UPSC Static Quiz – Polity : 7 May 2025

UPSC Static Quiz – Polity : 7 May 2025 We will post 5 questions daily on static topics mentioned in the UPSC civil services preliminary examination syllabus. Each week will focus on a specific topic from the syllabus, such as History of India and Indian National Movement, Indian and World Geography, and more.We are excited to bring you our daily UPSC Static Quiz, designed to help you prepare for the UPSC Civil Services Preliminary Examination. Each day, we will post 5 questions on static topics mentioned in the UPSC syllabus. This week, we are focusing on Indian and World Geography.

Why Participate in the UPSC Static Quiz?

Participating in daily quizzes helps reinforce your knowledge and identify areas that need improvement. Regular practice will enhance your recall abilities and boost your confidence for the examination. By covering various topics throughout the week, you ensure a comprehensive revision of the syllabus.

#### Quiz-summary

0 of 5 questions completed

Questions:

#### Information

Best of Luck! 🙂

You have already completed the quiz before. Hence you can not start it again.

Quiz is loading...

You must sign in or sign up to start the quiz.

You have to finish following quiz, to start this quiz:

0 of 5 questions answered correctly

Your time:

Time has elapsed

You have reached 0 of 0 points, (0)

#### Categories

• Not categorized 0%

• Question 1 of 5 1. Question Consider the following statements about the conditions and eligibility for bail: Bail may be granted with conditions such as surrendering the passport and attending court hearings regularly. Eligibility for bail depends only on the nature of the crime and severity of the offence. The likelihood of fleeing from justice is a factor considered when granting bail. How many of the above statements is/are correct? (a) Only one (b) Only two (c) All three (d) None Correct Solution: b) The grant of bail in India is not solely determined by the nature or severity of the offence but involves a holistic assessment of multiple factors. Statement 1 is correct because courts often impose conditions such as the surrender of passports, restriction on movement, or regular court appearances to ensure the accused does not abscond and cooperates with the investigation or trial process. Statement 2 is incorrect as it narrowly defines bail eligibility. In reality, courts also consider whether the accused poses a threat to public safety, the possibility of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, and whether the accused has a prior criminal record. Statement 3 is correct, since the risk of the accused fleeing justice is a key consideration in bail hearings. Incorrect Solution: b) The grant of bail in India is not solely determined by the nature or severity of the offence but involves a holistic assessment of multiple factors. Statement 1 is correct because courts often impose conditions such as the surrender of passports, restriction on movement, or regular court appearances to ensure the accused does not abscond and cooperates with the investigation or trial process. Statement 2 is incorrect as it narrowly defines bail eligibility. In reality, courts also consider whether the accused poses a threat to public safety, the possibility of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, and whether the accused has a prior criminal record. Statement 3 is correct, since the risk of the accused fleeing justice is a key consideration in bail hearings.

#### 1. Question

Consider the following statements about the conditions and eligibility for bail:

• Bail may be granted with conditions such as surrendering the passport and attending court hearings regularly.

• Eligibility for bail depends only on the nature of the crime and severity of the offence.

• The likelihood of fleeing from justice is a factor considered when granting bail.

How many of the above statements is/are correct?

• (a) Only one

• (b) Only two

• (c) All three

Solution: b)

• The grant of bail in India is not solely determined by the nature or severity of the offence but involves a holistic assessment of multiple factors.

• Statement 1 is correct because courts often impose conditions such as the surrender of passports, restriction on movement, or regular court appearances to ensure the accused does not abscond and cooperates with the investigation or trial process.

• Statement 2 is incorrect as it narrowly defines bail eligibility. In reality, courts also consider whether the accused poses a threat to public safety, the possibility of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, and whether the accused has a prior criminal record.

• Statement 3 is correct, since the risk of the accused fleeing justice is a key consideration in bail hearings.

Solution: b)

• The grant of bail in India is not solely determined by the nature or severity of the offence but involves a holistic assessment of multiple factors.

• Statement 3 is correct, since the risk of the accused fleeing justice is a key consideration in bail hearings.

