NCERT Class 11 Political Science — Chapter 7: Judiciary

mcqmedium

In which cases did the Judiciary direct the CBI to investigate corruption charges against politicians?

Official previous-year question

Verified 1 Aug 2026.

Options

AThe Shah Bano case.
BThe Mandal Commission case.
CThe Ayodhya dispute case.
DThe Hawala case and Narasimha Rao case.

Did you get this right?

Solution

Explanation

The correct option is The Hawala case and Narasimha Rao case..

The Supreme Court of India, under its Writ Jurisdiction (Article 32) and the power to do complete justice (Article 142), has the authority to direct independent agencies like the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to investigate criminal charges. This power is frequently exercised in cases involving high public functionaries to ensure impartiality and insulate the investigative process from political interference, often utilizing the doctrine of "continuing mandamus."

Option Analysis:

The Hawala case and Narasimha Rao case.: Correct.
- The Hawala Case (Vineet Narain v. Union of India, 1997): This case involved allegations of payments to politicians and bureaucrats through illegal channels (Hawala). The Supreme Court directed the CBI to investigate the corruption charges and monitored the probe. This judgment also led to significant structural changes to ensure the autonomy of the CBI and the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC).
- The Narasimha Rao Case (JMM Bribery Case): This case involved allegations that Members of Parliament belonging to the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) were bribed to vote against a no-confidence motion in 1993. The Judiciary directed the CBI to investigate the corruption charges against former Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao and others.
The Shah Bano case.: Incorrect. The Shah Bano case (1985) pertained to the right of a divorced Muslim woman to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). It was a landmark case regarding personal laws and gender justice, unrelated to CBI investigations into political corruption.
The Mandal Commission case.: Incorrect. The Mandal Commission case (Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992) dealt with the constitutional validity of the 27% reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in public employment. It focused on the interpretation of Article 16 and the extent of affirmative action.
The Ayodhya dispute case.: Incorrect. The Ayodhya dispute case was primarily a civil title suit concerning the ownership of the land at the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site. While criminal proceedings existed regarding the demolition, the primary Supreme Court adjudication referred to here concerned property rights and historical title.

Key Takeaway:

The Judiciary intervened to direct and monitor CBI investigations into political corruption in the Hawala Case (Vineet Narain case) and the Narasimha Rao Case (JMM Bribery case) to uphold the rule of law and ensure accountability in high offices.

Your note

More from Chapter 7: Judiciary

The Supreme Court can declare a law unconstitutional if it violates: 1. Fundamental Rights. 2. The federal distribution of powers. 3. The political manifesto of the ruling party. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

medium

Which country's constitution explicitly incorporates Public Interest Litigation in its Bill of Rights?

easy

The Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) is historically significant for establishing:

medium

In the Kesavananda Bharati judgment, what was the Supreme Court's stance on the Right to Property?

medium

Consider the following statements about the removal of judges: 1. No judge of the Supreme Court has ever been removed from office so far. 2. The motion to remove Justice V. Ramaswami was passed by the Parliament but vetoed by the President. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

medium

Keep practising Chapter 7: Judiciary

Work through every question from this NCERT chapter.

Browse all NCERT Class 11 Political Science chapters

Solution

Explanation

The correct option is The Hawala case and Narasimha Rao case..

Option Analysis:

The Hawala case and Narasimha Rao case.: Correct.
- The Hawala Case (Vineet Narain v. Union of India, 1997): This case involved allegations of payments to politicians and bureaucrats through illegal channels (Hawala). The Supreme Court directed the CBI to investigate the corruption charges and monitored the probe. This judgment also led to significant structural changes to ensure the autonomy of the CBI and the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC).
- The Narasimha Rao Case (JMM Bribery Case): This case involved allegations that Members of Parliament belonging to the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) were bribed to vote against a no-confidence motion in 1993. The Judiciary directed the CBI to investigate the corruption charges against former Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao and others.
The Shah Bano case.: Incorrect. The Shah Bano case (1985) pertained to the right of a divorced Muslim woman to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). It was a landmark case regarding personal laws and gender justice, unrelated to CBI investigations into political corruption.
The Mandal Commission case.: Incorrect. The Mandal Commission case (Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992) dealt with the constitutional validity of the 27% reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in public employment. It focused on the interpretation of Article 16 and the extent of affirmative action.
The Ayodhya dispute case.: Incorrect. The Ayodhya dispute case was primarily a civil title suit concerning the ownership of the land at the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site. While criminal proceedings existed regarding the demolition, the primary Supreme Court adjudication referred to here concerned property rights and historical title.

Key Takeaway: