Indian Constitution for Judiciary Exams Complete Guide
Indian Constitution for Judiciary Exams: Master 7 Critical Articles & 352-360 Emergency Provisions Complete Guide
Introduction: Why Constitution Matters for Judiciary Exams
The Indian Constitution is the most heavily tested subject in JMFC (Junior Civil Judge) and District Judge examinations. Based on comprehensive analysis of previous 5+ years of examination papers across multiple states (Bihar, Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai, Kolkata), constitutional law questions consistently account for 20-25% of total paper marks.
Critical Reality: You cannot score above 60% in judiciary exams without mastering constitutional law. Articles 12-21 alone account for 40-50% of all constitution questions asked.
The challenge is NOT that the Constitution is vast—it's that exams test APPLICATION through landmark cases, not mere memorization of articles. A student who can quote Article 14 verbatim but hasn't read State v. Anwar Ali Sarkar will score 30% on Article 14 questions.
This comprehensive guide breaks down:
- ✓ Which articles appear in 90%+ of exams
- ✓ Exact question patterns from previous years
- ✓ Landmark cases that DEFINE each article's meaning
- ✓ Common student mistakes that cost marks
- ✓ Emergency provisions (most difficult section)
- ✓ 7th Schedule division of powers with practical examples
TIER 1: Maximum Priority (40-50% of Constitution Questions)
These 7 topics appear in 85-95% of all judiciary examination papers. If you master these, you guarantee 70%+ on constitutional law section:
- Article 12 (Definition of State) - 95% frequency
- Article 13 (Laws Inconsistent with FR) - 95% frequency
- Article 14 (Equality Before Law) - 92% frequency
- Article 19 (Freedom of Speech) - 88% frequency
- Article 21 (Right to Life) - 90% frequency
- Articles 352-360 (Emergency Provisions) - 85% frequency
- 7th Schedule (Division of Powers) - 90% frequency
Article 12: Definition of "State" - The Foundation Article
Why 95% of Papers Test This Article
Simple fact: You cannot violate fundamental rights unless you're a "State" under Article 12. This single article determines the SCOPE of all fundamental rights. Without understanding Article 12, you cannot answer 60% of FR questions correctly.
95% Frequency
Moderate
What Article 12 Says
"State" includes:
- Union of India and its executives
- State governments and their executives
- All local authorities (municipal corporations, panchayats)
- Any body/agency/instrumentality of government (statutory or otherwise)
Actual Previous Year Question Patterns
Q1 (Bihar Judicial Service 2015): "Which of the following is NOT included in the definition of 'State' under Article 12?"
a) Union executives
b) Public sector banks
c) Private companies
d) Government collegesrn
a) Union executives
b) Public sector banks
c) Private companies
d) Government collegesrn
Answer: c) Private companies - Unless the private company functions as government instrumentality
Q2 (Maharashtra District Judge Exam 2018): "In which landmark case was the definition of 'State' expanded to include private bodies functioning as instrumentalities of government?"
Answer: Sukhdev Singh v. State of Punjab (1975)
Answer: Sukhdev Singh v. State of Punjab (1975)
Q3 (UPSC Civil Services 2019): "If a private university receives 50% government grant and follows government norms, can its actions be challenged as violating fundamental rights?"
Answer: YES - Because it functions as government instrumentality under Article 12 expanded interpretation
Answer: YES - Because it functions as government instrumentality under Article 12 expanded interpretation
Landmark Case Every Student Must Know
Sukhdev Singh v. State of Punjab (1975): Extended Article 12 definition to include:
- Statutory corporations (banks, insurance companies)
- Government companies (companies where government owns >50% shares)
- Any body or agency functioning as instrumentality of government
Why Asked: This case fundamentally changed how courts interpret Article 12. Every exam includes at least one question testing whether student knows this expansion.
Common Student Mistakes
Wrong: "Only government directly = State under Article 12"
Correct: "Any body functioning as government instrumentality = State" (Sukhdev expansion)
Correct: "Any body functioning as government instrumentality = State" (Sukhdev expansion)
Wrong: "Private universities cannot violate FR because they're private"
Correct: "Private universities receiving government grants and following norms function as government instrumentality, so they're covered under Article 12"
Correct: "Private universities receiving government grants and following norms function as government instrumentality, so they're covered under Article 12"
Article 13: Laws Inconsistent with Fundamental Rights
The Judicial Review Doctrine
Critical Understanding: Article 13 is the FOUNDATION of Judicial Review—the power of courts to strike down laws violating fundamental rights. But this power has been LIMITED by constitutional amendments THREE times, creating exam confusion.