• Question 2 of 5 2. Question Consider the following statements: The Supreme Court has the power to invalidate only those laws that are in direct violation of the Fundamental Rights. The Doctrine of Severability allows the unconstitutional parts of a law to be invalidated while preserving the rest. The Doctrine of Eclipse allows a law infringing Fundamental Rights to be suspended until it is brought in line with the Constitution. How many of the above statements is/are correct? a) Only one b) Only two c) All three d) None Correct Solution: c) All three statements are accurate and reflect key constitutional doctrines developed by the Indian judiciary. Statement 1 is correct because the Supreme Court, under Article 13 and Article 32 of the Constitution, has the power of judicial review and can strike down laws that are inconsistent with or infringe upon Fundamental Rights. Statement 2 is correct—the Doctrine of Severability ensures that if only certain provisions of a statute are unconstitutional, those can be struck down while the valid parts can be retained, provided they are separable and the remaining law can function independently. Statement 3 is correct as well—under the Doctrine of Eclipse, a pre-constitutional law inconsistent with Fundamental Rights is not nullified but remains inoperative or eclipsed. It revives and becomes enforceable if the Fundamental Rights are amended or relaxed. Incorrect Solution: c) All three statements are accurate and reflect key constitutional doctrines developed by the Indian judiciary. Statement 1 is correct because the Supreme Court, under Article 13 and Article 32 of the Constitution, has the power of judicial review and can strike down laws that are inconsistent with or infringe upon Fundamental Rights. Statement 2 is correct—the Doctrine of Severability ensures that if only certain provisions of a statute are unconstitutional, those can be struck down while the valid parts can be retained, provided they are separable and the remaining law can function independently. Statement 3 is correct as well—under the Doctrine of Eclipse, a pre-constitutional law inconsistent with Fundamental Rights is not nullified but remains inoperative or eclipsed. It revives and becomes enforceable if the Fundamental Rights are amended or relaxed.

#### 2. Question

Consider the following statements:

• The Supreme Court has the power to invalidate only those laws that are in direct violation of the Fundamental Rights.

• The Doctrine of Severability allows the unconstitutional parts of a law to be invalidated while preserving the rest.

• The Doctrine of Eclipse allows a law infringing Fundamental Rights to be suspended until it is brought in line with the Constitution.

How many of the above statements is/are correct?

• a) Only one

• b) Only two

• c) All three

Solution: c)

• All three statements are accurate and reflect key constitutional doctrines developed by the Indian judiciary.

• Statement 1 is correct because the Supreme Court, under Article 13 and Article 32 of the Constitution, has the power of judicial review and can strike down laws that are inconsistent with or infringe upon Fundamental Rights.

• Statement 2 is correct—the Doctrine of Severability ensures that if only certain provisions of a statute are unconstitutional, those can be struck down while the valid parts can be retained, provided they are separable and the remaining law can function independently.

• Statement 3 is correct as well—under the Doctrine of Eclipse, a pre-constitutional law inconsistent with Fundamental Rights is not nullified but remains inoperative or eclipsed. It revives and becomes enforceable if the Fundamental Rights are amended or relaxed.

Solution: c)

• All three statements are accurate and reflect key constitutional doctrines developed by the Indian judiciary.

• Question 3 of 5 3. Question Which of the following cases reaffirmed the right to a speedy trial as a fundamental right under Article 21? A) Justice K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India (2017) B) Delhi Excise Policy Case (2024) C) Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India (2015) D) Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (1978) Correct Solution: b) The doctrine of a speedy trial as a fundamental right under Article 21 was first firmly established in the landmark Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (1978) In this case, the Supreme Court expanded the interpretation of Article 21, stating that the right to life and personal liberty includes not just protection from arbitrary arrest or detention but also the assurance of a fair, just, and reasonable procedure, which necessarily includes a speedy trial. Although the Delhi Excise Policy Case (2024) might have reiterated or referred to this right in its context, it is not the origin or the primary reaffirmation of the doctrine. Similarly, the Shreya Singhal and Puttaswamy cases addressed other aspects of Article 21 (freedom of speech and privacy, respectively). Incorrect Solution: b) The doctrine of a speedy trial as a fundamental right under Article 21 was first firmly established in the landmark Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (1978) In this case, the Supreme Court expanded the interpretation of Article 21, stating that the right to life and personal liberty includes not just protection from arbitrary arrest or detention but also the assurance of a fair, just, and reasonable procedure, which necessarily includes a speedy trial. Although the Delhi Excise Policy Case (2024) might have reiterated or referred to this right in its context, it is not the origin or the primary reaffirmation of the doctrine. Similarly, the Shreya Singhal and Puttaswamy cases addressed other aspects of Article 21 (freedom of speech and privacy, respectively).

