Results
#1. Consider the following statements:
1. The Constitutional Bench of the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) defined the Basic Structure as ‘provisions which cherishes Constitutional sovereignty and Individual liberty’.
2. Supreme Court in the Golaknath case (1967) held that an amendment under Article 368 can be defined as ‘law’ within the ambit of Article 13.
3. ‘Limited amending power of the Parliament’ is added to be a part of the Basic Structure in the Minerva Mills case (1980).
Which of the statements given above are correct?
Statement 1 is incorrect. The Kesavananda Bharati case in 1973 held that the “basic structure of the Constitution could not be abrogated even by a constitutional amendment”. It, however, did not specify what would constitute ‘basic structure’, leaving it open for courts to interpret on a case-by-case basis. Supreme Court listed some Basic Structures of the Constitution as:
• Supremacy of the Constitution
• Unity and sovereignty of India
• Democratic and republican form of government
• Federal character of the Constitution
• Secular character of the Constitution
• Separation of power
• Individual freedom
Article 13 (4) gave birth to the Basic Structure Doctrine which said that a basic structure of the constitution do exist which cannot be amended.
Statement 2 is correct. The Golak Nath ruling interpreted Articles 13 and 368 of the Constitution. While Article 13 prohibits Parliament from framing ‘laws’ that violate fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution, Article 368 empowers Parliament to amend the Constitution.
It was held in this case that an amendment under Article 368 can be defined as ‘law’ within the ambit of Article 13.
Statement 3 is correct. In Minerva Mills vs Union of India case, the Court held that the Limited amending power of the Parliament is a part of the basic structure doctrine.
#2. Match the certain parts of the basic structure of the constitution of India with the Supreme Court cases in which they have been declared as such for the first time.
Select the correct answer using the code given below:
Pair 1-B is correctly matched. The Supreme Court in the Minerva Mills case (1980) upheld that judicial review is one of the ‘basic features’ of the Constitution.
Pair 2-C is correctly matched. In Indira Sawhney vs. Union of India, 1992, ‘Rule of law’ was added to the basic features. The court said that the criteria for a group to qualify for reservation is “social and educational backwardness”.
Pair 3-D is correctly matched. In Kihoto hollohan vs. Zachillhu, 1992, ‘Free and fair elections’ was added to the basic features. The principal question before the Supreme Court in the case was whether the powerful role given to the Speaker under the Tenth Schedule violated the doctrine of Basic Structure. In this case the court upheld the sweeping discretion available to the Speaker in deciding cases of disqualifi cation of MLAs.
Pair 4-A is correctly matched. In S.R Bommai vs Union of India, 1994, federalism, unity and integrity of India, secularism, socialism, social justice and judicial review were reiterated as basic features of the Constitution.
#3. The Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution of India but without affecting the ‘basic structure’. Which of the following features form part of the ‘basic structure’ of the Constitution?
1. Welfare state.
2. Federalism.
3. Principle of Separation of powers.
4. Freedom and dignity of the individual.
Select the correct answer using the code given below:
The Parliament under Article 368 can amend any part of the Constitution but without affecting the ‘basic structure’ of the Constitution. From the various judgements of the Supreme Court, the following are considered as ‘basic features’ of the Constitution :
• Separation of powers between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary
• Federal character of the Constitution
• Welfare state (socio-economic justice)
• Freedom and dignity of the individual
#4. With reference to the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) judgement, which of the statements given below is incorrect?
The Supreme Court in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), held that the Preamble is a part of the Constitution. The Court stated that the opinion tendered by it in the Berubari Union, 1960, case (that the Preamble is not part of the Constitution) was wrong. It also held that the Preamble can be amended as any other part of the Constitution.
Option b is correct. In the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), the Supreme Court overruled its judgement in the Golak Nath case, 1967, (that the Parliament cannot abridge or take away any of the Fundamental rights). It upheld the validity of the 24th Amendment Act (1971) and stated that Parliament is empowered to abridge or take away any of the Fundamental Rights.
Option c is correct. The Supreme Court also laid down a new doctrine of the ‘basic structure’ (or ‘basic features’) of the Constitution. It ruled that the constituent power of Parliament under Article 368 does not enable it to alter the ‘basic structure’ of the Constitution.
Option d is incorrect. It was in the Waman Rao case (1981), that the Supreme Court clarified that the doctrine of Basic Structure would apply to constitutional amendments enacted after April 24, 1973 (i.e., the date of the judgement in the Kesavananda Bharati case).