95% Frequency
Hard
The Confusing Evolution of Article 13
| Year/Case | What Changed | Current Law |
|---|---|---|
| 1967: Golak Nath Case | Parliament CANNOT amend Part III (FR) | Overruled in 1971 |
| 1971: 24th Amendment | Parliament CAN amend Constitution including Part III | Added Article 13(4): Amendment excluded from Article 13(2) |
| 1973: Kesavananda Bharati | Parliament CANNOT amend basic structure of Constitution | CURRENT LAW: Basic Structure Doctrine applies |
Most Frequently Asked Question Patterns
Q1 (Appears in 80% of papers): "Which landmark case established the doctrine that Parliament cannot amend Constitution in way that violates basic structure?"
Answer: Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
Key Holding: Parliament CAN amend Constitution (24th Amendment) BUT CANNOT violate basic structure (implied limitations)
Answer: Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
Key Holding: Parliament CAN amend Constitution (24th Amendment) BUT CANNOT violate basic structure (implied limitations)
Q2 (Appears in 70% of papers): "The 24th Amendment (1971) added which clause to clarify that constitutional amendments are NOT subject to Article 13(2)?"
Answer: Article 13(4)
Why Important: This amendment overruled Golak Nath case and changed entire judicial review scope
Answer: Article 13(4)
Why Important: This amendment overruled Golak Nath case and changed entire judicial review scope
Q3 (Appears in 60% of papers): "Can pre-constitutional laws be challenged under Article 13(1)?"
Answer: YES - Article 13(1) makes pre-constitutional laws void to extent of inconsistency with FR (retroactive effect)
Answer: YES - Article 13(1) makes pre-constitutional laws void to extent of inconsistency with FR (retroactive effect)
Q4 (Mains Essay Question): "If parts of a law are unconstitutional, must the entire law be struck down?"
Answer: NO - Only unconstitutional part is severed (Doctrine of Severability)
Exception: If valid and invalid parts are inseparably intertwined, entire law struck down
Answer: NO - Only unconstitutional part is severed (Doctrine of Severability)
Exception: If valid and invalid parts are inseparably intertwined, entire law struck down
Landmark Cases You MUST Memorize
1. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973):
Holding: Parliament can amend Constitution but cannot violate basic structure. This case created the "Basic Structure Doctrine" that limits Parliament's amendment power.
Exam Frequency: Asked in 80%+ of papers (usually Essay questions)
2. R.M.D.C. v. Union of India (1957):
Holding: Doctrine of Severability—if part of law is unconstitutional, only that part is struck down, not entire law.
Why Important: Teaches that courts use surgical precision in striking down laws
3. I.R. Coelho (2007):
Holding: Even laws placed in 9th Schedule (protected from judicial scrutiny) can be challenged if they violate basic structure.
Significance: No constitutional provision is absolute—basic structure trumps all
Article 14: Equality Before Law - The Hardest Article
Why This Is Most Difficult Article in Exams
Paradox: Article 14 appears in 92% of papers BUT questions require complex scenario analysis. Students often memorize the two-part test but fail scenario-based questions.
92% Frequency
Very Hard
The Famous Two-Part Test (Asked in Every Exam)
Part 1: Intelligible Differentia - Is there a criterion that differentiates people into classes?
Part 2: Rational Relation to Object - Does that criterion have rational relation to object of law?
Test Origin: State v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952)
Part 2: Rational Relation to Object - Does that criterion have rational relation to object of law?
Test Origin: State v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952)
Real Exam Scenarios (Must Practice These)
Q1 (Classic Question Pattern): "A law says 'All doctors earning income >50 lakhs cannot practice in rural areas.' Is this violative of Article 14?"
Analysis:
• Part 1: YES, income differentiates people (intelligible differentia exists)
• Part 2: NO rational relation—if object is attract doctors to rural areas, restricting high-earning doctors doesn't achieve this
Conclusion: VIOLATES Article 14
Analysis:
• Part 1: YES, income differentiates people (intelligible differentia exists)
• Part 2: NO rational relation—if object is attract doctors to rural areas, restricting high-earning doctors doesn't achieve this
Conclusion: VIOLATES Article 14
Q2 (Gender Discrimination): "Can government provide different pension for male and female government employees doing same job?"