#### 3. Question

Which of the following cases reaffirmed the right to a speedy trial as a fundamental right under Article 21?

• A) Justice K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India (2017)

• B) Delhi Excise Policy Case (2024)

• C) Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India (2015)

• D) Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (1978)

Solution: b)

• The doctrine of a speedy trial as a fundamental right under Article 21 was first firmly established in the landmark Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (1978)

• In this case, the Supreme Court expanded the interpretation of Article 21, stating that the right to life and personal liberty includes not just protection from arbitrary arrest or detention but also the assurance of a fair, just, and reasonable procedure, which necessarily includes a speedy trial.

• Although the Delhi Excise Policy Case (2024) might have reiterated or referred to this right in its context, it is not the origin or the primary reaffirmation of the doctrine.

• Similarly, the Shreya Singhal and Puttaswamy cases addressed other aspects of Article 21 (freedom of speech and privacy, respectively).

Solution: b)

• The doctrine of a speedy trial as a fundamental right under Article 21 was first firmly established in the landmark Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (1978)

• Although the Delhi Excise Policy Case (2024) might have reiterated or referred to this right in its context, it is not the origin or the primary reaffirmation of the doctrine.

• Similarly, the Shreya Singhal and Puttaswamy cases addressed other aspects of Article 21 (freedom of speech and privacy, respectively).

• Question 4 of 5 4. Question Which Supreme Court case decriminalized consensual homosexual acts, thus protecting the rights and dignity of the LGBTQ+ community? a) Arnab Goswami vs. State of Maharashtra (2020) b) Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India (2015) c) Navtej Singh Johar vs. Union of India (2018) d) Justice K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India (2017) Correct Solution: c) The landmark judgment in Navtej Singh Johar vs. Union of India (2018) marked a historic moment in India’s constitutional jurisprudence and civil rights movement. The Supreme Court, in this case, decriminalized consensual homosexual acts by reading down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, which had previously criminalized “carnal intercourse against the order of nature.” The Court ruled that this section, as it applied to consensual acts between adults in private, was unconstitutional as it violated Article 14 (equality before law), Article 15 (non-discrimination), Article 19 (freedom of expression), and Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty). The Court emphasized the right to dignity, privacy, and individual autonomy for members of the LGBTQ+ community, asserting that constitutional morality must prevail over societal morality. Other cases listed, such as Shreya Singhal or Puttaswamy, dealt with different rights but did not address LGBTQ+ rights directly. Incorrect Solution: c) The landmark judgment in Navtej Singh Johar vs. Union of India (2018) marked a historic moment in India’s constitutional jurisprudence and civil rights movement. The Supreme Court, in this case, decriminalized consensual homosexual acts by reading down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, which had previously criminalized “carnal intercourse against the order of nature.” The Court ruled that this section, as it applied to consensual acts between adults in private, was unconstitutional as it violated Article 14 (equality before law), Article 15 (non-discrimination), Article 19 (freedom of expression), and Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty). The Court emphasized the right to dignity, privacy, and individual autonomy for members of the LGBTQ+ community, asserting that constitutional morality must prevail over societal morality. Other cases listed, such as Shreya Singhal or Puttaswamy, dealt with different rights but did not address LGBTQ+ rights directly.

#### 4. Question

Which Supreme Court case decriminalized consensual homosexual acts, thus protecting the rights and dignity of the LGBTQ+ community?

