Constitution As A Living DocumentClass 11 India Constitution At Work NCERT Solutions
10 Solutions
Generated by KedovoAI
Solution 1 of 10
Q1Exercises
Choose the correct statement from the following. A constitution needs to be amended from time to time because, √ Circumstances change and require suitable changes in the constitution. √ A document written at one point of time becomes outdated after some time. √ Every generation should have a constitution of its own liking. √ It must reflect the philosophy of the existing government.
Solution
The correct statement is:
Circumstances change and require suitable changes in the constitution.
Explanation:
A constitution is considered a 'living document' precisely because it can adapt to the evolving needs and aspirations of society. The source text explains that a constitution must be able to respond to challenges that may arise in the future. It states, "our Constitution accepts the necessity of modifications according to changing needs of the society." While a document can become outdated, the core reason for amendment is the changing circumstances. The idea that every generation should have its own constitution or that it should reflect the philosophy of the current government would make the constitution unstable and rob it of its long-term vision and authority.
Q2Exercises
Write True / False against the following statements. a. The President cannot send back an amendment bill for reconsideration of Parliament. b. Elected representatives alone have the power to amend the Constitution. c. The Judiciary cannot initiate the process of constitutional amendment but can effectively change the Constitution by interpreting it differently. d. Parliament can amend any section of the Constitution.
Solution
a. True. The chapter states that when an amendment bill goes to the President for assent, "the President has no powers to send it back for reconsideration."
b. True. The chapter clarifies that "only elected representatives of the people are empowered to consider and take final decisions on the question of amendments," highlighting the principle of parliamentary sovereignty in the amendment procedure.
c. True. The chapter explains that the theory of the 'basic structure' emerged from judicial interpretation, not a formal amendment process. It notes, "the Judiciary and its interpretation have practically amended the Constitution without a formal amendment."
d. False. The Supreme Court's ruling in the Kesavananda Bharati case established the 'basic structure' doctrine. According to this, Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution, but it cannot violate its basic structure. The chapter states this ruling "has set specific limits to Parliament's power to amend the Constitution."
Q3Exercises
Which of the following are involved in the amendment of the Indian Constitution? In what way are they involved? a. Voters b. President of India c. State Legislatures d. Parliament e. Governors f. Judiciary
Solution
The following are involved in the amendment of the Indian Constitution:
-
b. President of India: The President's role is to give assent to the amendment bill after it has been passed by the Parliament (and, where required, ratified by State Legislatures). Unlike ordinary bills, the President cannot send an amendment bill back for reconsideration.
-
c. State Legislatures: State Legislatures are involved in the amendment of specific articles, particularly those related to the federal structure, such as the distribution of powers between the Union and the States. For such amendments, the bill must be ratified by the legislatures of at least half of the states after it is passed by the Parliament.
-
d. Parliament: The Parliament plays the primary role in the amendment process. All amendment bills can only be initiated in either House of Parliament. The bill must be passed by a special majority in both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha.
-
f. Judiciary: The Judiciary does not participate in the process of passing an amendment. However, it plays a crucial role in determining the constitutional validity of an amendment. The Supreme Court has the power to review any amendment and strike it down if it is found to violate the 'basic structure' of the Constitution.
Voters and Governors are not directly involved in the constitutional amendment process in India.
Q4Exercises
You have read in this chapter that the 42nd amendment was one of the most controversial amendments so far. Which of the following were the reasons for this controversy? a. It was made during national emergency, and the declaration of that emergency was itself controversial. b. It was made without the support of special majority. c. It was made without ratification by State legislatures. d. It contained provisions, which were controversial.
Solution
The reasons for the controversy surrounding the 42nd Amendment were:
-
a. It was made during national emergency, and the declaration of that emergency was itself controversial. The chapter mentions that the 38th, 39th, and 42nd amendments were made "in the background of internal emergency declared in the country from June 1975." During this time, many opposition Members of Parliament were in jail, which raised questions about the legitimacy of the proceedings.