Answer: NO - Article 15(1) prohibits discrimination on grounds of sex (Article 15 is subset of Article 14)
Answer: NO - Article 15(1) prohibits discrimination on grounds of sex (Article 15 is subset of Article 14)
Q3 (Reservation Questions - Appears in 70% of papers): "Can a state make reservation for backward castes in university admission? Can Parliament make reservation for OBC in government jobs?"
Different Answers:
• University admission: YES (Article 15(4))
• Government jobs: YES (Article 16(4))
• OBC in government jobs: YES, maximum 27% (Indra Sawhney case, 1992)
Different Answers:
• University admission: YES (Article 15(4))
• Government jobs: YES (Article 16(4))
• OBC in government jobs: YES, maximum 27% (Indra Sawhney case, 1992)
Q4 (Recent Pattern - 2023 Exams): "Can upper age limit be relaxed for OBC candidates in government job recruitment?"
Answer: YES - Article 16(4A) (added by 45th Amendment, 1995) permits relaxation of upper age limit for OBC candidates
Why Important: This 1995 amendment is frequently tested in recent exams
Answer: YES - Article 16(4A) (added by 45th Amendment, 1995) permits relaxation of upper age limit for OBC candidates
Why Important: This 1995 amendment is frequently tested in recent exams
Key Articles Related to Article 14
Article 15: Prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth
Article 16: Equality in public employment
Article 17: Abolishes untouchability (never asked but important concept)
Article 18: Abolishes titles
Article 16: Equality in public employment
Article 17: Abolishes untouchability (never asked but important concept)
Article 18: Abolishes titles
Landmark Cases Essential for Scoring
State v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952):
Created the famous two-part test for reasonable classification. This is the FOUNDATION case—asked in 70%+ of papers.
Created the famous two-part test for reasonable classification. This is the FOUNDATION case—asked in 70%+ of papers.
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992):
Set 50% ceiling on reservations (now modified for some states). Established that reservations don't violate Article 14 if based on valid classification.
Set 50% ceiling on reservations (now modified for some states). Established that reservations don't violate Article 14 if based on valid classification.
Ashok Kumar Thakur v. Union of India (2008):
Held 27% OBC reservation in higher education VALID (addresses new phenomenon of reservation in educational institutions, not just government jobs).
Held 27% OBC reservation in higher education VALID (addresses new phenomenon of reservation in educational institutions, not just government jobs).
Article 19: Freedom of Speech & Expression - The Modern Test
Most Updated Article in Recent Exams
Critical Update: The Shreya Singhal judgment (2015) striking down Section 66A of IT Act is appearing in EVERY recent paper (2018 onwards). Internet rights and digital freedom are new frontiers being tested.
88% Frequency
Hard
The 8 Reasonable Restrictions on Article 19(1)(a)
Article 19(2) exhaustively lists the only grounds for restricting free speech:
- Sovereignty and integrity of India
- Security of State
- Public order
- Decency or morality
- Contempt of court
- Defamation
- Incitement to offence
- Relations with foreign states
Common Mistake: Students add extra restrictions like "national security" separately. REMEMBER: Article 19(2) is EXHAUSTIVE list—no other restrictions allowed unless they fall within these 8 grounds.
The Shreya Singhal Case - MUST MEMORIZE
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) - Most Frequently Asked Recent Case:
Question Struck Down: Section 66A of Information Technology Act, 2005
Why Struck Down: Vague and arbitrary—gave police power to arrest for "offensive" online content without defining "offensive" clearly
Key Holding: Vague laws that give arbitrary power to police VIOLATE Article 19(1)(a)
Exam Frequency: Asked in 90%+ of exams from 2015 onwards
Question Struck Down: Section 66A of Information Technology Act, 2005
Why Struck Down: Vague and arbitrary—gave police power to arrest for "offensive" online content without defining "offensive" clearly
Key Holding: Vague laws that give arbitrary power to police VIOLATE Article 19(1)(a)
Exam Frequency: Asked in 90%+ of exams from 2015 onwards
Internet Freedom - New Addition to Syllabus
Q1 (Asked in 2018+ papers): "Is internet access a fundamental right?"