• a) Arnab Goswami vs. State of Maharashtra (2020)

• b) Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India (2015)

• c) Navtej Singh Johar vs. Union of India (2018)

• d) Justice K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India (2017)

Solution: c)

• The landmark judgment in Navtej Singh Johar vs. Union of India (2018) marked a historic moment in India’s constitutional jurisprudence and civil rights movement. The Supreme Court, in this case, decriminalized consensual homosexual acts by reading down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, which had previously criminalized “carnal intercourse against the order of nature.”

• The Court ruled that this section, as it applied to consensual acts between adults in private, was unconstitutional as it violated Article 14 (equality before law), Article 15 (non-discrimination), Article 19 (freedom of expression), and Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty).

• The Court emphasized the right to dignity, privacy, and individual autonomy for members of the LGBTQ+ community, asserting that constitutional morality must prevail over societal morality. Other cases listed, such as Shreya Singhal or Puttaswamy, dealt with different rights but did not address LGBTQ+ rights directly.

Solution: c)

• Question 5 of 5 5. Question Which of the following doctrines prevents the legislature from enacting laws indirectly that would violate constitutional limits? a) Doctrine of Substantive Due Process b) Doctrine of Eclipse c) Doctrine of Colorable Legislation d) Doctrine of Severability Correct Solution: c) The Doctrine of Colorable Legislation is rooted in the principle that what cannot be done directly cannot also be done indirectly. It acts as a constitutional check on legislative overreach. When a legislature, lacking the constitutional competence to enact a law on a subject, tries to make a law that appears valid on the surface but essentially seeks to achieve an unconstitutional objective, the judiciary may strike it down using this doctrine. The doctrine examines the real substance and intent behind a law, beyond its form or label. In contrast, the Doctrine of Eclipse applies to pre-constitutional laws conflicting with Fundamental Rights, subduing them until constitutional amendments revive them. Substantive Due Process is a broader U.S.-origin concept integrated into Indian jurisprudence via Article 21, and Doctrine of Severability allows invalid parts of a law to be severed, keeping the rest intact. Incorrect Solution: c) The Doctrine of Colorable Legislation is rooted in the principle that what cannot be done directly cannot also be done indirectly. It acts as a constitutional check on legislative overreach. When a legislature, lacking the constitutional competence to enact a law on a subject, tries to make a law that appears valid on the surface but essentially seeks to achieve an unconstitutional objective, the judiciary may strike it down using this doctrine. The doctrine examines the real substance and intent behind a law, beyond its form or label. In contrast, the Doctrine of Eclipse applies to pre-constitutional laws conflicting with Fundamental Rights, subduing them until constitutional amendments revive them. Substantive Due Process is a broader U.S.-origin concept integrated into Indian jurisprudence via Article 21, and Doctrine of Severability allows invalid parts of a law to be severed, keeping the rest intact.

#### 5. Question

Which of the following doctrines prevents the legislature from enacting laws indirectly that would violate constitutional limits?

• a) Doctrine of Substantive Due Process

• b) Doctrine of Eclipse

• c) Doctrine of Colorable Legislation

• d) Doctrine of Severability

Solution: c)

• The Doctrine of Colorable Legislation is rooted in the principle that what cannot be done directly cannot also be done indirectly. It acts as a constitutional check on legislative overreach. When a legislature, lacking the constitutional competence to enact a law on a subject, tries to make a law that appears valid on the surface but essentially seeks to achieve an unconstitutional objective, the judiciary may strike it down using this doctrine. The doctrine examines the real substance and intent behind a law, beyond its form or label.

• In contrast, the Doctrine of Eclipse applies to pre-constitutional laws conflicting with Fundamental Rights, subduing them until constitutional amendments revive them. Substantive Due Process is a broader U.S.-origin concept integrated into Indian jurisprudence via Article 21, and Doctrine of Severability allows invalid parts of a law to be severed, keeping the rest intact.

Solution: c)

Join our Official Telegram Channel HERE for Motivation and Fast Updates

Join our Twitter Channel HERE

Follow our Instagram Channel HERE

Stay Consistent

Consistency is key in UPSC preparation. By making the UPSC Static Quiz a part of your daily routine, you will steadily improve your knowledge base and exam readiness. Join us every day to tackle new questions and make your journey towards UPSC success more structured and effective.