Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.The Constitution is intended to be permanent and, therefore, it cannot be amended in a way that would injure, maim or destroy its indestructible character. The word "amendment" implies such an addition or change within the lines of the original instrument as will affect an improvement or better carry out the purpose for which it was framed and it cannot be so construed as to enable the Parliament to destroy the permanent character of the Constitution. The fundamental rights are a part of the basic structure of the Constitution and, therefore, the said power can be exercised only to preserve rather than destroy the essence of those rights. The limits on the power to amend are implied in Art. 368 , for the expression "amend" has a limited meaning. The wide phraseology used in the Constitution in other Articles, such as "repeal" and "re-enact" indicates that art. 368 only enables a modification of the Articles within the framework of the Constitution and not a destruction of them. The debates in the Constituent Assembly, particularly the speech of Mr. Jawahar Lal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India, and the reply of Dr. Ambedkar, who piloted the Bill disclose clearly that it was never the intention of the makers of the Constitution by putting in Art. 368 to enable the Parliament to repeal the fundamental rights; the circumstances under which the amendment moved by Mr. H. V. Kamath, one of the members of Constituent Assembly, was withdrawn and Art. 368 was finally adopted, support the contention that amendment of Part III is outside the scope of Art. 368 . Part III of the Constitution is a self-contained Code and its provisions are elastic enough to meet all reasonable requirements of changing situations. The power to amend is sought to be derived from three sources, namely, (i) by implication under Art. 368 itself; the procedure to amend culminating in the amendment of the Constitution necessarily implies that power, (ii) the power and the limits of the power to amend are implied in the Articles sought to be amended, and (iii) Art. 368 only lays down the procedure to amend, but the power to amend is only the legislative power conferred on the Parliament under Arts. 245,246 and 248 of the Constitution. The definition of "law" in Art. 13(2) of the Constitution includes every branch of law, statutory, constitutional, etc., and therefore, the power to amend in whichever branch it may be classified, if it takes away or abridges fundamental rights would be void thereunder. The impugned amendment detracts from the jurisdiction of the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution and also the legislative powers of the States and therefore it falls within the scope of the proviso to Art. 368 .Q. Article 14 does not encompassa)Equality before lawb)Equal protection of lawc)Protection against arbitary actiond)Protection of life and liberty.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

CLAT Exam > CLAT Questions > Directions: Read the following passage and a...

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.

The Constitution is intended to be permanent and, therefore, it cannot be amended in a way that would injure, maim or destroy its indestructible character. The word "amendment" implies such an addition or change within the lines of the original instrument as will affect an improvement or better carry out the purpose for which it was framed and it cannot be so construed as to enable the Parliament to destroy the permanent character of the Constitution. The fundamental rights are a part of the basic structure of the Constitution and, therefore, the said power can be exercised only to preserve rather than destroy the essence of those rights. The limits on the power to amend are implied in Art. 368 , for the expression "amend" has a limited meaning. The wide phraseology used in the Constitution in other Articles, such as "repeal" and "re-enact" indicates that art. 368 only enables a modification of the Articles within the framework of the Constitution and not a destruction of them. The debates in the Constituent Assembly, particularly the speech of Mr. Jawahar Lal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India, and the reply of Dr. Ambedkar, who piloted the Bill disclose clearly that it was never the intention of the makers of the Constitution by putting in Art. 368 to enable the Parliament to repeal the fundamental rights; the circumstances under which the amendment moved by Mr. H. V. Kamath, one of the members of Constituent Assembly, was withdrawn and Art. 368 was finally adopted, support the contention that amendment of Part III is outside the scope of Art. 368 . Part III of the Constitution is a self-contained Code and its provisions are elastic enough to meet all reasonable requirements of changing situations. The power to amend is sought to be derived from three sources, namely, (i) by implication under Art. 368 itself; the procedure to amend culminating in the amendment of the Constitution necessarily implies that power, (ii) the power and the limits of the power to amend are implied in the Articles sought to be amended, and (iii) Art. 368 only lays down the procedure to amend, but the power to amend is only the legislative power conferred on the Parliament under Arts. 245,246 and 248 of the Constitution. The definition of "law" in Art. 13(2) of the Constitution includes every branch of law, statutory, constitutional, etc., and therefore, the power to amend in whichever branch it may be classified, if it takes away or abridges fundamental rights would be void thereunder. The impugned amendment detracts from the jurisdiction of the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution and also the legislative powers of the States and therefore it falls within the scope of the proviso to Art. 368 .

Q. Article 14 does not encompass

a)
Equality before law
b)
Equal protection of law
c)
Protection against arbitary action
d)
Protection of life and liberty.

Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?

Join for Free

Join for Free

Most Upvoted Answer

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.The Co...

This is the correct answer for the given question.

The article 14 is about the right to equality. It includes treating everyone equally in front of the law and giving equal protection of the law.

The protection against arbitrary action prevents any form of discrimination towards someone.

The protection of life and liberty does not come under this article because it comes under article 21.

Therefore, this is the right option.

