SSC CPO GK Questions 2026

The correct answer is the Customs Act, 1962. The release names this statute twice in the same episode near the Indo-Bangladesh border, saying that because the person could not produce documents for lawful possession the gold was seized under the Customs Act, and that he was arrested under the relevant provisions of the same Act. The statute appears again in the case from Chandauli in Uttar Pradesh, where the occupants of a car could not show lawful possession of 22 recovered bars. The other three options name genuine laws that candidates often associate with economic offences, and that is exactly why they have been placed here, but none of them is mentioned in this release. Smuggling of goods across the customs frontier is dealt with under customs law, which is why the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, functioning under the Ministry of Finance, proceeds under this Act.

The correct answer is Article 20-21. During a National Emergency, Article 359 lets the President suspend the right to move the courts for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights. After the experience of the 1975–77 Emergency, when detentions could not be challenged in court (the Supreme Court had upheld this in the ADM Jabalpur case of 1976), the 44th Amendment Act, 1978 laid down that the enforcement of Articles 20 and 21 can never be suspended. Article 20 protects an accused person against ex post facto criminal laws, double jeopardy and self-incrimination; Article 21 protects life and personal liberty.

Article 19 is the opposite case. Under Article 358, its six freedoms are suspended automatically when a National Emergency is declared on the ground of war or external aggression, though not on the ground of armed rebellion. That is why the option containing Article 19 is the least likely answer of all. The other options pair Articles from the Right to Equality, whose enforcement the President can suspend by an order under Article 359. Remember it as a pair: 20 and 21 always survive, 19 goes first.

The correct answer is Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978). Article 21 says that no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to "procedure established by law". In A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) the Supreme Court read this narrowly: any procedure laid down by a validly made law was enough, however unfair. In Maneka Gandhi, a case about the impounding of a passport, the Court rejected that approach and held that the procedure must be fair, just and reasonable, not arbitrary or oppressive. In effect this brought Article 21 close to the American idea of due process.

This decision opened the way for courts to read many rights into Article 21, such as the rights to live with dignity, to a speedy trial and, later, to privacy. The other options are real cases on different questions: Gopalan is the narrow view that Maneka Gandhi overturned, Golaknath (1967) held that Parliament could not abridge Fundamental Rights, and Minerva Mills (1980) held that the balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles is part of the basic structure.

The correct answer is the six freedoms of Article 19. Article 19 opens with the words "All citizens shall have the right", so its freedoms of speech and expression, assembly, association, movement, residence and profession belong only to citizens of India. The other rights available only to citizens are Article 15 (no discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth), Article 16 (equality of opportunity in public employment), Article 29 (protection of language, script and culture) and Article 30 (minority educational institutions).

The other three options are available to every person, including foreigners, except enemy aliens. Article 14 speaks of equality before law for "any person", Article 21 protects the life and personal liberty of "any person", and Article 25 gives freedom of religion to "all persons". A quick check in the exam is to look at the wording: Articles that say "citizen" are for citizens only, while those that say "person" cover foreigners too. The full list of citizens-only rights is 15, 16, 19, 29 and 30.

The correct answer is to inquire into the legality of a person's claim to a public office. Quo Warranto means "by what authority or warrant". Through it, a court asks a person holding a public office to show by what right they hold it, and if the claim is not valid, the court can remove them. It prevents the illegal usurpation of public offices.

Two features make it different from the other writs. First, it can be sought by any interested person, not necessarily the person aggrieved. Second, it applies only to a substantive public office created by a statute or by the Constitution; it cannot be issued for a ministerial office or a private office. The other options describe the other writs: releasing an unlawfully detained person is Habeas Corpus, commanding an official to perform a duty is Mandamus, and quashing an order already passed by a lower court is Certiorari. The five writs appear in Article 32 for the Supreme Court and in Article 226 for the High Courts.

The correct answer is Habeas Corpus, a Latin phrase meaning "to have the body of". Through this writ a court orders whoever is holding a person to produce that person before it and show the legal grounds for the detention. If the detention is found unlawful, the person is set free at once. It can be issued against public authorities and private individuals alike, and a petition can be filed by the detained person or by someone on their behalf. It is not issued where the detention is lawful, where it is for contempt of a legislature or a court, or where a competent court has ordered it.

The other three writs do different jobs. Certiorari transfers a case from a lower court or tribunal, or quashes an order it has already passed. Prohibition stops a lower court or tribunal from exceeding its jurisdiction while a case is pending. Mandamus, meaning "we command", orders a public official to perform a duty. Habeas Corpus is often called the strongest safeguard of personal liberty, because it puts the protections of Articles 21 and 22 into immediate effect.

The correct answer is Article 32. Speaking in the Constituent Assembly, Dr B.R. Ambedkar said that if he were asked to name the most important Article, one without which the Constitution would be a nullity, he could not refer to any other; it was "the very soul of the Constitution and the very heart of it". His reasoning was simple: a right without a remedy is only words on paper. Article 32 gives every person the right to go directly to the Supreme Court to enforce a Fundamental Right, and this right to a remedy is itself a Fundamental Right. The Supreme Court has held Article 32 to be part of the basic structure, so it cannot be taken away even by an amendment.