-
d. It contained provisions, which were controversial. The 42nd Amendment was extremely wide-ranging and was seen as an attempt to alter the basic framework of the Constitution. The chapter notes that it was an attempt to override the Supreme Court's ruling in the Kesavananda case, extended the duration of the Lok Sabha from five to six years, added Fundamental Duties, and placed restrictions on the review powers of the Judiciary. It was so extensive that it was described as "practically a rewriting of many parts of the original Constitution."
Q5Exercises
Which of the following is not a reasonable explanation of the conflict between the legislature and the judiciary over different amendments? a. Different interpretations of the Constitution are possible. b. In a democracy, debates and differences are natural. c. Constitution has given higher importance to certain rules and principles and also allowed for amendment by special majority. d. Legislature cannot be entrusted to protect the rights of the citizens. e. Judiciary can only decide the constitutionality of a particular law; cannot resolve political debates about its need.
Solution
The statement that is not a reasonable explanation of the conflict is:
- d. Legislature cannot be entrusted to protect the rights of the citizens.
Explanation:
This statement is an extreme and biased judgment rather than an explanation for the conflict. The conflict between the legislature and the judiciary arises from differing interpretations of their respective roles and constitutional provisions, not from a fundamental assumption that the legislature is incapable of protecting rights. The Parliament has often argued that it was amending the Constitution to further the interests of the people and implement directive principles. The judiciary's role is to ensure that in doing so, the legislature does not bypass legal procedures or violate the fundamental framework of the Constitution. The conflict is about the limits of power and interpretation, not about a complete lack of trust in the legislative body.
Q6Exercises
Identify the correct statements about the theory of basic structure. Correct the incorrect statements. a. Constitution specifies the basic tenets. b. Legislature can amend all parts of the Constitution except the basic structure. c. Judiciary has defined which aspects of the Constitution can be termed as the basic structure and which cannot. d. This theory found its first expression in the Kesavananda Bharati case and has been discussed in subsequent judgments. e. This theory has increased the powers of the judiciary and has come to be accepted by different political parties and the government.
Solution
-
a. Constitution specifies the basic tenets.
- Incorrect. The chapter clearly states, "There is no mention of this theory in the Constitution." The theory of basic structure is an invention of the judiciary through interpretation.
-
b. Legislature can amend all parts of the Constitution except the basic structure.
- Correct. The ruling in the Kesavananda Bharati case set this specific limit on Parliament's amending power.
-
c. Judiciary has defined which aspects of the Constitution can be termed as the basic structure and which cannot.
- Incorrect. The judiciary has not provided a complete and final list of what constitutes the basic structure. Instead, the chapter mentions that "the Court has, in many cases, elaborated upon this theory of basic structure and given instances of what constitutes the basic structure." It is an evolving concept.
-
d. This theory found its first expression in the Kesavananda Bharati case and has been discussed in subsequent judgments.
- Correct. The chapter explicitly states that the judiciary advanced this theory in the "famous case of Kesavananda Bharati" in 1973 and it has governed constitutional interpretations since.
-
e. This theory has increased the powers of the judiciary and has come to be accepted by different political parties and the government.
- Correct. By placing itself as the final authority on what constitutes the basic structure, the judiciary's power of review has been enhanced. The chapter also notes that "all institutions in the country have accepted the theory of basic structure."
Q7Exercises
From the information that many amendments were made during 2000-2003, which of the following conclusions would you draw? a. Judiciary did not interfere in the amendments made during this period. b. One political party had a strong majority during this period. c. There was strong pressure from the pubic in favour of certain amendments. d. There were no real differences among the parties during this time. e. The amendments were of a non-controversial nature and parties had an agreement on the subject of amendments.
Solution
The correct conclusion is:
- e. The amendments were of a non-controversial nature and parties had an agreement on the subject of amendments.