Answered by Glance Learning Institute · View profile

View all answers Start learning for free

Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.The Constitution is intended to be permanent and, therefore, it cannot be amended in a way that would injure, maim or destroy its indestructible character. The word "amendment" implies such an addition or change within the lines of the original instrument as will affect an improvement or better carry out the purpose for which it was framed and it cannot be so construed as to enable the Parliament to destroy the permanent character of the Constitution. The fundamental rights are a part of the basic structure of the Constitution and, therefore, the said power can be exercised only to preserve rather than destroy the essence of those rights. The limits on the power to amend are implied in Art. 368 , for the expression "amend" has a limited meaning. The wide phraseology used in the Constitution in other Articles, such as "repeal" and "re-enact" indicates that art. 368 only enables a modification of the Articles within the framework of the Constitution and not a destruction of them. The debates in the Constituent Assembly, particularly the speech of Mr. Jawahar Lal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India, and the reply of Dr. Ambedkar, who piloted the Bill disclose clearly that it was never the intention of the makers of the Constitution by putting in Art. 368 to enable the Parliament to repeal the fundamental rights; the circumstances under which the amendment moved by Mr. H. V. Kamath, one of the members of Constituent Assembly, was withdrawn and Art. 368 was finally adopted, support the contention that amendment of Part III is outside the scope of Art. 368 . Part III of the Constitution is a self-contained Code and its provisions are elastic enough to meet all reasonable requirements of changing situations. The power to amend is sought to be derived from three sources, namely, (i) by implication under Art. 368 itself; the procedure to amend culminating in the amendment of the Constitution necessarily implies that power, (ii) the power and the limits of the power to amend are implied in the Articles sought to be amended, and (iii) Art. 368 only lays down the procedure to amend, but the power to amend is only the legislative power conferred on the Parliament under Arts. 245,246 and 248 of the Constitution. The definition of "law" in Art. 13(2) of the Constitution includes every branch of law, statutory, constitutional, etc., and therefore, the power to amend in whichever branch it may be classified, if it takes away or abridges fundamental rights would be void thereunder. The impugned amendment detracts from the jurisdiction of the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution and also the legislative powers of the States and therefore it falls within the scope of the proviso to Art. 368 .Q. Parliament has enacted the Farmers' Protection Act 2020, which according to a group of activists is violating the fundamental right of freedom of trade of the farmers. The group of activists files a public interest litigation challenging the Constitutional validity of the statute seeking relief to quash the statute and further direct Parliament to enact a new law.

View answer

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.The Constitution is intended to be permanent and, therefore, it cannot be amended in a way that would injure, maim or destroy its indestructible character. The word "amendment" implies such an addition or change within the lines of the original instrument as will affect an improvement or better carry out the purpose for which it was framed and it cannot be so construed as to enable the Parliament to destroy the permanent character of the Constitution. The fundamental rights are a part of the basic structure of the Constitution and, therefore, the said power can be exercised only to preserve rather than destroy the essence of those rights. The limits on the power to amend are implied in Art. 368, for the expression "amend" has a limited meaning. The wide phraseology used in the Constitution in other Articles, such as "repeal" and "re-enact" indicates that art. 368 only enables a modification of the Articles within the framework of the Constitution and not a destruction of them. The debates in the Constituent Assembly, particularly the speech of Mr. Jawahar Lal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India, and the reply of Dr. Ambedkar, who piloted the Bill disclose clearly that it was never the intention of the makers of the Constitution by putting in Art. 368 to enable the Parliament to repeal the fundamental rights; the circumstances under which the amendment moved by Mr. H. V. Kamath, one of the members of Constituent Assembly, was withdrawn and Art. 368 was finally adopted, support the contention that amendment of Part III is outside the scope of Art. 368. Part III of the Constitution is a self-contained Code and its provisions are elastic enough to meet all reasonable requirements of changing situations. The power to amend is sought to be derived from three sources, namely, (i) by implication under Art. 368 itself; the procedure to amend culminating in the amendment of the Constitution necessarily implies that power, (ii) the power and the limits of the power to amend are implied in the Articles sought to be amended, and (iii) Art. 368 only lays down the procedure to amend, but the power to amend is only the legislative power conferred on the Parliament under Arts. 245,246 and 248 of the Constitution. The definition of "law" in Art. 13(2) of the Constitution includes every branch of law, statutory, constitutional, etc., and therefore, the power to amend in whichever branch it may be classified, if it takes away or abridges fundamental rights would be void thereunder. The impugned amendment detracts from the jurisdiction of the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution and also the legislative powers of the States and therefore it falls within the scope of the proviso to Art. 368.Q. Article 14,19,21 is cumulatively called