The wrong options are Article 4, which says that laws forming or changing States under Articles 2 and 3 are not amendments of the Constitution; Article 28, which bars religious instruction in fully State-funded institutions; and Article 30, on minority educational institutions. Keep this description apart from others: the Preamble is the "identity card" of the Constitution, according to N.A. Palkhivala.

The correct answer is Article 30. Article 30(1) gives all minorities, whether based on religion or on language, the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. Article 30(2) adds that the State, when giving aid to educational institutions, shall not discriminate against an institution because it is managed by a minority. Together with Article 29, it makes up the Cultural and Educational Rights.

Article 26 is the most tempting wrong answer, because it too speaks of establishing institutions. But Article 26 gives religious denominations the right to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes and to manage their own religious affairs; it is about religion, not education. Article 30 is specifically about educational institutions and specifically for minorities. Article 29, by contrast, protects any section of citizens with a distinct language, script or culture, majority or minority. Of the other options, Article 24 bans child labour in hazardous work and Article 32 is the right to constitutional remedies.

The correct answer is Article 25 to Article 28. The Right to Freedom of Religion has four Articles: Article 25 gives freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practise and propagate religion; Article 26 lets every religious denomination manage its own religious affairs; Article 27 says no one can be compelled to pay taxes for the promotion of a particular religion; and Article 28 bars religious instruction in educational institutions wholly maintained out of State funds.

Each wrong option is another group of Fundamental Rights: Articles 14 to 18 are the Right to Equality, Articles 19 to 22 the Right to Freedom, and Articles 29 and 30 the Cultural and Educational Rights. So this question really tests whether you know where each group begins and ends. If you remember the six starting points, 14, 19, 23, 25, 29 and 32, you can answer every question of this kind. Note too that these Articles were in the Constitution from 1950, long before the word "secular" was added to the Preamble in 1976.

The correct answer is 14. Article 24 says that no child below the age of fourteen years shall be employed to work in any factory or mine or engaged in any other hazardous employment. Together with Article 23, which bans human trafficking and forced labour, it forms the Right against Exploitation.

The number 14 links several parts of the Constitution, so it is worth tying them together. Article 21A guarantees free and compulsory education from six to fourteen, Article 45 now covers early childhood care below six, and Article 51A(k) makes it a duty of parents to educate children between six and fourteen. Parliament has gone further than Article 24 through the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986: after its 2016 amendment it bars children below 14 from almost all work, with narrow exceptions such as helping a family business after school hours, and bars adolescents aged 14 to 18 from hazardous work. Of the wrong options, 18 tempts the most because it is the age of majority and, since the 61st Amendment of 1988, the voting age.

The correct answer is 86th. The 86th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2002 made education a Fundamental Right by inserting Article 21A, under which the State shall provide free and compulsory education to all children aged six to fourteen years, in the manner it determines by law. That law is the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, which came into force on 1 April 2010.

The same amendment made two more changes, and both are asked in exams. It rewrote Article 45, a Directive Principle, so that it now asks the State to provide early childhood care and education for children below six. And it added a Fundamental Duty, Article 51A(k), requiring parents or guardians to provide opportunities for education to their child between six and fourteen. So one amendment touched three Parts of the Constitution: Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties. The 85th, 87th and 88th are neighbouring numbers placed as distractors; the 85th Amendment, for example, dealt with consequential seniority in promotions for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

The correct answer is 6. Article 19(1) gives every citizen six freedoms: speech and expression; to assemble peaceably and without arms; to form associations, unions or co-operative societies; to move freely throughout India; to reside and settle in any part of India; and to practise any profession or carry on any occupation, trade or business. There were seven when the Constitution began. The seventh, clause (f), the freedom to acquire, hold and dispose of property, was deleted by the 44th Amendment Act, 1978.

The 97th Amendment Act, 2011 added the words "co-operative societies" to clause (c), but that widened an existing freedom rather than creating a new one, so the count is still six. These freedoms belong only to citizens, and none of them is absolute: clauses (2) to (6) of Article 19 let the State impose reasonable restrictions. The wrong options are borrowed from nearby numbers in this topic, Article 13, Article 30 and the 44th Amendment, which is exactly why they look familiar and tempt you.

The correct answer is Article 17. Article 17 abolishes untouchability, forbids its practice in any form, and makes the enforcement of any disability arising out of untouchability an offence punishable in accordance with law. To give it effect Parliament passed the Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955, renamed the Protection of Civil Rights Act in 1976, and later the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Neither the Constitution nor these Acts define the word "untouchability"; courts have read it in its historical sense. The right carries no exceptions and applies against private individuals as well as the State.

The other options are its neighbours in the Right to Equality group, which is why they appear together. Article 14 guarantees equality before law and equal protection of the laws. Article 15 forbids discrimination on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth. Article 16 guarantees equality of opportunity in public employment. Remember the group in order: 14 equality, 15 no discrimination, 16 public jobs, 17 untouchability, 18 titles.

