Public Interest Litigation (PIL)

* The First Amendment Act, of 1951, added the fourth clause to Article 15 that empowered the government to make any law for the upliftment of socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled * Tribes. The added clause elucidates that in case such special provisions are introduced, they cannot be said to be breaching Article 15 and Article 29(2) of the Constitution. * The need to insert this clause was felt after the decision of the Supreme Court in the State of Madras v. Srimathi Champakam (1951). According to the facts of this case, the Madras government issued an Order that provided reservation on the grounds of religion, race, and caste. This Order was contended to be in breach of Article 15(1) of the Indian Constitution. The Court also gave a literal interpretation to the constitutional provisions and held that reserving seats in public institutions for backward classes violates Articles 15(1) and 29(2). Therefore, to nullify the effect of similar judicial pronouncements, Article 15 was amended. * Similarly, Article 19(1)(a) grants the right to free speech and expression to Indian citizens. This right is considered an essential feature of democracy. However, Article 19(2) specifies the restrictions that can curtail this freedom. The First Amendment to the Indian Constitution altered these restrictions by widening their ambit. The second change, via the Amendment Act of 1951, was made to Clause 6 of Article 19. Note: UPSC deleted this question when the final answer key was issued.

Statement 1 is correct: The Ninth Schedule was introduced through the First Constitutional Amendment (1951) to protect certain laws from judicial review, even if they violated Fundamental Rights (Part III of the Constitution). Statement 2 is incorrect: The protection under the Ninth Schedule is not absolute. As per the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) and reaffirmed in the I.R. Coelho case (2007), laws placed in the Ninth Schedule after April 24, 1973, can still be challenged if they violate the "Basic Structure" of the Constitution. Thus, while the Ninth Schedule provides a degree of protection, the Supreme Court retains the power to review laws that undermine the Constitution’s core principles. Hence, the correct answer is option (a) 1 only.

Statement 1 is correct: Mandamus is a command issued by the court to a public official asking him to perform his official duties that he has failed or refused to perform. It can also be issued against any public body, a corporation, an inferior court, a tribunal, or a government for the same purpose. It is usually not usable against a private entity unless it is entrusted with a public duty. Statement 2 is correct: As explained above, Mandamus can be used against a government corporation and/or company when it is discharging a "public duty", so the statement is incomplete. Public Duty is Key: Mandamus aims to compel performance of a public duty, not just private functions. Statement 3 is correct: Quo Warranto is issued by the court to inquire into the legality of the claim of a person to a public office. Hence, it prevents illegal usurpation of public office by a person. Unlike the other writs, this can be sought by any interested person and not necessarily by the aggrieved person. Note (on Statement 2): In UPSC Prelims, statements must be judged as written, without adding extra conditions. A company does not become subject to the writ of Mandamus only because it is a Government company. Government ownership by itself is not enough. Since Statement 2 is framed in this limited and absolute sense, and no additional condition like “public duty” is mentioned, the statement is treated as correct.