View answer

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.The Constitution is intended to be permanent and, therefore, it cannot be amended in a way that would injure, maim or destroy its indestructible character. The word "amendment" implies such an addition or change within the lines of the original instrument as will affect an improvement or better carry out the purpose for which it was framed and it cannot be so construed as to enable the Parliament to destroy the permanent character of the Constitution. The fundamental rights are a part of the basic structure of the Constitution and, therefore, the said power can be exercised only to preserve rather than destroy the essence of those rights. The limits on the power to amend are implied in Art. 368 , for the expression "amend" has a limited meaning. The wide phraseology used in the Constitution in other Articles, such as "repeal" and "re-enact" indicates that art. 368 only enables a modification of the Articles within the framework of the Constitution and not a destruction of them. The debates in the Constituent Assembly, particularly the speech of Mr. Jawahar Lal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India, and the reply of Dr. Ambedkar, who piloted the Bill disclose clearly that it was never the intention of the makers of the Constitution by putting in Art. 368 to enable the Parliament to repeal the fundamental rights; the circumstances under which the amendment moved by Mr. H. V. Kamath, one of the members of Constituent Assembly, was withdrawn and Art. 368 was finally adopted, support the contention that amendment of Part III is outside the scope of Art. 368 . Part III of the Constitution is a self-contained Code and its provisions are elastic enough to meet all reasonable requirements of changing situations. The power to amend is sought to be derived from three sources, namely, (i) by implication under Art. 368 itself; the procedure to amend culminating in the amendment of the Constitution necessarily implies that power, (ii) the power and the limits of the power to amend are implied in the Articles sought to be amended, and (iii) Art. 368 only lays down the procedure to amend, but the power to amend is only the legislative power conferred on the Parliament under Arts. 245,246 and 248 of the Constitution. The definition of "law" in Art. 13(2) of the Constitution includes every branch of law, statutory, constitutional, etc., and therefore, the power to amend in whichever branch it may be classified, if it takes away or abridges fundamental rights would be void thereunder. The impugned amendment detracts from the jurisdiction of the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution and also the legislative powers of the States and therefore it falls within the scope of the proviso to Art. 368 .Q. AJB Party won the majority of votes in the Parliament against the CPS Party. The main agenda of the AJB party was to chuck out the freedom of press, which was counted as one of the fundamental rights under the constitution. As they had majority in. Parliament, they could easily amend the provision. Now a public-spirited person filed a suit in the Supreme Court against this amendment.

View answer

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.The Constitution is intended to be permanent and, therefore, it cannot be amended in a way that would injure, maim or destroy its indestructible character. The word "amendment" implies such an addition or change within the lines of the original instrument as will affect an improvement or better carry out the purpose for which it was framed and it cannot be so construed as to enable the Parliament to destroy the permanent character of the Constitution. The fundamental rights are a part of the basic structure of the Constitution and, therefore, the said power can be exercised only to preserve rather than destroy the essence of those rights. The limits on the power to amend are implied in Art. 368 , for the expression "amend" has a limited meaning. The wide phraseology used in the Constitution in other Articles, such as "repeal" and "re-enact" indicates that art. 368 only enables a modification of the Articles within the framework of the Constitution and not a destruction of them. The debates in the Constituent Assembly, particularly the speech of Mr. Jawahar Lal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India, and the reply of Dr. Ambedkar, who piloted the Bill disclose clearly that it was never the intention of the makers of the Constitution by putting in Art. 368 to enable the Parliament to repeal the fundamental rights; the circumstances under which the amendment moved by Mr. H. V. Kamath, one of the members of the Constituent Assembly, was withdrawn and Art. 368 was finally adopted, support the contention that amendment of Part III is outside the scope of Art. 368 . Part III of the Constitution is a self-contained Code and its provisions are elastic enough to meet all reasonable requirements of changing situations. The power to amend is sought to be derived from three sources, namely, (i) by implication under Art. 368 itself; the procedure to amend culminating in the amendment of the Constitution necessarily implies that power, (ii) the power and the limits of the power to amend are implied in the Articles sought to be amended, and (iii) Art. 368 only lays down the procedure to amend, but the power to amend is only the legislative power conferred on the Parliament under Arts. 245,246 and 248 of the Constitution. The definition of "law" in Art. 13(2) of the Constitution includes every branch of law, statutory, constitutional, etc., and therefore, the power to amend in whichever branch it may be classified, if it takes away or abridges fundamental rights would be void thereunder. The impugned amendment detracts from the jurisdiction of the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution and also the legislative powers of the States and therefore it falls within the scope of the proviso to Art. 368 .Q. Fundamental Rights are enshrined under which part of the constitution?

