Which type of expenses comes within the ambit of “maintenance” regarding the marriage of an unmarried daughter?
Anonymous Quiz
68%
(A) Reasonable expenses
14%
(B) Unreasonable expenses
15%
(C) May be both
3%
(D) None of the above
Under Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, minor means a person who has not completed his or her age of
Anonymous Quiz
7%
(A) 12 years
13%
(B) 15 years
76%
(C) 18 years
4%
(D) 21 years
Provision of adoption in Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 is from
Anonymous Quiz
8%
(A) Sections 1 to 4
48%
(B) Sections 5 to 17
37%
(C) Sections 18 to 28
7%
(D) Sections 1 to 30
❤1
Provision of maintenance in Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 is from section
Anonymous Quiz
6%
(A) Sections 1 to 4
42%
(B) Sections 5 to 17
47%
(C) Sections 18 to 28
4%
(D) Sections 1 to 30
Adoptions made in contravention of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 is
Anonymous Quiz
49%
(A) Void
21%
(B) Voidable
17%
(C) Either void or voidable
13%
(D) Still valid
❤3👍1
Adoptions made not in contravention of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 is
Anonymous Quiz
30%
(A) Void
21%
(B) Voidable
16%
(C) Either void or voidable
33%
(D) Valid
❤4
Number of Sections in Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 –
Anonymous Quiz
10%
a. 26
16%
b. 27
25%
c. 28
50%
d. 29
❤2
❤1
The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 –
Anonymous Quiz
51%
a. Act no. 25 of 1955
24%
b. Act no. 30 of 1956
21%
c. Act no. 32 of 1956
4%
d. Act no. 78 of 1956
👍2
🔰 Fundamental Rights – Short Note 🔰
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
🔷 Introduction
Fundamental Rights are enshrined in Part III of the Constitution (Articles 12–35). They guarantee civil liberties to citizens and act as limitations on the arbitrary power of the State, ensuring justice, equality and liberty in a democratic framework.
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
🔷 Features of Fundamental Rights
Justiciable – Enforceable by courts (Art. 32, 226).
Not Absolute – Subject to reasonable restrictions.
Available Against State (Art. 12), though some apply against private individuals too.
Suspension – Can be suspended during Emergency (except Art. 20 & 21).
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
🔷 Categories of Fundamental Rights
Right to Equality (Art. 14–18): Equality before law, prohibition of discrimination, abolition of untouchability (State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, 1952).
Right to Freedom (Art. 19–22): Freedom of speech, movement, profession, etc. (Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978 expanded Art. 21).
Right against Exploitation (Art. 23–24): Prohibits human trafficking, forced labour and child labour.
Right to Freedom of Religion (Art. 25–28): Freedom of conscience, practice and propagation of religion (Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala, 1986).
Cultural & Educational Rights (Art. 29–30): Protects minorities’ rights to conserve culture and run institutions (T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, 2002).
Right to Constitutional Remedies (Art. 32): Allows citizens to move Supreme Court directly. Called the “heart and soul” of the Constitution by Dr. Ambedkar (Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, 1973 upheld this as part of Basic Structure).
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
🔷 Conclusion
Fundamental Rights are the cornerstone of Indian democracy. They safeguard individual dignity and freedom while balancing the needs of social order and national security.
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
🔷 Introduction
Fundamental Rights are enshrined in Part III of the Constitution (Articles 12–35). They guarantee civil liberties to citizens and act as limitations on the arbitrary power of the State, ensuring justice, equality and liberty in a democratic framework.
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
🔷 Features of Fundamental Rights
Justiciable – Enforceable by courts (Art. 32, 226).
Not Absolute – Subject to reasonable restrictions.
Available Against State (Art. 12), though some apply against private individuals too.
Suspension – Can be suspended during Emergency (except Art. 20 & 21).
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
🔷 Categories of Fundamental Rights
Right to Equality (Art. 14–18): Equality before law, prohibition of discrimination, abolition of untouchability (State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, 1952).
Right to Freedom (Art. 19–22): Freedom of speech, movement, profession, etc. (Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978 expanded Art. 21).
Right against Exploitation (Art. 23–24): Prohibits human trafficking, forced labour and child labour.
Right to Freedom of Religion (Art. 25–28): Freedom of conscience, practice and propagation of religion (Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala, 1986).
Cultural & Educational Rights (Art. 29–30): Protects minorities’ rights to conserve culture and run institutions (T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, 2002).
