Union & State Judiciary of INDIA Practice Questions Answers Test with Solutions

Answer: (c)

The relaxation of Cabotage Law for Vallarpadam terminal augurs well for Gateway Distriparks, which may see an improvement in CFS volumes in the coming quarters. Its CFS near the terminal is likely to attract some of the cargo. Under the existing rules of Cabotage Law, only Indian flagged vessels can handle coastal cargo.

Hence, foreign carriers transshipped India's destined cargo at Colombo or Dubai ports earlier.

This resulted in lower capacity utilization in Vallarpadam International Container Transshipment Terminal (ICCT) at Kochi, which was set up eighteen months ago. With the relaxation of the rules, foreign carriers can now handle coastal cargo through Vallarpadam ICTT.

Answer: (d)

Answer: (d)

Bombay High Court has jurisdiction over two states- Mumbai and Goa; Guwahti High Court has jurisdiction over Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Mizoram and Nagaland; Punjab and Haryana High Court has jurisdiction over Punjab and Haryana.

Answer: (d)

Answer: (b)

The Directive Principles have been used to uphold the Constitutional validity of legislations in case of a conflict with the Fundamental Rights.

Article 31C, added by the 25th Amendment in 1971, provided that any law made to give effect to the Directive Principles in Article 39(d1)–(b1) would not be invalid on the grounds that they derogated from the Fundamental Rights conferred by Articles 14, 19 and 31.

The application of this article was sought to be extended to all the Directive Principles by the 42nd Amendment in 1976, but the Supreme Court struck down the extension as void on the ground that it violated the basic structure of the Constitution. Minerva Mills Ltd. and Ors. v. Union Of India and Ors. (case citation: AIR 1980 SC 1789) is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of India that applied and evolved the basic structure doctrine of the Constitution of India.

Section 4 of the 42nd Amendment, had amended Article 31C of the Constitution to accord precedence to the Directive Principles of State Policy articulated in Part IV of the Constitution over the Fundamental Rights of individuals articulated in Part III. By a verdict of 4-1, with Justice Prafullachandra Natwarlal Bhagwati dissenting, the court held section 4 of the 42nd Amendment to be unconstitutional.