The correct answer is Article 12. Most Fundamental Rights are claims against the State, so whoever counts as the "State" is bound by them. Article 12 defines the State for Part III to include the Government and Parliament of India, the government and legislature of each State, and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India. Local authorities include bodies such as municipalities and panchayats.

The question's point about judicial decisions refers to the words "other authorities". Courts have read them widely, holding that statutory and government-controlled bodies, such as the Life Insurance Corporation and the Oil and Natural Gas Commission, are also the State for this purpose. Article 13 is the tempting wrong answer because it sits right next door: it makes laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights void and is the base of judicial review. Article 14 guarantees equality before law and Article 15 forbids discrimination. A simple way to separate them: Article 12 answers "against whom are the rights enforced?" and Article 13 answers "what happens to a law that violates them?"

The correct answer is Right to property. When the Constitution came into force, property was protected as a Fundamental Right in two places: Article 19(1)(f), the freedom to acquire, hold and dispose of property, and Article 31, protection against being deprived of property. The 44th Amendment Act, 1978 deleted both and inserted Article 300A in Part XII, which says that no person shall be deprived of property save by authority of law. Property is therefore still protected, but only as a constitutional or legal right, not as a Fundamental Right.

The practical difference is that a person whose property is taken can no longer go straight to the Supreme Court under Article 32, which is only for Fundamental Rights; they can still approach a High Court under Article 226 or an ordinary court. The other three options, the Right to Equality (Articles 14 to 18), the Right against Exploitation (Articles 23 and 24) and the Right to Freedom of Religion (Articles 25 to 28), all remain Fundamental Rights. The same 44th Amendment also made Articles 20 and 21 impossible to suspend during an emergency.

The correct answer is the USA. The Bill of Rights is the name given to the first ten amendments to the Constitution of the United States, adopted in 1791, which protect freedoms such as speech and religion against the government. India's framers took from it the idea of a written list of rights that the State cannot violate and that the courts will enforce. Part III of our Constitution, Articles 12 to 35, is the result, and it is often called the Magna Carta of India.

The other countries gave India different features. From Australia came the Concurrent List, freedom of trade and commerce, and the joint sitting of the two Houses of Parliament. From Japan came the phrase "procedure established by law" used in Article 21. From the former USSR came the Fundamental Duties and the ideal of social, economic and political justice in the Preamble. So even inside Part III there are two sources to remember: the chapter as a whole from the USA, and the wording of Article 21 from Japan.

The correct answer is once. The Preamble has been amended only one time, by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976. That amendment added three words: "Socialist" and "Secular" to the description of India, and "Integrity" to the phrase "unity and integrity of the Nation".

"Never" is wrong because the 1976 change is on record; it is also why the Preamble as quoted today differs from the text adopted on 26 November 1949, which described India only as a "sovereign democratic republic". "Twice" and "three times" confuse the number of amendments with the number of words added, which is three. Keep the two numbers apart: one amendment, three words. The fact that the Preamble can be amended at all was settled by the Supreme Court in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), which held that it is a part of the Constitution and can be amended so long as its basic features are not destroyed.

The correct answer is N.A. Palkhivala. Nani Ardeshir Palkhivala, one of India's most eminent jurists and constitutional lawyers, called the Preamble the "identity card of the Constitution", because it tells us in one sentence what the Constitution is, where its authority comes from and what it sets out to achieve.

The other names are linked to different descriptions, and examiners use them precisely because they sound right. K.M. Munshi, a member of the Drafting Committee, called the Preamble the "political horoscope" of the sovereign democratic republic. Sir Ernest Barker, the British political scientist, described it as the "key-note" of the Constitution. Dr B.R. Ambedkar chaired the Drafting Committee, and his best-known description is of Article 32, which he called the heart and soul of the Constitution. Learn these as pairs, because questions often give the phrase and ask for the person, or the other way round.

The correct answer is A guiding principle for interpretation. The Preamble is not enforceable in a court of law: it is neither a source of power for the legislature nor a limit on its powers. Its main legal use is as an aid to interpretation. When the meaning of a provision of the Constitution is unclear, courts look to the Preamble to understand the objectives the framers had in mind.

The other options describe things the Preamble is not. It is not a schedule: the Constitution's schedules are separate lists placed at the end of the text, such as the list of languages. It is not a financial guideline. And it is not an enforceable part of law, which is the most tempting wrong answer: even after the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) held that the Preamble is a part of the Constitution, it remained non-justiciable. Being part of the Constitution and being enforceable in court are two different things, and this question tests exactly that difference.

The correct answer is the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973). In the Berubari Union case of 1960 the Supreme Court had said that the Preamble is not a part of the Constitution, though it is a key to the minds of its makers. In Kesavananda Bharati the Court rejected that view and held that the Preamble is a part of the Constitution and can be amended, provided its basic features are not changed.

The Berubari Union case is the earlier decision that was reversed, so it cannot be the answer. The LIC of India case of 1995 came later and only reaffirmed that the Preamble is an integral part of the Constitution; it did not reverse anything. The Golaknath case of 1967 concerned Parliament's power to amend Fundamental Rights, not the status of the Preamble. The word "reverse" in the question is the clue: it points to the case that overturned Berubari, which is Kesavananda Bharati.