The question asks about the constitutional provision that governs the Right to Property after its removal from the list of Fundamental Rights. We need to identify the specific Article under which it was reclassified as a legal right.
Correct Option: B) Article 300A
Article 300A was inserted by the 44th Amendment Act, 1978, making the Right to Property a legal right, not a fundamental right.
The question asks about the current number of categories or groups of Fundamental Rights in the Indian Constitution. To answer this, one needs to recall the original categories and any subsequent amendments that might have altered their number.
A) Six. There are currently six categories of Fundamental Rights in the Indian Constitution after the Right to Property was removed by the 44th Amendment Act, 1978.
The question asks to identify which entity is NOT included in the definition of 'State' as per Article 12 of the Indian Constitution. Article 12 is crucial for understanding the scope of fundamental rights, as these rights are enforceable against the 'State'. We need to recall the various components that Article 12 includes in its definition of 'State'.
Correct Option: A) Private individuals acting in their personal capacity, unrelated to any government function
The question asks about the scope of the term 'State' as defined under Article 12 of the Indian Constitution, specifically in relation to the enforceability of Fundamental Rights. Understanding this definition is crucial for determining against whom these rights can be claimed.
Correct Option: B) The Government as well as statutory and other authorities performing public functions
The question asks about the consequence of a law being inconsistent with or taking away Fundamental Rights, as per Article 13 of the Indian Constitution. This article is crucial for protecting Fundamental Rights from legislative encroachment.
Correct Option: B) Void to the extent of such inconsistency
This option directly reflects the language and intent of Article 13(1) and 13(2), which state that any law inconsistent with or taking away Fundamental Rights shall be void to the extent of such inconsistency or contravention. This ensures that only the offending part of the law is invalidated, preserving the rest if possible.
The question asks about the landmark ruling of the Supreme Court in the Golaknath case (1967). This case is crucial in Indian constitutional law, particularly concerning the Parliament's power to amend Fundamental Rights. We need to identify the core holding of the Supreme Court in this specific judgment.
Correct Option: A) A constitutional amendment is 'law' under Article 13 and Parliament cannot abridge or take away Fundamental Rights