UPPSC 2019 Prelims GS Paper-I · Question 69 of 150

Correct — A, both (A) and (R) are true and (R) is the correct explanation of (A). That is what the UPPSC official key marks, and that is what marks were awarded on. The Reason is beyond argument: the Supreme Court is the guardian and final interpreter of the Constitution — Article 13 makes laws inconsistent with the Fundamental Rights void, Article 32 makes the Court the protector of those rights, Article 141 makes its declarations of law binding on every court in India, and the basic-structure doctrine of Kesavananda Bharati (1973) put even constitutional amendments within its reach. The key treats that guardianship as the ground of the Assertion: if one court is to be the ultimate authority on what the Constitution means, then the question whether Parliament's laws conform to it belongs finally to that court. Nor is the Assertion invented — the Constitution once said exactly this. Article 131A, inserted by the 42nd Amendment Act of 1976, conferred on the Supreme Court exclusive jurisdiction over the constitutional validity of Central laws, and Article 226A barred the High Courts from touching that question in writ proceedings. Now the part you must carry away, stated plainly, because the law and not this key is what you will be examined on next: Article 131A was repealed — along with Article 226A — by the Constitution (Forty-third Amendment) Act, which received assent and came into force on 13 April 1978. The exclusivity the Assertion describes therefore existed only from January 1977 to April 1978, a window of about fifteen months during and just after the Emergency. Since 1978 a High Court can and routinely does test the constitutional validity of a Central law under Article 226, with an appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 132. On the law as it stands, the Supreme Court's jurisdiction over the constitutional validity of Central laws is concurrent and final, not exclusive — which would make the Assertion false and point to option (d). The commission's key nevertheless marks (a), so (a) is the answer this paper rewarded. Learn the repeal as the law; treat the key's line as this paper's premise, not as the constitutional position.

• (b)Both (A) and (R) are true but (R) is not the correct explanation of (A) — On the key's reading both halves are true, but the link between them is exactly what the key accepts: the Court's standing as guardian of the Constitution is offered as the reason it, rather than any other court, decides whether a Central law is constitutionally valid. So the key does not treat (R) as a merely unrelated true statement.
• (c)(A) is true, but (R) is false — The Reason is not false, on any reading. The Supreme Court's position as guardian and final interpreter of the Constitution is written into Articles 13, 32, 137 and 141 and was reinforced by the basic-structure doctrine. Whatever one concludes about the Assertion, (R) stands.
• (d)(A) is false, but (R) is true — This is the option that constitutional-law sources would defend today, because the repeal of Articles 131A and 226A in 1978 restored the High Courts' power to examine the validity of Central laws under Article 226, leaving the Supreme Court's jurisdiction concurrent rather than exclusive. The commission's official key, however, marks (a). Note the conflict, learn the repeal — and do not expect (d) to be treated as correct in this paper.

Judicial review of the constitutional validity of a law is not the monopoly of a single court in India. The Supreme Court exercises it under Article 32 and on appeal under Article 132, and every High Court exercises it under Article 226, with Article 228 letting a High Court withdraw from a subordinate court any case involving a substantial question of constitutional interpretation. Article 13 supplies the substance: any law inconsistent with the Fundamental Rights is void. What the Supreme Court has is finality, not exclusivity — Article 141 binds every court to its declarations of law. The one jurisdiction the Constitution genuinely makes exclusive is Article 131: disputes between the Union and a State, or between States, go to the Supreme Court alone in its original jurisdiction.

This Assertion is the fossil of a real Article. During the Emergency the 42nd Amendment rewrote the courts' powers: Article 131A gave the Supreme Court exclusive jurisdiction over the constitutional validity of Central laws, Article 226A stopped the High Courts from considering that question under Article 226, Article 144A required a bench of at least seven judges and a two-thirds majority before a law could be struck down, and Article 228A dealt with challenges to State laws. The Janata government's 43rd Amendment repealed all of them and restored the pre-Emergency position. If you meet this Assertion again, the safe reading is that it was true for about fifteen months and has not been true since. Keep Article 131 and Article 131A mentally apart as well — one is exclusive original jurisdiction over Centre–State disputes and is still in force, the other was exclusive jurisdiction over the validity of Central laws and is gone. The near-identical numbering is precisely what makes the Assertion sound plausible.

• Article 131A was inserted by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976 — assent 18 December 1976, commencement 3 January 1977 — and gave the Supreme Court exclusive jurisdiction over the constitutional validity of Central laws.
• Article 226A, inserted by the same amendment, barred the High Courts from considering the constitutional validity of a Central law in Article 226 proceedings.
• Both were repealed by the Constitution (Forty-third Amendment) Act — assent and commencement 13 April 1978 — together with Articles 31D, 32A, 144A and 228A, restoring the pre-Emergency position.
• Since 1978 the High Courts can test the constitutional validity of Central laws under Article 226, so the Supreme Court's jurisdiction on that question is concurrent and final, not exclusive; appeals reach it under Article 132.
• Article 131, which is different and remains in force, is genuinely exclusive: original jurisdiction in disputes between the Union and one or more States, or between States.
• The Court's guardianship rests on Article 13 (inconsistent laws are void), Article 32, Article 141 and the basic-structure doctrine laid down in Kesavananda Bharati (1973).

• Reading Article 131 (exclusive original jurisdiction in Centre–State disputes) as though it were Article 131A (the repealed exclusive jurisdiction over the validity of Central laws).
• Assuming that only the Supreme Court can strike down a law — every High Court can declare a Central or State law unconstitutional under Article 226.
• Forgetting that much of the 42nd Amendment was undone: the 43rd Amendment (1978) restored the courts' powers and the 44th Amendment (1978) reversed other Emergency-era changes.

UPPSC favours Assertion–Reason here — a sweeping but plausible claim about the Supreme Court paired with a plainly true reason, so the whole question turns on the first half; UPSC prefers precision instead, asking for the exact Article, the exact head of jurisdiction, or what judicial review does and does not permit.

• practice — not a real PYQ

  Article 131A, which gave the Supreme Court exclusive jurisdiction over the constitutional validity of Central laws, was

  • (a)part of the original Constitution of 1950
  • (b)inserted by the 42nd Amendment and repealed by the 43rd Amendment
  • (c)inserted by the 44th Amendment and is still in force
  • (d)inserted by the 42nd Amendment and is still in force

  Answer(b) inserted by the 42nd Amendment and repealed by the 43rd Amendment — added in 1976 (commenced 3 January 1977) and repealed, with Article 226A, on 13 April 1978, restoring the High Courts' power to test Central laws.

• practice — not a real PYQ

  Under which Article does the Supreme Court of India have exclusive original jurisdiction in a dispute between the Government of India and a State?

  • (a)Article 32
  • (b)Article 131
  • (c)Article 136
  • (d)Article 143

  Answer(b) Article 131 — original and exclusive jurisdiction over disputes between the Union and one or more States, or between States. Article 32 is the writ jurisdiction, 136 the special leave to appeal and 143 the advisory jurisdiction.