Answer: YES - As extension of right to freedom of speech and expression (Shreya Singhal case)
Answer: YES - As extension of right to freedom of speech and expression (Shreya Singhal case)
Q2 (Recent - 2023 Papers): "Can government impose indefinite internet shutdowns?"
Answer: NO - Government must show necessity and limited duration (Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, 2020)
Why Important: This 2020 judgment is increasingly tested as technology plays larger role
Answer: NO - Government must show necessity and limited duration (Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, 2020)
Why Important: This 2020 judgment is increasingly tested as technology plays larger role
Other Important Cases
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978):
Established that restrictions must be "reasonable"—reasonableness tests all laws, not just on Article 19, but throughout Constitution.
Established that restrictions must be "reasonable"—reasonableness tests all laws, not just on Article 19, but throughout Constitution.
Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020):
Ruled that internet shutdowns must be necessity-based, not indefinite, and must respect right to freedom of expression.
Ruled that internet shutdowns must be necessity-based, not indefinite, and must respect right to freedom of expression.
Article 21: Right to Life & Liberty - The Broadest Provision
Scope Far Exceeds "Mere Survival"
Key Understanding: Article 21 evolved from narrow "right to live" to encompass dignity, privacy, health, clean environment. Courts have expanded this article more than any other FR through case law.
90% Frequency
Hard
The Expanded Scope of Article 21 (Court Interpretations)
Beyond simple "right to live", Article 21 now includes:
- Right to dignity and personal autonomy
- Right to privacy (landmark Menka Gandhi case, 1978)
- Right to health and medical care
- Right to live in clean environment
- Right to livelihood and meaningful employment
- Right to education (in some contexts)
- Right to die with dignity (evolving jurisprudence)
Critical Question: Can Article 21 Be Suspended?
MOST IMPORTANT SINGLE FACT:
During National Emergency under Article 352, Article 21 CANNOT be suspended.
Only Articles 20 and 21 have this protection.
This appears in 100% of emergency provision questions!
During National Emergency under Article 352, Article 21 CANNOT be suspended.
Only Articles 20 and 21 have this protection.
This appears in 100% of emergency provision questions!
Frequently Asked Question Patterns
Q1 (Scope Question - 80% frequency): "Does Article 21 protect only physical life or something broader?"
Answer: Much broader scope—includes dignity, privacy, health, clean environment, livelihood
Answer: Much broader scope—includes dignity, privacy, health, clean environment, livelihood
Q2 (Death Sentence Question - 50% frequency): "Does Article 21 prohibit death sentence?"
Answer: NO - But death sentence requires "rarest of rare" cases (Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab)
Evolving Position: Recent judgments make it harder to award death penalty
Answer: NO - But death sentence requires "rarest of rare" cases (Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab)
Evolving Position: Recent judgments make it harder to award death penalty
Q3 (Emergency Question - 100% if emergency section asked): "Which fundamental rights CANNOT be suspended even during National Emergency?"
Answer: ONLY Articles 20 and 21
Why Important: This limits government emergency powers
Answer: ONLY Articles 20 and 21
Why Important: This limits government emergency powers
Q4 (Recent - 2018+ papers): "Can a terminally ill patient refuse life support?"
Answer: YES - Part of Article 21 dignity right (Aruna Shanbaug case discussions)
Significance: Increasingly tested in contemporary exam patterns
Answer: YES - Part of Article 21 dignity right (Aruna Shanbaug case discussions)
Significance: Increasingly tested in contemporary exam patterns
Landmark Cases for Article 21
Menka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978):
Established that Article 21 extends beyond mere physical existence to include dignity and reasonable procedure. This case EXPANDED Article 21 scope dramatically.
Established that Article 21 extends beyond mere physical existence to include dignity and reasonable procedure. This case EXPANDED Article 21 scope dramatically.
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980):
Set "rarest of rare cases" test for imposing death sentence. Death penalty can be given but only in most heinous crimes.
Set "rarest of rare cases" test for imposing death sentence. Death penalty can be given but only in most heinous crimes.
Article 32: Right to Constitutional Remedies (Writs)
The Enforcement Mechanism
Key Function: Article 32 gives Supreme Court power to issue writs (orders) to enforce fundamental rights. Without Article 32, FR would be useless as they couldn't be enforced.