View answer

Passage:The President’s notification of the Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order of 2019 of August 5 amends Article 370 of the Indian Constitution and scraps its 65-year-old predecessor, The Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order of May 14, 1954. By junking the 1954 Order, the notification takes away the special rights and privileges enjoyed by the residents of Kashmir. It has effectively allowed the entire provisions of the Constitution, with all its amendments, exceptions and modifications, to apply to the area of Jammu and Kashmir. This is evident from the text of the August 5, 2019 notification. For one, the 2019 notification “supersedes” the 1954 Order. And two, it declares that “all the provisions of the Constitution, as amended from time to time, shall apply in relation to the State of Jammu and Kashmir”. It is important to note that Article 370(1)( c) explicitly mentions that Article 1 of the Indian Constitution applies to Kashmir through Article 370. Article 1 lists the states of the Union. This means that it is Article 370 that binds the state of J&K to the Indian Union. Removing Article 370, which can be done by a Presidential Order, would render the state independent of India, unless new overriding laws are made. The August 5 notification has been issued under Article 370 of the Constitution. In short, the government has employed Article 370, which had once protected the 1954 Order giving special rights to the people of Jammu and Kashmir, to scrap the sexagenarian Order.So far, the Parliament had only residuary powers of legislation in J&K. This included enacted of laws to prevent terror and secessionist activities, for taxation on foreign and inland travel and on communication. Now, the Centre has proposed the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Bill of 2019, which says the new Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir would be administered/governed like the Union Territory of Puducherry.The tabling of the proposed Reorganization Bill is also proof that the long reign of the 1954 Order has ended. The 1954 Order had introduced a proviso to Article 3, namely that “no Bill providingfor increasing or diminishing the area of the State of Jammu and Kashmir or altering the name or boundary of that State shall be introduced in Parliament without the consent of the Legislature of that State". That power of the State Legislature to give prior consent does not exist anymore. This has provided a free hand to the Centre to table the Re-organization Bill.The 1954 Order had also brought into existence Article 35A. This Article gave the State Legislature of Jammu and Kashmir exclusive power to define classes of persons who are/shall be permanent residents of the State; to confer permanent residents special rights and privileges and impose restrictions upon other persons from outside the State; make laws and conditions for State government employment, acquisition of immovable property, settlement rights, scholarships and other forms of aid from the State government.With the removal of the 1954 Order, the power of the State Legislature ceases to exist and Parliamentary laws, including that of reservation, would apply to Jammu and Kashmir as it does in other parts of the country. The government called this the end of “positive discrimination” and the closing of the “chasm” between residents of J&K and citizens of other parts of the country. The removal of the 1954 Order further also negates a clause which was added to Article 352. The Order had mandated that no proclamation of Emergency on grounds “only of internal disturbance or imminent danger shall have effect” in the State unless with the concurrence of the State government.The second part of the August 5, 2019 notification deals with the addition of a new clause to Article 367 which amends the proviso to clause (3) of 370. Article 367 deals with the applicability of the General Clauses Act 1897 to interpret the provisions of the Constitution,.The August 5 notification amends the expression “Constituent Assembly”, contained in the proviso to clause (3) of Article 370, to mean “Legislative Assembly”.Clause (3) of Article 370 gives the President power to end the special rights and privileges of the people of Jammu and Kashmir under the 1954 Order. However, the clause carries a rider. That is, the President would have to first get the consent of the Constituent Assembly of J&K before issuing such a notification. This rider or check on the President’s power was intended to give the people of the State a say in their own future. Now, theConstituent Assembly has ceased to exist since 1956, when it was dissolved. The Assembly, at the time of its dissolution, had said nothing about the abrogation of Article 370. Consequently, Article 370, though it resides among the ‘temporary provisions’ of the Constitution, is deemed have become a permanent feature of the Constitution.The August 5 notification has tided over this obstacle of a non-existent ‘Constituent Assembly’ by amending the expression in the proviso to ‘Legislative Assembly’. Ideally, any such amendment to the name of the ‘Constituent Assembly’ would require the assent of the Constituent Assembly itself. Besides, an amendment in Article 370 should have undergone the constitutional amendment procedure envisaged under Article 368 of the Constitution.But the government can, on the other hand, argue that the amendment made in its August 5 notification only applies to Jammu and Kashmir and not the entire Dominion of India, and so, does not require a constitutional amendment. This point of contention may reach the Supreme Court, where several petitions on the constitutionality of Article 35A, and in consequence Article 370, are pending for adjudication.Q.The President issued an order well under his powers and under Article 370 of the Indian Constitution. If instead of the promugulation of the order, the Parliament would have removed Article 370 from the Indian Constitution,what would have been the consequence?

View answer

Top Courses for CLATView all

Current Affairs: Daily, Weekly & Monthly

Legal Reasoning for CLAT

Lucent for GK

Crash Course for CLAT

CLAT Mock Test Series 2026

Top Courses for CLAT

View all

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.The Constitution is intended to be permanent and, therefore, it cannot be amended in a way that would injure, maim or destroy its indestructible character. The word "amendment" implies such an addition or change within the lines of the original instrument as will affect an improvement or better carry out the purpose for which it was framed and it cannot be so construed as to enable the Parliament to destroy the permanent character of the Constitution. The fundamental rights are a part of the basic structure of the Constitution and, therefore, the said power can be exercised only to preserve rather than destroy the essence of those rights. The limits on the power to amend are implied in Art. 368 , for the expression "amend" has a limited meaning. The wide phraseology used in the Constitution in other Articles, such as "repeal" and "re-enact" indicates that art. 368 only enables a modification of the Articles within the framework of the Constitution and not a destruction of them. The debates in the Constituent Assembly, particularly the speech of Mr. Jawahar Lal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India, and the reply of Dr. Ambedkar, who piloted the Bill disclose clearly that it was never the intention of the makers of the Constitution by putting in Art. 368 to enable the Parliament to repeal the fundamental rights; the circumstances under which the amendment moved by Mr. H. V. Kamath, one of the members of Constituent Assembly, was withdrawn and Art. 368 was finally adopted, support the contention that amendment of Part III is outside the scope of Art. 368 . Part III of the Constitution is a self-contained Code and its provisions are elastic enough to meet all reasonable requirements of changing situations. The power to amend is sought to be derived from three sources, namely, (i) by implication under Art. 368 itself; the procedure to amend culminating in the amendment of the Constitution necessarily implies that power, (ii) the power and the limits of the power to amend are implied in the Articles sought to be amended, and (iii) Art. 368 only lays down the procedure to amend, but the power to amend is only the legislative power conferred on the Parliament under Arts. 245,246 and 248 of the Constitution. The definition of "law" in Art. 13(2) of the Constitution includes every branch of law, statutory, constitutional, etc., and therefore, the power to amend in whichever branch it may be classified, if it takes away or abridges fundamental rights would be void thereunder. The impugned amendment detracts from the jurisdiction of the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution and also the legislative powers of the States and therefore it falls within the scope of the proviso to Art. 368 .Q. Article 14 does not encompassa)Equality before lawb)Equal protection of lawc)Protection against arbitary actiond)Protection of life and liberty.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