Explanation:
The chapter highlights that the period between 2001 and 2003 was marked by coalition politics and bitter rivalry between parties. Despite this, ten amendments were passed. The text explains this apparent contradiction by stating, "The reason is because many of these amendments were based on an evolving consensus on certain issues." It cites examples like the anti-defection amendments, lowering the voting age, and amendments related to reservations, which were passed without much difficulty because an overall consensus had emerged in the country on these matters.
Q8Exercises
Explain the reason for requiring special majority for amending the Constitution.
Solution
The requirement of a special majority for amending the Constitution is designed to strike a balance between flexibility and rigidity. The makers of the Constitution wanted to ensure that the document was adaptable to changing times but also protected from frequent and unnecessary changes driven by partisan politics.
The primary reasons for requiring a special majority are:
-
To Ensure Broad Consensus: A special majority, which requires the support of at least two-thirds of the members present and voting, as well as a majority of the total strength of the House, ensures that any amendment has wide-ranging support among different political parties and parliamentarians. It prevents a ruling party with a slim majority from making fundamental changes to the Constitution on its own.
-
To Uphold the Sanctity of the Constitution: By making the amendment process more difficult than passing an ordinary law, the Constitution is placed above ordinary legislation. This reinforces its status as the supreme law of the land.
-
To Reflect Public Opinion: As Dr. B. R. Ambedkar is quoted in the chapter, if those who want an amendment cannot secure a two-thirds majority, it implies their view is not widely shared by the general public. The special majority requirement ensures that constitutional changes reflect a significant degree of public will, as represented by their elected officials.
Q9Exercises
Many amendments to the Constitution of India have been made due to different interpretations upheld by the Judiciary and Parliament. Explain with examples.
Solution
A significant number of amendments to the Indian Constitution have been a direct result of the conflicting interpretations between the Parliament and the Judiciary regarding their respective powers and the scope of various constitutional provisions. This conflict often arose when Parliament sought to enact laws for socio-economic reform, which the Judiciary sometimes found to be in violation of Fundamental Rights.
As the chapter explains, this dynamic was particularly intense between 1970 and 1975. Key areas of disagreement included:
-
Relationship between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles: Parliament often passed laws to implement Directive Principles (like land reforms), which sometimes curtailed Fundamental Rights (like the Right to Property). When the judiciary struck down these laws, Parliament responded by amending the Constitution to assert the primacy of Directive Principles.
-
Scope of Right to Private Property: This was a major point of contention. The judiciary's interpretation of the right to property often hindered land reform legislation. Parliament enacted several amendments to limit this right to facilitate its social and economic agenda.
-
Parliament's Power to Amend the Constitution: The most fundamental conflict was over the extent of Parliament's power to amend the Constitution. After the Supreme Court's ruling in the Golaknath case (1967) that Parliament could not abridge Fundamental Rights, Parliament passed the 24th Amendment to restore this power. This conflict culminated in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), where the judiciary introduced the 'basic structure' doctrine. In response, the 42nd Amendment during the Emergency sought to establish parliamentary supremacy, but this was later curtailed by the 44th Amendment and the Minerva Mills case (1980), which re-established the balance. These instances show how differing interpretations led to a series of constitutional amendments, shaping the evolution of the Constitution.
Q10Exercises
If amending power is with the elected representatives, judiciary should NOT have the power to decide the validity of amendments. Do you agree? Give your reasons in 100 words.
Solution
I do not agree with this statement.
While it is true that the power to amend the Constitution lies with the elected representatives in Parliament, this power cannot be absolute in a democracy governed by the rule of law. The judiciary's power to review the validity of amendments is a crucial check and balance.
As explained in the chapter, democracy is not just about the will of the majority; it is also about protecting the core principles and framework of the Constitution. The judiciary, through the 'basic structure' doctrine, acts as a guardian of this framework. It ensures that no amendment, even one passed by a special majority, subverts the fundamental tenets of the Constitution like democracy, secularism, and individual freedoms. This power prevents the arbitrary use of legislative power and upholds the spirit of the Constitution over its mere text, thereby ensuring its long-term stability and integrity.