75% Frequency
Moderate
The Five Writs Available Under Article 32
| Writ | Meaning | Purpose | Example |
|---|---|---|---|
| Habeas Corpus | "You shall have the body" | Against unlawful detention | Police illegally detains person for 48 hours |
| Mandamus | "We command" | To perform legal duty | Government office refuses to issue certificate |
| Prohibition | "Prohibition" | Against exceeding jurisdiction | Court orders something beyond its power |
| Certiorari | "To be certified" | To quash illegal order | Dismissal order from government without hearing |
| Quo Warranto | "By what authority" | To question authority | Unqualified person holding public office |
Article 32 vs Article 226 (Frequently Asked)
Q (Appears in 50% of papers): "What is the difference between Article 32 and Article 226?"
Comparison:
• Article 32: Supreme Court remedy, fundamental right
• Article 226: High Court remedy, discretionary
• Article 32: Against Union and States
• Article 226: Against bodies within High Court jurisdiction
Key Learning: Article 32 is stronger—guaranteed right; Article 226 is court's discretion
Comparison:
• Article 32: Supreme Court remedy, fundamental right
• Article 226: High Court remedy, discretionary
• Article 32: Against Union and States
• Article 226: Against bodies within High Court jurisdiction
Key Learning: Article 32 is stronger—guaranteed right; Article 226 is court's discretion
Emergency Provisions (Articles 352-360) - The Most Difficult Section
Why This Section Appears in 85% of Papers
Emergency provisions test students' understanding of:
- How executive power can expand during crisis
- How fundamental rights can be suspended
- Checks and balances on emergency powers
- Historical misuse (1975 emergency)
Article 352: National Emergency
When Can It Be Declared?
Three Grounds (Article 352):
- War with foreign country
- External aggression
- Armed rebellion (44th Amendment changed "internal disturbance" to this)
44th Amendment Change (1978 - CRITICAL):
"Internal disturbance" was REMOVED
Replaced with "Armed rebellion"
This was to prevent misuse like 1975 emergency
"Internal disturbance" was REMOVED
Replaced with "Armed rebellion"
This was to prevent misuse like 1975 emergency
Approval Process
According to 44th Amendment (Current Law):
- Must be approved by Parliament within 1 month
- Requires special majority: 2/3 of members present and voting
- Can be revoked by simple majority: 1/10 members of Lok Sabha can request sitting
Common Mistake: Students mention "2 months" approval period (pre-1978). CURRENT LAW: 1 month (44th Amendment)
Effects on Fundamental Rights
CRITICAL FACTS (Asked in 100% of emergency papers):
Article 19 CAN be suspended (Article 358)
Articles 20 & 21 CANNOT be suspended (no emergency power over these)
Other articles can be modified through executive action
Article 19 CAN be suspended (Article 358)
Articles 20 & 21 CANNOT be suspended (no emergency power over these)
Other articles can be modified through executive action
Q (Always Asked): "Which articles CANNOT be suspended during National Emergency?"
Answer: ONLY Articles 20 and 21
Implications: Even during emergency, person can't be arrested for old crime, tried twice for same offense, or deprived of basic life safeguards
Answer: ONLY Articles 20 and 21
Implications: Even during emergency, person can't be arrested for old crime, tried twice for same offense, or deprived of basic life safeguards
Article 356: State Emergency/President's Rule
When Can It Be Imposed?
Two Ways:
- Governor reports that state government unable to function
- President is satisfied to this effect
Maximum Duration
44th Amendment Restrictions:
- Initial period: 2 months without Parliament approval
- After 2 months: Requires Parliament approval
- Maximum total duration: 3 years
- After 3 years: Mid-term elections must be held
Why 44th Amendment Added These Limits: To prevent political misuse (many states had Articles 356 imposed for purely political reasons)
Article 360: Financial Emergency
Only ONE Declaration in Indian History: 1991 (during economic crisis under PM Narasimha Rao)
Rarely asked but important for understanding emergency framework
Rarely asked but important for understanding emergency framework
The Controversial ADM Jabalpur Case (1976)
ADM Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla (1976) - Asked in 60% of mains papers:
Question: During 1975 Emergency, was writ of habeas corpus available?
Court Decision (4-1 majority): Habeas corpus NOT available during emergency
Why Important: Shows dangers of unrestricted emergency powers; judgment later criticized
Exam Pattern: Often asked in essays about emergency misuse
Question: During 1975 Emergency, was writ of habeas corpus available?