Question Description
Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.The Constitution is intended to be permanent and, therefore, it cannot be amended in a way that would injure, maim or destroy its indestructible character. The word "amendment" implies such an addition or change within the lines of the original instrument as will affect an improvement or better carry out the purpose for which it was framed and it cannot be so construed as to enable the Parliament to destroy the permanent character of the Constitution. The fundamental rights are a part of the basic structure of the Constitution and, therefore, the said power can be exercised only to preserve rather than destroy the essence of those rights. The limits on the power to amend are implied in Art. 368 , for the expression "amend" has a limited meaning. The wide phraseology used in the Constitution in other Articles, such as "repeal" and "re-enact" indicates that art. 368 only enables a modification of the Articles within the framework of the Constitution and not a destruction of them. The debates in the Constituent Assembly, particularly the speech of Mr. Jawahar Lal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India, and the reply of Dr. Ambedkar, who piloted the Bill disclose clearly that it was never the intention of the makers of the Constitution by putting in Art. 368 to enable the Parliament to repeal the fundamental rights; the circumstances under which the amendment moved by Mr. H. V. Kamath, one of the members of Constituent Assembly, was withdrawn and Art. 368 was finally adopted, support the contention that amendment of Part III is outside the scope of Art. 368 . Part III of the Constitution is a self-contained Code and its provisions are elastic enough to meet all reasonable requirements of changing situations. The power to amend is sought to be derived from three sources, namely, (i) by implication under Art. 368 itself; the procedure to amend culminating in the amendment of the Constitution necessarily implies that power, (ii) the power and the limits of the power to amend are implied in the Articles sought to be amended, and (iii) Art. 368 only lays down the procedure to amend, but the power to amend is only the legislative power conferred on the Parliament under Arts. 245,246 and 248 of the Constitution. The definition of "law" in Art. 13(2) of the Constitution includes every branch of law, statutory, constitutional, etc., and therefore, the power to amend in whichever branch it may be classified, if it takes away or abridges fundamental rights would be void thereunder. The impugned amendment detracts from the jurisdiction of the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution and also the legislative powers of the States and therefore it falls within the scope of the proviso to Art. 368 .Q. Article 14 does not encompassa)Equality before lawb)Equal protection of lawc)Protection against arbitary actiond)Protection of life and liberty.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2025 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.The Constitution is intended to be permanent and, therefore, it cannot be amended in a way that would injure, maim or destroy its indestructible character. The word "amendment" implies such an addition or change within the lines of the original instrument as will affect an improvement or better carry out the purpose for which it was framed and it cannot be so construed as to enable the Parliament to destroy the permanent character of the Constitution. The fundamental rights are a part of the basic structure of the Constitution and, therefore, the said power can be exercised only to preserve rather than destroy the essence of those rights. The limits on the power to amend are implied in Art. 368 , for the expression "amend" has a limited meaning. The wide phraseology used in the Constitution in other Articles, such as "repeal" and "re-enact" indicates that art. 368 only enables a modification of the Articles within the framework of the Constitution and not a destruction of them. The debates in the Constituent Assembly, particularly the speech of Mr. Jawahar Lal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India, and the reply of Dr. Ambedkar, who piloted the Bill disclose clearly that it was never the intention of the makers of the Constitution by putting in Art. 368 to enable the Parliament to repeal the fundamental rights; the circumstances under which the amendment moved by Mr. H. V. Kamath, one of the members of Constituent Assembly, was withdrawn and Art. 368 was finally adopted, support the contention that amendment of Part III is outside the scope of Art. 368 . Part III of the Constitution is a self-contained Code and its provisions are elastic enough to meet all reasonable requirements of changing situations. The power to amend is sought to be derived from three sources, namely, (i) by implication under Art. 368 itself; the procedure to amend culminating in the amendment of the Constitution necessarily implies that power, (ii) the power and the limits of the power to amend are implied in the Articles sought to be amended, and (iii) Art. 368 only lays down the procedure to amend, but the power to amend is only the legislative power conferred on the Parliament under Arts. 245,246 and 248 of the Constitution. The definition of "law" in Art. 13(2) of the Constitution includes every branch of law, statutory, constitutional, etc., and therefore, the power to amend in whichever branch it may be classified, if it takes away or abridges fundamental rights would be void thereunder. The impugned amendment detracts from the jurisdiction of the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution and also the legislative powers of the States and therefore it falls within the scope of the proviso to Art. 368 .Q. Article 14 does not encompassa)Equality before lawb)Equal protection of lawc)Protection against arbitary actiond)Protection of life and liberty.