Right to Constitutional Remedies (Art. 32): Allows citizens to move Supreme Court directly. Called the “heart and soul” of the Constitution by Dr. Ambedkar (Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, 1973 upheld this as part of Basic Structure).
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
🔷 Conclusion
Fundamental Rights are the cornerstone of Indian democracy. They safeguard individual dignity and freedom while balancing the needs of social order and national security.
❤3👍2
The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 enacted on –
Anonymous Quiz
51%
a. 18th May, 1955
22%
b. 17th June, 1956
17%
c. 25th August, 1956
11%
d. 21st December, 1956
❤2👍2
🔰 Doctrine of Eclipse 🔰
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
🔶 Introduction
The Doctrine of Eclipse is a constitutional law principle in India which states that a pre-constitutional law inconsistent with the Fundamental Rights is not void ab initio, but only becomes inoperative (“eclipsed”) to the extent of inconsistency. Such a law remains dormant but is not dead and it can be revived if the inconsistency is removed (for example, by a constitutional amendment).
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
🔶 Basis
Derived from Article 13(1) of the Constitution, which declares that all pre-constitutional laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights shall be void “to the extent of such inconsistency.”
Applies only to pre-constitutional laws (laws made before 26th January 1950).
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
🔶 Key Case Laws
🔲 Bhikaji Narain Dhakras v. State of M.P. (1955):
The Supreme Court applied the doctrine, holding that pre-constitutional laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights are not null and void but merely remain in a dormant state until the inconsistency is removed.
🔲 Deep Chand v. State of U.P. (1959):
Clarified that post-constitutional laws violating Fundamental Rights are void ab initio, hence doctrine of eclipse does not apply to them.
🔲 State of Gujarat v. Ambica Mills (1974):
Held that the doctrine can apply even against non-citizens in some circumstances.
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
🔶 Features of the Doctrine
Applies to pre-constitutional laws only.
Such laws are not dead but dormant.
Revival possible if the inconsistency is removed.
Post-constitutional laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights are void from inception and cannot be revived.
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
🔶 Conclusion
The Doctrine of Eclipse balances legal continuity with constitutional supremacy. It prevents wholesale invalidation of pre-constitutional laws while ensuring that Fundamental Rights prevail.
📌 Exam tip: Always mention Bhikaji Narain case (1955) as the leading authority when writing on this doctrine.
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
🔶 Introduction
The Doctrine of Eclipse is a constitutional law principle in India which states that a pre-constitutional law inconsistent with the Fundamental Rights is not void ab initio, but only becomes inoperative (“eclipsed”) to the extent of inconsistency. Such a law remains dormant but is not dead and it can be revived if the inconsistency is removed (for example, by a constitutional amendment).
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
🔶 Basis
Derived from Article 13(1) of the Constitution, which declares that all pre-constitutional laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights shall be void “to the extent of such inconsistency.”
Applies only to pre-constitutional laws (laws made before 26th January 1950).
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
🔶 Key Case Laws
🔲 Bhikaji Narain Dhakras v. State of M.P. (1955):
The Supreme Court applied the doctrine, holding that pre-constitutional laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights are not null and void but merely remain in a dormant state until the inconsistency is removed.
🔲 Deep Chand v. State of U.P. (1959):
Clarified that post-constitutional laws violating Fundamental Rights are void ab initio, hence doctrine of eclipse does not apply to them.
🔲 State of Gujarat v. Ambica Mills (1974):
Held that the doctrine can apply even against non-citizens in some circumstances.
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
🔶 Features of the Doctrine
Applies to pre-constitutional laws only.
Such laws are not dead but dormant.
Revival possible if the inconsistency is removed.
Post-constitutional laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights are void from inception and cannot be revived.
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
🔶 Conclusion
The Doctrine of Eclipse balances legal continuity with constitutional supremacy. It prevents wholesale invalidation of pre-constitutional laws while ensuring that Fundamental Rights prevail.
📌 Exam tip: Always mention Bhikaji Narain case (1955) as the leading authority when writing on this doctrine.
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
❤7
The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 –
a. Extends to whole of India
b. Applies also to Hindu domiciled in the territories to which this Act extends, who are outside the said territories
c. Both (a) and (b)
d. Extends to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir
Answer by reaction
a 👍🏻
b ❤️
c 😁
d 👌🏻
a. Extends to whole of India
b. Applies also to Hindu domiciled in the territories to which this Act extends, who are outside the said territories
c. Both (a) and (b)
d. Extends to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir
Answer by reaction
a 👍🏻
b ❤️
c 😁
d 👌🏻
😁26👍4❤3👌1
🔰 Doctrine of Severability 🔰
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
👑 Introduction
The Doctrine of Severability means that if a part of a law is unconstitutional because it violates Fundamental Rights, only that offending portion is struck down, while the rest of the statute remains valid and enforceable.