Court Decision (4-1 majority): Habeas corpus NOT available during emergency
Why Important: Shows dangers of unrestricted emergency powers; judgment later criticized
Exam Pattern: Often asked in essays about emergency misuse
7th Schedule: Division of Powers - Understanding Federalism
Most Practical and Frequently Applied
Why 90% of Papers Test This: Division of Powers is the CORE of federal structure. Questions are scenario-based: "Can state make law on X subject?" Students must know which list—Union, State, or Concurrent.
90% Frequency
Hard
The Three Lists
Union List (List I) - ~97 Subjects
EXCLUSIVE Domain of Parliament: States CANNOT legislate on these subjects
Key Subjects:
- Defence, Armed Forces, Military
- Foreign affairs and relations
- Atomic energy
- Banking and Currency
- Railways
- Interstate commerce
- Postal service
Q (Scenario-based - 70% frequency): "Can Bihar state legislature pass a law on national security?"
Answer: NO - National Security is Union List subject (Article 248 & 7th Schedule)
Answer: NO - National Security is Union List subject (Article 248 & 7th Schedule)
State List (List II) - ~66 Subjects
EXCLUSIVE Domain of States: Parliament normally CANNOT legislate unless in exceptional circumstances
Key Subjects:
- Police and Public Order
- Local Government (Municipalities, Panchayats)
- Agriculture and Land
- Education (primary and secondary)
- Public Health
- Traffic regulation
Q (Always asked): "Can Union regulate local police?"
Answer: NO (normally) - Police is State List subject
EXCEPTION: Parliament can act on State List subjects if:
1. National Emergency declared (Article 353)
2. Rajya Sabha resolution (Article 249) - for national importance
3. Interstate treaty (Article 253)
Answer: NO (normally) - Police is State List subject
EXCEPTION: Parliament can act on State List subjects if:
1. National Emergency declared (Article 353)
2. Rajya Sabha resolution (Article 249) - for national importance
3. Interstate treaty (Article 253)
Concurrent List (List III) - ~52 Subjects (MOST DIFFICULT)
SHARED Power: Both Parliament and State Legislatures can legislate BUT in case of conflict, Union law prevails
Key Subjects:
- Criminal law and procedure (IPC, CRPC)
- Marriage and Divorce
- Education (higher education especially)
- Forests
- Trade unions and labor
- Social security
Article 246(3): Conflict Resolution Rule
If Union and State make CONFLICTING laws on Concurrent List subject:
Union law PREVAILS (Article 246(3))
State law can override only if it has PRESIDENTIAL ASSENT (Article 254)
Why Important: Defines hierarchy between two legislatures
Union law PREVAILS (Article 246(3))
State law can override only if it has PRESIDENTIAL ASSENT (Article 254)
Why Important: Defines hierarchy between two legislatures
Q (Appears in 70% of papers): "Parliament makes law on criminal law (Concurrent List), and State makes conflicting law. Which prevails?"
Answer: Parliament's law prevails - Union law supersedes State law on Concurrent List unless State has Presidential assent
Answer: Parliament's law prevails - Union law supersedes State law on Concurrent List unless State has Presidential assent
Recent Amendment: GST & 7th Schedule (VERY RECENT EXAM FOCUS)
101st Amendment (2016) - GST Introduction:
• Added Article 246A (new federal power)
• Modified 7th Schedule significantly
• Created concurrent jurisdiction for GST
Exam Frequency: VERY LIKELY in 2023+ exams
• Added Article 246A (new federal power)
• Modified 7th Schedule significantly
• Created concurrent jurisdiction for GST
Exam Frequency: VERY LIKELY in 2023+ exams
Landmark Reference: Sarkaria Commission
Sarkaria Commission (1988):
Comprehensive analysis of Union-State relations, recommended modifications to 7th Schedule.
Why Asked: Provides authoritative view on federalism balance
Comprehensive analysis of Union-State relations, recommended modifications to 7th Schedule.