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.The Constitution is intended to be permanent and, therefore, it cannot be amended in a way that would injure, maim or destroy its indestructible character. The word "amendment" implies such an addition or change within the lines of the original instrument as will affect an improvement or better carry out the purpose for which it was framed and it cannot be so construed as to enable the Parliament to destroy the permanent character of the Constitution. The fundamental rights are a part of the basic structure of the Constitution and, therefore, the said power can be exercised only to preserve rather than destroy the essence of those rights. The limits on the power to amend are implied in Art. 368 , for the expression "amend" has a limited meaning. The wide phraseology used in the Constitution in other Articles, such as "repeal" and "re-enact" indicates that art. 368 only enables a modification of the Articles within the framework of the Constitution and not a destruction of them. The debates in the Constituent Assembly, particularly the speech of Mr. Jawahar Lal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India, and the reply of Dr. Ambedkar, who piloted the Bill disclose clearly that it was never the intention of the makers of the Constitution by putting in Art. 368 to enable the Parliament to repeal the fundamental rights; the circumstances under which the amendment moved by Mr. H. V. Kamath, one of the members of Constituent Assembly, was withdrawn and Art. 368 was finally adopted, support the contention that amendment of Part III is outside the scope of Art. 368 . Part III of the Constitution is a self-contained Code and its provisions are elastic enough to meet all reasonable requirements of changing situations. The power to amend is sought to be derived from three sources, namely, (i) by implication under Art. 368 itself; the procedure to amend culminating in the amendment of the Constitution necessarily implies that power, (ii) the power and the limits of the power to amend are implied in the Articles sought to be amended, and (iii) Art. 368 only lays down the procedure to amend, but the power to amend is only the legislative power conferred on the Parliament under Arts. 245,246 and 248 of the Constitution. The definition of "law" in Art. 13(2) of the Constitution includes every branch of law, statutory, constitutional, etc., and therefore, the power to amend in whichever branch it may be classified, if it takes away or abridges fundamental rights would be void thereunder. The impugned amendment detracts from the jurisdiction of the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution and also the legislative powers of the States and therefore it falls within the scope of the proviso to Art. 368 .Q. Article 14 does not encompassa)Equality before lawb)Equal protection of lawc)Protection against arbitary actiond)Protection of life and liberty.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.The Constitution is intended to be permanent and, therefore, it cannot be amended in a way that would injure, maim or destroy its indestructible character. The word "amendment" implies such an addition or change within the lines of the original instrument as will affect an improvement or better carry out the purpose for which it was framed and it cannot be so construed as to enable the Parliament to destroy the permanent character of the Constitution. The fundamental rights are a part of the basic structure of the Constitution and, therefore, the said power can be exercised only to preserve rather than destroy the essence of those rights. The limits on the power to amend are implied in Art. 368 , for the expression "amend" has a limited meaning. The wide phraseology used in the Constitution in other Articles, such as "repeal" and "re-enact" indicates that art. 368 only enables a modification of the Articles within the framework of the Constitution and not a destruction of them. The debates in the Constituent Assembly, particularly the speech of Mr. Jawahar Lal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India, and the reply of Dr. Ambedkar, who piloted the Bill disclose clearly that it was never the intention of the makers of the Constitution by putting in Art. 368 to enable the Parliament to repeal the fundamental rights; the circumstances under which the amendment moved by Mr. H. V. Kamath, one of the members of Constituent Assembly, was withdrawn and Art. 368 was finally adopted, support the contention that amendment of Part III is outside the scope of Art. 368 . Part III of the Constitution is a self-contained Code and its provisions are elastic enough to meet all reasonable requirements of changing situations. The power to amend is sought to be derived from three sources, namely, (i) by implication under Art. 368 itself; the procedure to amend culminating in the amendment of the Constitution necessarily implies that power, (ii) the power and the limits of the power to amend are implied in the Articles sought to be amended, and (iii) Art. 368 only lays down the procedure to amend, but the power to amend is only the legislative power conferred on the Parliament under Arts. 245,246 and 248 of the Constitution. The definition of "law" in Art. 13(2) of the Constitution includes every branch of law, statutory, constitutional, etc., and therefore, the power to amend in whichever branch it may be classified, if it takes away or abridges fundamental rights would be void thereunder. The impugned amendment detracts from the jurisdiction of the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution and also the legislative powers of the States and therefore it falls within the scope of the proviso to Art. 368 .Q. Article 14 does not encompassa)Equality before lawb)Equal protection of lawc)Protection against arbitary actiond)Protection of life and liberty.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.The Constitution is intended to be permanent and, therefore, it cannot be amended in a way that would injure, maim or destroy its indestructible character. The word "amendment" implies such an addition or change within the lines of the original instrument as will affect an improvement or better carry out the purpose for which it was framed and it cannot be so construed as to enable the Parliament to destroy the permanent character of the Constitution. The fundamental rights are a part of the basic structure of the Constitution and, therefore, the said power can be exercised only to preserve rather than destroy the essence of those rights. The limits on the power to amend are implied in Art. 368 , for the expression "amend" has a limited meaning. The wide phraseology used in the Constitution in other Articles, such as "repeal" and "re-enact" indicates that art. 368 only enables a modification of the Articles within the framework of the Constitution and not a destruction of them. The debates in the Constituent Assembly, particularly the speech of Mr. Jawahar Lal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India, and the reply of Dr. Ambedkar, who piloted the Bill disclose clearly that it was never the intention of the makers of the Constitution by putting in Art. 368 to enable the Parliament to repeal the fundamental rights; the circumstances under which the amendment moved by Mr. H. V. Kamath, one of