This ensures that useful parts of legislation are preserved instead of declaring the entire law void.
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
👑 Constitutional Basis
Article 13(1) & (2), Constitution of India: Any law inconsistent with Fundamental Rights is void “to the extent of such inconsistency.”
The phrase forms the foundation of the doctrine.
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
👑 Key Case Laws
💍 R.M.D.C. v. Union of India (1957):
The Supreme Court applied severability and upheld the valid parts of the Prize Competitions Act while striking down the unconstitutional portions.
💍 A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950):
Reiterated that only the unconstitutional parts of a law should be struck down, not the entire statute.
💍 Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992):
Some parts of the Tenth Schedule (anti-defection law) were struck down, but the rest was upheld under the doctrine.
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
👑 Principles of Severability
If the valid and invalid parts are inseparable, the whole law is void.
If they are separable, only the invalid part is struck down.
The legislature’s intent is crucial in determining separability.
The court must see whether the law would still be workable without the unconstitutional part.
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
👑 Conclusion
The Doctrine of Severability protects the valid portion of laws from being unnecessarily invalidated, thus maintaining legislative intent while upholding Fundamental Rights.
📌 Exam tip: Always write Article 13 and cite R.M.D.C. v. Union of India (1957) when explaining this doctrine.
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
👑 Introduction
The Doctrine of Severability means that if a part of a law is unconstitutional because it violates Fundamental Rights, only that offending portion is struck down, while the rest of the statute remains valid and enforceable.
This ensures that useful parts of legislation are preserved instead of declaring the entire law void.
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
👑 Constitutional Basis
Article 13(1) & (2), Constitution of India: Any law inconsistent with Fundamental Rights is void “to the extent of such inconsistency.”
The phrase forms the foundation of the doctrine.
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
👑 Key Case Laws
💍 R.M.D.C. v. Union of India (1957):
The Supreme Court applied severability and upheld the valid parts of the Prize Competitions Act while striking down the unconstitutional portions.
💍 A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950):
Reiterated that only the unconstitutional parts of a law should be struck down, not the entire statute.
💍 Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992):
Some parts of the Tenth Schedule (anti-defection law) were struck down, but the rest was upheld under the doctrine.
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
👑 Principles of Severability
If the valid and invalid parts are inseparable, the whole law is void.
If they are separable, only the invalid part is struck down.
The legislature’s intent is crucial in determining separability.
The court must see whether the law would still be workable without the unconstitutional part.
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
👑 Conclusion
The Doctrine of Severability protects the valid portion of laws from being unnecessarily invalidated, thus maintaining legislative intent while upholding Fundamental Rights.
📌 Exam tip: Always write Article 13 and cite R.M.D.C. v. Union of India (1957) when explaining this doctrine.
❤5
The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 applies –
a. To any person who is a Hindu by religion in any of its forms or developments, including a Virashaiva, a Lingayat or a follower of the Brahmo, Prarthana or Arya Samaj
b. To any person who is a Buddhist, Jaina or Sikh by religion,
c. To any other person domiciled in the territories to which this Act extends who is not a Muslim, Christian, Parsi or Jew by religion, unless it is proved that any such person would not have been governed by the Hindu law or by any custom or usage as part of that law in respect of any of the matters dealt with herein if this Act had not been passed.
d. All of the above
Answer by reaction
a 👍🏻
b ❤️
c 😁
d 👌🏻
a. To any person who is a Hindu by religion in any of its forms or developments, including a Virashaiva, a Lingayat or a follower of the Brahmo, Prarthana or Arya Samaj
b. To any person who is a Buddhist, Jaina or Sikh by religion,
c. To any other person domiciled in the territories to which this Act extends who is not a Muslim, Christian, Parsi or Jew by religion, unless it is proved that any such person would not have been governed by the Hindu law or by any custom or usage as part of that law in respect of any of the matters dealt with herein if this Act had not been passed.
d. All of the above
Answer by reaction
a 👍🏻
b ❤️
c 😁
d 👌🏻
👌12
🔰 Doctrine of Waiver of Fundamental Rights 🔰
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
🎓 Introduction
The Doctrine of Waiver means voluntarily giving up a legal right. In Indian constitutional law, however, Fundamental Rights cannot be waived by an individual, because they are guaranteed not only for the benefit of the individual but also to uphold the public policy of protecting democracy and constitutional order.
