Question

Which of the following statements is untrue?

• A. Policy-making lays in the sole domain of the executive.
• B. The power of judicial review may be exercised on public health policies.
• C. Separation of powers restricts the power of judicial review on public health policies.
• D. Policy-making is a part of the judiciary.
• A. Necessary function of the court.
• B. Discretionary power of the court.
• C. Not within the ambit of judicial review.
• D. Unnecessary interference from the court.
• A. The judges are not public health experts, therefore in the absence of expert advice, it would be an undesirable intervention.
• B. The executive needs room for free play while dealing with pandemic.
• C. Constitutional rights are suspended during a pandemic.
• D. Both (A) and (B).
• A. Both (I) and (II) are true.
• B. Both (I) and (II) are untrue.
• C. (I) is true and (II) is untrue.
• D. (II) is true and (I) is untrue.
• A. Vaccination Distribution Policy.
• B. Liberalized Vaccination Policy.
• C. Central Vaccination Distribution Policy.
• D. None of the above.
• A. Entry 6 of List II (State List)
• B. Entry 36 of List II (State List)
• C. Entry 81 of List I (Union List)
• D. Entry 29 of List III (Concurrent List)

Answer 1

The Correct Option is D

Step 1: Understanding the passage context.
The Supreme Court in the Suo Motu Writ Petition regarding COVID-19 vaccine distribution emphasized that policy-making, especially in a public health emergency, is the domain of the executive branch. The judiciary generally does not interfere unless there is manifest arbitrariness or violation of constitutional rights.
Step 2: Identifying the untrue statement.
- (A) is correct because the text explicitly states that policy-making lies in the sole domain of the executive.
- (B) is correct because judicial review can still be exercised if policies violate constitutional rights.
- (C) is correct because separation of powers implies limited judicial interference in policy-making, especially in public health emergencies.
- (D) is untrue because policy-making is not a part of the judiciary; it belongs to the executive.
Step 3: Conclusion.
The statement in (D) is factually incorrect and contradicts the doctrine of separation of powers. \[ \boxed{\text{D}} \]

Answer 2

Step 1: Understanding the context.
The Supreme Court observed that policy-making, especially during a public health emergency like COVID-19, lies within the executive’s domain. Judicial interference should be minimal unless there is a constitutional violation or manifest arbitrariness.
Step 2: Reasoning through the options.
- (A) is incorrect — framing policy is not a necessary function of the court; it is an executive task.
- (B) is incorrect — discretionary judicial power applies to review policies, not to create them.
- (C) is incorrect — judicial review is possible, though limited, so it is within the ambit.
- (D) is correct — interference without a valid constitutional ground would be unnecessary. \[ \boxed{\text{D}} \]

Answer 3

Step 1: Analyzing the grounds mentioned in the case.
The Union of India contended that:
1. Judges lack technical public health expertise, so policy-making based on such matters should remain with the executive.
2. The executive needs flexibility and discretion (“free play in the joints”) to innovate and respond effectively during the pandemic.
Step 2: Elimination of incorrect options.
- (A) is true, as stated in the judgment.
- (B) is also true.
- (C) is false — constitutional rights are not suspended, even in a pandemic.
Thus, the combination in (D) is correct. \[ \boxed{\text{D}} \]

Answer 4

Step 1: Linking to separation of powers principle.
The principle of separation of powers restricts the judiciary from entering the executive’s domain except when constitutionally necessary — this supports statement (I) as true.
Step 2: Protection of fundamental rights.
Safeguarding fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21 is a legitimate reason for judicial intervention — supporting statement (II) as true.
Step 3: Conclusion.
Since both statements align with constitutional provisions and the Supreme Court’s observations in the case, both are true. \[ \boxed{\text{A}} \]

Answer 5

Step 1: Understanding the case reference.
The case In Re: Distribution of Essential Supplies and Services During Pandemic (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2021) dealt with judicial review of the Central Government’s vaccine procurement and distribution mechanism during COVID-19.
Step 2: Identifying the official name of the policy.
The Government had announced the “Liberalized Vaccination Policy” in 2021, under which vaccine procurement and distribution responsibilities were split between the Centre and States, and age-based categories were introduced.
Step 3: Eliminating incorrect options.
- (A) is too generic and not the official term.
- (C) is incorrect — there was no policy officially titled “Central Vaccination Distribution Policy.”
- (D) is incorrect as an official name exists. \[ \boxed{\text{B}} \]

Answer 6

Step 1: Revisiting the Seventh Schedule.
The Seventh Schedule of the Indian Constitution distributes subjects of legislation between Union and State legislatures through three lists: List I (Union), List II (State), and List III (Concurrent).
Step 2: Identifying where “public health” falls.
Entry 6 of List II (State List) specifically mentions “Public health and sanitation; hospitals and dispensaries” as matters exclusively under the State’s legislative competence.
Step 3: Eliminating incorrect options.
- (B) is unrelated — Entry 36 concerns other state matters, not public health.
- (C) is incorrect — public health is not in the Union List.
- (D) is incorrect — while some health-related subjects are in the Concurrent List (Entry 29), “public health” as a general matter is under Entry 6 of List II. \[ \boxed{\text{A}} \]