Jurisprudence, Schools of Legal Thought and the Constitution of India — Practice

Question 1

Who is regarded as the founder of the Analytical (Austinian) school of jurisprudence?

Accepted Answer

John Austin.

Question 2

Which articles contain the Right to Equality?

Accepted Answer

Articles 14 to 18.

Question 3

Which writ is used to question a person's legal authority to hold a public office?

Accepted Answer

Quo warranto.

Question 4

State the current constitutional status of the Right to Property and identify the amendment that changed it.

Accepted Answer

It was removed from Part III (Fundamental Rights) by the 44th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1978, and now exists only as a legal right under Article 300A, not a Fundamental Right.

Question 5

A Concurrent List subject sees conflicting central and state legislation with no Presidential assent to the state law. Which prevails, and under what doctrine?

Accepted Answer

The central (Parliament's) law prevails, under the doctrine of repugnancy.

Question 6

Distinguish the scope of Article 32 from Article 226 in one sentence each.

Accepted Answer

Article 32 empowers the Supreme Court to issue writs only for enforcement of Fundamental Rights. Article 226 empowers High Courts to issue writs both for Fundamental Rights and for any other legal purpose, making it the broader jurisdiction.

Question 7

Explain Henry Maine's 'status to contract' thesis and state which school of jurisprudence it belongs to.

Accepted Answer

The thesis, associated with the Historical School, holds that the movement of progressive societies has been a movement from legal relationships fixed by status (birth, caste, family position) toward relationships freely negotiated through contract between individuals — illustrated by the shift from feudal obligation to modern commercial contract law.

Question 8

A DPSP under Article 48A is not being implemented by the state. Can a court compel the state to implement it? Explain by reference to Article 37.

Accepted Answer

No. Article 37 expressly declares the Directive Principles non-justiciable — no court can compel their implementation — even though the same article calls them 'fundamental in the governance of the country' and imposes a duty on the state to apply them in law-making. This contrasts with Fundamental Rights, which are directly enforceable under Article 32.

Practice — Jurisprudence, Schools of Legal Thought and the Constitution of India

Sign in to save attempts to your dashboard and track your accuracy over time

Find a verified tutor

Join a live course

Browse coaching centres

About

Categories

Support

Documentation

Get Study Tips & Updates

Download Our App

Download for iOS

Download for Android

Popular Cities