Q.17
Constitutional Law Medium Knowledge-Based
Bare Act Constitution of India · PIL Jurisprudence

The petitioner, a professor of political science who had done substantial research and deeply interested ‘in ensuring proper implementation of the constitutional provisions, challenged the practice followed by the state of Bihar in repromulgating a number of ordinances without getting the approval of the legislature. The court held that the petitioner as a member of public has ’sufficient interest’ to maintain a petition under Article 32- This relates to the case of:

A Parmanand Katara v. Union of India, AIR 1989 SC 2039
D.C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar, AIR 1987 SC 579 Answer
C Neeraja Cltoudhari v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR. 1984 SC 1099
D Chameli Singh v. State of U.P ., AIR 1996 SC 1051
📋

Explanation & Strategy

Click any section to expand · only one open at a time

This question describes a PIL filed by a professor who had done substantial research — testing who has standing to file PIL and on what matters. The SC has allowed academics, journalists, and social activists to file PILs on matters of public importance.

At a Glance
Subject Constitutional Law
Difficulty Medium
Act Constitution of India
Section PIL Jurisprudence
Answer (B) Knowledge-Based
Paper AIBE XV — January 2021
Progress in Paper
Q.17 100 questions

17% through paper

📖 Open Book — Reading Mode Constitution of India