#5. It is a landmark case which upheld authority of the judiciary to review laws against violation of basic structure of the constitution. It stated that inserting any law in the 9th Schedule of the Constitution would not guarantee protection from judicial scrutiny. It is also known as the 9th Schedule case. The case is
I R Coelho case, 2007 is a landmark case which upheld authority of the judiciary to review laws – including the ones under the 9th Schedule – against violation of basic structure of the constitution. i.e., no item in ninth schedule can abrogate fundamental rights as they form basic features of the constitution. It is also known as the 9th Schedule case. It stated that Judicial review is a basic feature of the Constitution. Inserting any law in the 9th Schedule of the Constitution would not protect it from judicial scrutiny
#6. Consider the following statements with reference to Constitutional Amendments:
1. The President cannot send back an amendment bill for reconsideration of Parliament.
2. Elected members of parliament alone have the power to amend the Constitution.
3. The Judiciary cannot initiate the process of constitutional amendment.
4. Parliament can amend any feature of the Constitution.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Article 368 in Part XX of the Constitution deals with the powers of Parliament to amend the Constitution and its procedure.
Option 1 is correct. President has no veto power in respect of a constitutional amendment bill nor the President can return the bill for reconsideration of the Parliament. The 24th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1971 made it obligatory for the President to give his assent to a constitutional amendment bill.
Option 2 is incorrect. Both elected and nominated members of parliament are empowered to consider and take final decisions on the question of amendments. The bill must be passed in each House by a special majority, that is, a majority of the total membership of the House and a majority of two-thirds of the members of the House present and voting.
Option 3 is correct. The Judiciary cannot initiate the process of constitutional amendment. The judiciary has the power to interpret the acts and rules. Article 13 declares that all laws that are inconsistent with or in derogation of any of the fundamental rights shall be void. In other words, it expressively provides for the doctrine of judicial review. This power has been conferred on the Supreme Court (Article 32) and the high courts (Article 226) that can declare a law unconstitutional and invalid on the ground of contravention of any of the Fundamental Rights. Thus, it can effectively change the Constitution by interpreting it differently.
Option 4 is incorrect. Article 368 in Part XX of the Constitution deals with the powers of Parliament to amend the Constitution and its procedure. It states that the Parliament may amend a provision of the Constitution in accordance with the procedure laid down for the purpose. However, the Parliament cannot amend those provisions which form the ‘basic structure’ of the Constitution. This was ruled by the Supreme Court in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973).
#7. Consider the following statements regarding the procedure of the amendment of Indian Constitution:
1. All the states must give their consent when an amendment modifies an article related to distribution of powers between the states and the central government.
2. To amend the provisions under Article 368, both the Houses must pass the amendment bill with simple majorities.
Which of the statement given above is/are incorrect?
Statement 1 is incorrect. When an amendment aims to modify an article related to distribution of powers between the States and the central government, it is necessary that at least half the States (and not all) give their consent. The Constitution has ensured this by providing that legislatures of half the States have to pass the amendment bill before the amendment comes into effect. Consent of only half the States is required and simple majority of the State legislature is sufficient.
Statement 2 is incorrect. Article 368 in Part XX of the Constitution deals with the powers of Parliament to amend the Constitution and its procedure. A number of provisions in the Constitution that can be amended by a simple majority of the two Houses of Parliament is outside the scope of Article 368. Amendment to the Constitution (under 368) requires two different kinds of special majorities:
• In the first place, those voting in favour of the amendment bill should constitute at least half of the total strength of that House.
• Secondly, the supporters of the amendment bill must also constitute two-thirds of those who actually take part in voting. Both Houses of the Parliament must pass the amendment bill separately in this same manner (there is no provision for a joint session).
• The amendment shall also require to be ratified by the Legislatures of not less than one-half of the States by resolutions to that effect passed by those Legislatures before the Bill making provision for such amendment is presented to the President for assent.
#8. Consider the following statements with reference to the differences between Constitutional amendment procedure in India and the United States of America (USA):
1. Unlike in USA, the power to initiate all the amendments to the Constitution in India lie with the Parliament only.
2. In USA, every constitutional amendment must be ratified by at least three-fourth of the state legislatures.
3. Unlike in USA, there is no provision for a special body like constitutional convention in India to amend the Constitution.
Which of the statements given above are correct?
Statement 1 is correct. In India, an amendment of the Constitution can be initiated only by the introduction of a bill for the purpose in either House of Parliament and not in the state legislatures. The state legislatures cannot initiate any bill or proposal for amending the Constitution except in one case, which is, passing a resolution requesting the Parliament for the creation or abolition of legislative councils in the states. Here also, the Parliament can either approve or disapprove such a resolution or may not take any action on it. In USA, an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress (USA’s Parliament) or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures.
Statement 2 is correct. In India, major part of the Constitution can be amended by the Parliament alone either by a special majority or by a simple majority. Only in few cases, the consent of the state legislatures is required and that too, only half of them. While in USA, every constitutional amendment must be ratified by at least three-fourth of the state legislatures.
Statement 3 is correct. There is no provision for a special body like Constitutional Convention as provided in U.S.A. for amending the Constitution in India. The constituent power is vested in the Parliament and only in few cases, in the state legislature.