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
🎓 Judicial Position in India
👒 Basheshar Nath v. CIT (1959):
Landmark case where the Supreme Court held that Fundamental Rights cannot be waived.
Even if a person voluntarily gives them up, the State cannot enforce a law violative of Fundamental Rights.
👒 Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985):
Known as the “Right to Livelihood” case. The Court reiterated that citizens cannot waive Fundamental Rights as they form the basic framework of the Constitution.
👒 Behram Khurshid Pesikaka v. State of Bombay (1955):
Held that Fundamental Rights are matters of constitutional policy, not individual privilege. Hence, no waiver is allowed.
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
🎓 Features
Fundamental Rights are inalienable and non-negotiable.
They are guaranteed by the Constitution for public interest, not merely for individual benefit.
Waiver would defeat the very purpose of Part III of the Constitution.
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
🎓 Contrast with U.S.A.
In the U.S., waiver of Fundamental Rights is permissible under certain conditions.
India follows a stricter approach: No waiver of Fundamental Rights is valid.
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
🎓 Conclusion
The Doctrine of Waiver of Fundamental Rights is not recognized in India. Fundamental Rights are compulsory guarantees, not privileges to be surrendered. The judiciary consistently holds that even voluntary waiver is void, ensuring the supremacy of the Constitution and protection of democratic values.
📌 Exam tip: Always cite Basheshar Nath v. CIT (1959) as the leading case.
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
🎓 Introduction
The Doctrine of Waiver means voluntarily giving up a legal right. In Indian constitutional law, however, Fundamental Rights cannot be waived by an individual, because they are guaranteed not only for the benefit of the individual but also to uphold the public policy of protecting democracy and constitutional order.
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
🎓 Judicial Position in India
👒 Basheshar Nath v. CIT (1959):
Landmark case where the Supreme Court held that Fundamental Rights cannot be waived.
Even if a person voluntarily gives them up, the State cannot enforce a law violative of Fundamental Rights.
👒 Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985):
Known as the “Right to Livelihood” case. The Court reiterated that citizens cannot waive Fundamental Rights as they form the basic framework of the Constitution.
👒 Behram Khurshid Pesikaka v. State of Bombay (1955):
Held that Fundamental Rights are matters of constitutional policy, not individual privilege. Hence, no waiver is allowed.
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
🎓 Features
Fundamental Rights are inalienable and non-negotiable.
They are guaranteed by the Constitution for public interest, not merely for individual benefit.
Waiver would defeat the very purpose of Part III of the Constitution.
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
🎓 Contrast with U.S.A.
In the U.S., waiver of Fundamental Rights is permissible under certain conditions.
India follows a stricter approach: No waiver of Fundamental Rights is valid.
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
🎓 Conclusion
The Doctrine of Waiver of Fundamental Rights is not recognized in India. Fundamental Rights are compulsory guarantees, not privileges to be surrendered. The judiciary consistently holds that even voluntary waiver is void, ensuring the supremacy of the Constitution and protection of democratic values.
📌 Exam tip: Always cite Basheshar Nath v. CIT (1959) as the leading case.
❤5
The following persons are Hindus, Buddhists, Jainas or Sikhs by religion, as the case may be:-
a. Any child, legitimate or illegitimate, both of whose parents are Hindus, Buddhists, Jainas or Sikhs by religion
b. Any child, legitimate or illegitimate, one of whose parents is a Hindu, Buddhist, Jaina or Sikh by religion and who is brought up as a member of the tribe, community, group or family to which such parent belongs or belonged
c. Any person who is a convert or re-convert to the Hindu, Buddhist, Jaina or Sikh religion
d. All of the above
Answer by reaction
a 👍🏻
b ❤️
c 😁
d 👌🏻
a. Any child, legitimate or illegitimate, both of whose parents are Hindus, Buddhists, Jainas or Sikhs by religion
b. Any child, legitimate or illegitimate, one of whose parents is a Hindu, Buddhist, Jaina or Sikh by religion and who is brought up as a member of the tribe, community, group or family to which such parent belongs or belonged
c. Any person who is a convert or re-convert to the Hindu, Buddhist, Jaina or Sikh religion
d. All of the above
Answer by reaction
a 👍🏻
b ❤️
c 😁
d 👌🏻
👌12❤1👍1
🔰 Right to Equality 🔰
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
🌴 Introduction
The Right to Equality is one of the six Fundamental Rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. It is enshrined in Articles 14 to 18 (Part III) and ensures that all persons are treated equally before law, without discrimination, thereby upholding the principle of Rule of Law.