the members of Constituent Assembly, was withdrawn and Art. 368 was finally adopted, support the contention that amendment of Part III is outside the scope of Art. 368 . Part III of the Constitution is a self-contained Code and its provisions are elastic enough to meet all reasonable requirements of changing situations. The power to amend is sought to be derived from three sources, namely, (i) by implication under Art. 368 itself; the procedure to amend culminating in the amendment of the Constitution necessarily implies that power, (ii) the power and the limits of the power to amend are implied in the Articles sought to be amended, and (iii) Art. 368 only lays down the procedure to amend, but the power to amend is only the legislative power conferred on the Parliament under Arts. 245,246 and 248 of the Constitution. The definition of "law" in Art. 13(2) of the Constitution includes every branch of law, statutory, constitutional, etc., and therefore, the power to amend in whichever branch it may be classified, if it takes away or abridges fundamental rights would be void thereunder. The impugned amendment detracts from the jurisdiction of the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution and also the legislative powers of the States and therefore it falls within the scope of the proviso to Art. 368 .Q. Article 14 does not encompassa)Equality before lawb)Equal protection of lawc)Protection against arbitary actiond)Protection of life and liberty.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.The Constitution is intended to be permanent and, therefore, it cannot be amended in a way that would injure, maim or destroy its indestructible character. The word "amendment" implies such an addition or change within the lines of the original instrument as will affect an improvement or better carry out the purpose for which it was framed and it cannot be so construed as to enable the Parliament to destroy the permanent character of the Constitution. The fundamental rights are a part of the basic structure of the Constitution and, therefore, the said power can be exercised only to preserve rather than destroy the essence of those rights. The limits on the power to amend are implied in Art. 368 , for the expression "amend" has a limited meaning. The wide phraseology used in the Constitution in other Articles, such as "repeal" and "re-enact" indicates that art. 368 only enables a modification of the Articles within the framework of the Constitution and not a destruction of them. The debates in the Constituent Assembly, particularly the speech of Mr. Jawahar Lal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India, and the reply of Dr. Ambedkar, who piloted the Bill disclose clearly that it was never the intention of the makers of the Constitution by putting in Art. 368 to enable the Parliament to repeal the fundamental rights; the circumstances under which the amendment moved by Mr. H. V. Kamath, one of the members of Constituent Assembly, was withdrawn and Art. 368 was finally adopted, support the contention that amendment of Part III is outside the scope of Art. 368 . Part III of the Constitution is a self-contained Code and its provisions are elastic enough to meet all reasonable requirements of changing situations. The power to amend is sought to be derived from three sources, namely, (i) by implication under Art. 368 itself; the procedure to amend culminating in the amendment of the Constitution necessarily implies that power, (ii) the power and the limits of the power to amend are implied in the Articles sought to be amended, and (iii) Art. 368 only lays down the procedure to amend, but the power to amend is only the legislative power conferred on the Parliament under Arts. 245,246 and 248 of the Constitution. The definition of "law" in Art. 13(2) of the Constitution includes every branch of law, statutory, constitutional, etc., and therefore, the power to amend in whichever branch it may be classified, if it takes away or abridges fundamental rights would be void thereunder. The impugned amendment detracts from the jurisdiction of the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution and also the legislative powers of the States and therefore it falls within the scope of the proviso to Art. 368 .Q. Article 14 does not encompassa)Equality before lawb)Equal protection of lawc)Protection against arbitary actiond)Protection of life and liberty.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.The Constitution is intended to be permanent and, therefore, it cannot be amended in a way that would injure, maim or destroy its indestructible character. The word "amendment" implies such an addition or change within the lines of the original instrument as will affect an improvement or better carry out the purpose for which it was framed and it cannot be so construed as to enable the Parliament to destroy the permanent character of the Constitution. The fundamental rights are a part of the basic structure of the Constitution and, therefore, the said power can be exercised only to preserve rather than destroy the essence of those rights. The limits on the power to amend are implied in Art. 368 , for the expression "amend" has a limited meaning. The wide phraseology used in the Constitution in other Articles, such as "repeal" and "re-enact" indicates that art. 368 only enables a modification of the Articles within the framework of the Constitution and not a destruction of them. The debates in the Constituent Assembly, particularly the speech of Mr. Jawahar Lal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India, and the reply of Dr. Ambedkar, who piloted the Bill disclose clearly that it was never the intention of the makers of the Constitution by putting in Art. 368 to enable the Parliament to repeal the fundamental rights; the circumstances under which the amendment moved by Mr. H. V. Kamath, one of the members of Constituent Assembly, was withdrawn and Art. 368 was finally adopted, support the contention that amendment of Part III is outside the scope of Art. 368 . Part III of the Constitution is a self-contained Code and its provisions are elastic enough to meet all reasonable requirements of changing situations. The power to amend is sought to be derived from three sources, namely, (i) by implication under Art. 368 itself; the procedure to amend culminating in the amendment of the Constitution necessarily implies that power, (ii) the power and the limits of the power to amend are implied in the Articles sought to be amended, and (iii) Art. 368 only lays down the procedure to amend, but the power to amend is only the legislative power conferred on the Parliament under Arts. 245,246 and 248 of the Constitution. The definition of "law" in Art. 13(2) of the Constitution includes every branch of law, statutory, constitutional, etc., and therefore, the power to amend in whichever branch it may be classified, if it takes away or abridges fundamental rights would be void thereunder. The impugned amendment detracts from the jurisdiction of the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution and also the legislative powers of the States and therefore it falls within the scope of the proviso to Art. 368 .Q. Article 14 does not encompassa)Equality before lawb)Equal protection of lawc)Protection against arbitary actiond)Protection of life and liberty.