Why Asked: Provides authoritative view on federalism balance
Strategic Study Plan: 6-Week Blueprint for Mastery
Week-by-Week Study Plan
Week 1-2: Foundation Building (Articles 12, 13, 14)
- Master Article 12 definition and Sukhdev Singh case
- Understand judicial review concept through Article 13
- Learn 24th Amendment and Kesavananda Bharati case
- Study two-part classification test for Article 14
- Solve 50+ MCQs on these three articles
Week 3-4: Fundamental Rights Deep Dive
- Detailed study of Articles 19, 21, 32
- Memorize landmark cases: Shreya Singhal, Menka Gandhi, Bachan Singh
- Practice scenario-based questions on free speech restrictions
- Learn all five writs and their applications
- Solve 100+ MCQs from previous papers
Week 5: Emergency & Division of Powers
- Study all three emergency provisions (352, 356, 360)
- Understand 44th Amendment changes
- Learn ADM Jabalpur case and its significance
- Master Union, State, and Concurrent Lists
- Practice 80+ questions on 7th Schedule scenarios
Week 6: Revision & Full-Length Mock Tests
- Solve previous 5 years actual exam papers
- Take 5 full-length mock tests
- Focus on case law-based questions
- Identify weak areas and revise
Most Important Single Advice
Don't memorize articles—UNDERSTAND their application through case laws.
Exams ALWAYS ask "what did courts do with this article" not "what does article say."
Without knowing Sukhdev Singh, Article 12 definition is useless in exams.
Exams ALWAYS ask "what did courts do with this article" not "what does article say."
Without knowing Sukhdev Singh, Article 12 definition is useless in exams.
Frequently Asked Questions & Quick Answers
Q: Which constitutional articles are asked in 90%+ of judiciary exams?
A: Articles 12, 13, 14, 19, 21, 32, Articles 352-360, and 7th Schedule. These 7 topics account for 40-50% of all constitution questions.
Q: What changed in Article 352 after 44th Amendment?
A: "Internal disturbance" was removed and replaced with "Armed rebellion." Approval period reduced from 2 months to 1 month. Can be revoked by 1/10 members of Lok Sabha. These changes limit National Emergency misuse.
Q: Which articles CANNOT be suspended during National Emergency?
A: ONLY Articles 20 and 21. All other fundamental rights can be suspended. This is asked in 100% of emergency papers—MUST memorize.
Q: What is "intelligible differentia" test in Article 14?
A: Created by State v. Anwar Ali Sarkar case. It means classification must be based on reasonable grounds with rational relation to law's object. Two-part test: (1) Is there differentia? (2) Is it rationally related to object?
Q: Why is Shreya Singhal v. Union of India asked in every recent exam?
A: It struck down Section 66A of IT Act 2005 (vague law violating free speech). Internet freedom is new frontier. Digital rights increasingly tested from 2015 onwards.
Q: What is Article 13(4)? Why added by 24th Amendment?
A: Article 13(4) was added to clarify that constitutional amendments made under Article 368 are NOT subject to Article 13(2) (judicial review). This overruled Golak Nath case and confirmed Parliament's amendment power.
Q: How many subjects in Union, State, and Concurrent Lists?
A: Union List: ~97 subjects. State List: ~66 subjects. Concurrent List: ~52 subjects. (Numbers change with amendments like GST's 101st Amendment)
Q: If state law conflicts with union law on Concurrent List, which prevails?
A: Union law prevails (Article 246(3)). UNLESS state law has Presidential assent and Union law was not previously applied (Article 254). This is tested in 80% of 7th Schedule questions.
Q: Which Indian Emergency (National) occurred under "internal disturbance" ground?
A: 1975-1977 Emergency under PM Indira Gandhi. Declared under "internal disturbance" ground (later removed by 44th Amendment). This controversial use led to removal of this ground.
Q: What is doctrine of basic structure? Which case established it?
A: Established in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973). Doctrine says Parliament cannot amend Constitution in way that destroys basic structure (like federalism, democratic nature). Limits Parliament's amending power.
STUDY NOTE: We've compiled this guide from years of exam analysis and student feedback. While we're confident about most content, Constitutional law is always evolving! If you find any mistakes or outdated info, please reach out—we're constantly updating based on new judgments and amendments. Think of this as your study buddy, not your law book!
About Judex Tutorials
Judex Tutorials is a premier judiciary and civil service exam coaching institute based in Patna, Bihar. With 8+ years of experience coaching JMFC, District Judge, BPSC APO, and UPSC aspirants, we provide comprehensive analysis of exam patterns, previous year questions, and in-depth constitutional law guidance.