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
🌴 Provisions
🪵 Article 14 – Equality before Law & Equal Protection of Laws
Guarantees equality before law (negative concept: no special privileges) and equal protection of laws (positive concept: equal treatment in similar circumstances).
🌱 Case: E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974) – Equality is antithetical to arbitrariness.
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
🪵 Article 15 – Prohibition of Discrimination
Prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth.
Allows special provisions for women, children, socially and educationally backward classes, SCs and STs.
🌱 Case: State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas (1976) – Equality includes protective discrimination.
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
🪵 Article 16 – Equality of Opportunity in Public Employment
Guarantees equal opportunity in matters of public employment.
Permits reservation for backward classes, SCs, STs and economically weaker sections (EWS).
🌱 Case: Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) – Upheld 27% OBC reservation and introduced 50% ceiling rule.
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
🪵 Article 17 – Abolition of Untouchability
Abolishes untouchability and forbids its practice in any form.
🌱 Case: People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India (1982) – Untouchability is abolished in all forms of discrimination.
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
🪵 Article 18 – Abolition of Titles
Prohibits State from conferring titles (except military and academic distinctions).
Forbids citizens from accepting titles from foreign States.
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
🌴 Conclusion
The Right to Equality is the foundation of Indian democracy, ensuring fairness, dignity and social justice. It is both a negative right (prohibiting discrimination) and a positive right (enabling affirmative action), aimed at creating a more inclusive and egalitarian society.
📌 Exam tip: Always write Articles 14–18 in sequence with at least two landmark cases (Royappa, Indra Sawhney).
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
🌴 Introduction
The Right to Equality is one of the six Fundamental Rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. It is enshrined in Articles 14 to 18 (Part III) and ensures that all persons are treated equally before law, without discrimination, thereby upholding the principle of Rule of Law.
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
🌴 Provisions
🪵 Article 14 – Equality before Law & Equal Protection of Laws
Guarantees equality before law (negative concept: no special privileges) and equal protection of laws (positive concept: equal treatment in similar circumstances).
🌱 Case: E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974) – Equality is antithetical to arbitrariness.
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
🪵 Article 15 – Prohibition of Discrimination
Prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth.
Allows special provisions for women, children, socially and educationally backward classes, SCs and STs.
🌱 Case: State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas (1976) – Equality includes protective discrimination.
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
🪵 Article 16 – Equality of Opportunity in Public Employment
Guarantees equal opportunity in matters of public employment.
Permits reservation for backward classes, SCs, STs and economically weaker sections (EWS).
🌱 Case: Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) – Upheld 27% OBC reservation and introduced 50% ceiling rule.
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
🪵 Article 17 – Abolition of Untouchability
Abolishes untouchability and forbids its practice in any form.
🌱 Case: People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India (1982) – Untouchability is abolished in all forms of discrimination.
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
🪵 Article 18 – Abolition of Titles
Prohibits State from conferring titles (except military and academic distinctions).
Forbids citizens from accepting titles from foreign States.
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
🌴 Conclusion
The Right to Equality is the foundation of Indian democracy, ensuring fairness, dignity and social justice. It is both a negative right (prohibiting discrimination) and a positive right (enabling affirmative action), aimed at creating a more inclusive and egalitarian society.
📌 Exam tip: Always write Articles 14–18 in sequence with at least two landmark cases (Royappa, Indra Sawhney).
❤5
Choose the correct option.
a. Everything contained in this Act shall apply to the members of any scheduled tribe within the meaning of clause (25) of Article 366 of the Constitution unless the Central Government, by notification in the official Gazette, otherwise directs
b. Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the members of any scheduled tribe within the meaning of clause (25) of Article 366 of the Constitution unless the Central Government, by notification in the official Gazette, otherwise directs
c. Both (a) and (b)
d. None of the above
Answer by reaction
a 👍🏻
b ❤️
c 😁
d 👌🏻
a. Everything contained in this Act shall apply to the members of any scheduled tribe within the meaning of clause (25) of Article 366 of the Constitution unless the Central Government, by notification in the official Gazette, otherwise directs
b. Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the members of any scheduled tribe within the meaning of clause (25) of Article 366 of the Constitution unless the Central Government, by notification in the official Gazette, otherwise directs
c. Both (a) and (b)
d. None of the above
Answer by reaction
a 👍🏻
b ❤️
c 😁
d 👌🏻
❤12