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.The Constitution is intended to be permanent and, therefore, it cannot be amended in a way that would injure, maim or destroy its indestructible character. The word "amendment" implies such an addition or change within the lines of the original instrument as will affect an improvement or better carry out the purpose for which it was framed and it cannot be so construed as to enable the Parliament to destroy the permanent character of the Constitution. The fundamental rights are a part of the basic structure of the Constitution and, therefore, the said power can be exercised only to preserve rather than destroy the essence of those rights. The limits on the power to amend are implied in Art. 368 , for the expression "amend" has a limited meaning. The wide phraseology used in the Constitution in other Articles, such as "repeal" and "re-enact" indicates that art. 368 only enables a modification of the Articles within the framework of the Constitution and not a destruction of them. The debates in the Constituent Assembly, particularly the speech of Mr. Jawahar Lal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India, and the reply of Dr. Ambedkar, who piloted the Bill disclose clearly that it was never the intention of the makers of the Constitution by putting in Art. 368 to enable the Parliament to repeal the fundamental rights; the circumstances under which the amendment moved by Mr. H. V. Kamath, one of the members of Constituent Assembly, was withdrawn and Art. 368 was finally adopted, support the contention that amendment of Part III is outside the scope of Art. 368 . Part III of the Constitution is a self-contained Code and its provisions are elastic enough to meet all reasonable requirements of changing situations. The power to amend is sought to be derived from three sources, namely, (i) by implication under Art. 368 itself; the procedure to amend culminating in the amendment of the Constitution necessarily implies that power, (ii) the power and the limits of the power to amend are implied in the Articles sought to be amended, and (iii) Art. 368 only lays down the procedure to amend, but the power to amend is only the legislative power conferred on the Parliament under Arts. 245,246 and 248 of the Constitution. The definition of "law" in Art. 13(2) of the Constitution includes every branch of law, statutory, constitutional, etc., and therefore, the power to amend in whichever branch it may be classified, if it takes away or abridges fundamental rights would be void thereunder. The impugned amendment detracts from the jurisdiction of the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution and also the legislative powers of the States and therefore it falls within the scope of the proviso to Art. 368 .Q. Article 14 does not encompassa)Equality before lawb)Equal protection of lawc)Protection against arbitary actiond)Protection of life and liberty.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.The Constitution is intended to be permanent and, therefore, it cannot be amended in a way that would injure, maim or destroy its indestructible character. The word "amendment" implies such an addition or change within the lines of the original instrument as will affect an improvement or better carry out the purpose for which it was framed and it cannot be so construed as to enable the Parliament to destroy the permanent character of the Constitution. The fundamental rights are a part of the basic structure of the Constitution and, therefore, the said power can be exercised only to preserve rather than destroy the essence of those rights. The limits on the power to amend are implied in Art. 368 , for the expression "amend" has a limited meaning. The wide phraseology used in the Constitution in other Articles, such as "repeal" and "re-enact" indicates that art. 368 only enables a modification of the Articles within the framework of the Constitution and not a destruction of them. The debates in the Constituent Assembly, particularly the speech of Mr. Jawahar Lal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India, and the reply of Dr. Ambedkar, who piloted the Bill disclose clearly that it was never the intention of the makers of the Constitution by putting in Art. 368 to enable the Parliament to repeal the fundamental rights; the circumstances under which the amendment moved by Mr. H. V. Kamath, one of the members of Constituent Assembly, was withdrawn and Art. 368 was finally adopted, support the contention that amendment of Part III is outside the scope of Art. 368 . Part III of the Constitution is a self-contained Code and its provisions are elastic enough to meet all reasonable requirements of changing situations. The power to amend is sought to be derived from three sources, namely, (i) by implication under Art. 368 itself; the procedure to amend culminating in the amendment of the Constitution necessarily implies that power, (ii) the power and the limits of the power to amend are implied in the Articles sought to be amended, and (iii) Art. 368 only lays down the procedure to amend, but the power to amend is only the legislative power conferred on the Parliament under Arts. 245,246 and 248 of the Constitution. The definition of "law" in Art. 13(2) of the Constitution includes every branch of law, statutory, constitutional, etc., and therefore, the power to amend in whichever branch it may be classified, if it takes away or abridges fundamental rights would be void thereunder. The impugned amendment detracts from the jurisdiction of the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution and also the legislative powers of the States and therefore it falls within the scope of the proviso to Art. 368 .Q. Article 14 does not encompassa)Equality before lawb)Equal protection of lawc)Protection against arbitary actiond)Protection of life and liberty.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.

Explore Courses for CLAT exam