmed that queer couples have constitutional rights to protection from discrimination, right to cohabit, and access to services without discrimination, demonstrating that rights protection can occur even without legislative recognition of specific institutions like marriage.

  1. True
  2. False
polity hard True/False Navtej Singh Johar Case - Sexual Orientation as Intrinsic to Personality Navtej Singh Johar sexual orientation critical for UPSC Mains and current affairs exams

In Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court held that sexual orientation is intrinsic to personality, and discrimination based on sexual orientation violates constitutional guarantees of dignity, equality, and liberty under Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21.

  1. True
  2. False
polity medium True/False Supriyo Case - Committee for Queer Rights Examination Supriyo committee for queer rights critical for UPSC Mains and current affairs exams

In Supriyo v. Union of India (2023), the Supreme Court directed the Central Government to constitute a high-level committee to examine rights and entitlements of queer couples, including issues like joint bank accounts, medical decision-making, and social security benefits.

  1. True
  2. False
polity hard True/False Navtej Singh Johar Case - Decriminalization and Constitutional Values Navtej Singh Johar decriminalization critical for UPSC Mains and current affairs exams

In Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court decriminalized consensual same-sex relations by striking down Section 377 IPC, holding that constitutional values of dignity, equality, and liberty under Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 protect LGBTQ+ rights against majoritarian social morality.

  1. True
  2. False
polity hard True/False Minerva Mills Case - Harmony Between FRs and DPSP Minerva Mills FR-DPSP harmony critical for UPSC Mains and Judiciary exams

In Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980), the Supreme Court emphasized that Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles are complementary and harmonious, with FRs providing means and DPSP providing ends for establishing an egalitarian society, and neither can be given absolute primacy over the other.

  1. True
  2. False
polity hard True/False Supriyo Case - Rights of Queer Couples Despite Marriage Non-Recognition Supriyo queer rights critical for UPSC Mains and current affairs exams

In Supriyo v. Union of India (2023), despite declining to legalize same-sex marriage, the Supreme Court affirmed that queer couples have constitutional rights to protection from discrimination, right to cohabit, and access to services without discrimination under Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21.

  1. True
  2. False
polity hard True/False Navtej Singh Johar Case - Constitutional Morality vs Social Morality Navtej Singh Johar Constitutional Morality critical for UPSC Mains and current affairs exams

In Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court held that Constitutional Morality (constitutional values of dignity, equality, liberty) must prevail over social morality (majoritarian views) when they conflict in matters affecting fundamental rights.

  1. True
  2. False
polity hard True/False Minerva Mills Case - Limited Amending Power Minerva Mills limited amending power critical for UPSC Mains and Judiciary exams

In Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980), the Supreme Court held that Parliament's amending power under Article 368 is limited, and amendments that destroy the basic structure of the Constitution are unconstitutional, reinforcing the principle that constitutional supremacy prevails over parliamentary sovereignty.

  1. True
  2. False
polity hard True/False Anuradha Bhasin Case - Internet Shutdowns and Proportionality Anuradha Bhasin internet shutdowns critical for UPSC Mains and current affairs exams

In Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020), the Supreme Court applied the proportionality test to internet shutdowns, requiring that restrictions on digital free speech be published, time-bound, subject to judicial review, and necessary for legitimate aims like national security.

  1. True
  2. False
polity hard True/False Joseph Shine Case - Gender Equality and Marital Autonomy Joseph Shine gender equality critical for UPSC Mains and Judiciary exams

In Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court struck down Section 497 IPC (adultery) as violating gender equality under Articles 14, 15, and dignity/autonomy under Article 21, holding that marital relationships must be based on mutual respect, not ownership.

  1. True
  2. False
polity hard True/False NALSA Case - Intersectionality and Transgender Rights NALSA intersectionality critical for UPSC Mains and Judiciary exams

In NALSA v. Union of India (2014), the Supreme Court recognized that transgender persons face compounded discrimination based on gender identity, caste, class, and directed intersectional approach in policies for transgender welfare, including reservation in education/employment.

  1. True
  2. False
polity hard True/False People's Union for Civil Liberties Case - Right to Food PUCL right to food critical for UPSC Mains and Judiciary exams

In People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India (2001 onwards), the Supreme Court recognized right to food as part of right to life under Article 21, and issued continuing mandamus directions for implementation of food security schemes like PDS, mid-day meals, ICDS.

  1. True
  2. False
polity hard True/False Sunil Batra Case - Prison Reforms and Human Dignity Sunil Batra prison reforms critical for UPSC Mains and Judiciary exams

In Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1978, 1980), the Supreme Court recognized that prisoners retain fundamental rights under Article 21, and imprisonment does not mean deprivation of dignity, leading to directions for humane treatment, rehabilitation programs in prisons.

  1. True
  2. False
polity hard True/False Vellore Citizens Case - Sustainable Development Principles Vellore Citizens sustainable development critical for UPSC Mains and Judiciary exams

In Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996), the Supreme Court recognized sustainable development, precautionary principle, and polluter pays principle as part of environmental law under Article 21, balancing development needs with ecological sustainability.

  1. True
  2. False
polity medium True/False Paschim Banga Case - Right to Emergency Medical Care Paschim Banga emergency healthcare critical for UPSC Mains and Judiciary exams

In Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of West Bengal (1996), the Supreme Court held that failure of government hospital to provide timely emergency medical treatment violates right to life under Article 21, imposing positive obligation on State to ensure access to emergency healthcare.

  1. True
  2. False