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 H. V. Kamath, one of the members of Constituent Assembly, was withdrawn and Art. 368 was finally adopted, support the contention that amendment of Part III is outside the scope of Art. 368.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 14,19,21 is cumulatively called-a)Diamond Triangleb)Silver Trianglec)Golden Triangled)Crystal TriangleCorrect answer is option 'C'. 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 14,19,21 is cumulatively called-a)Diamond Triangleb)Silver Trianglec)Golden Triangled)Crystal TriangleCorrect answer is option 'C'. 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 14,19,21 is cumulatively called-a)Diamond Triangleb)Silver Trianglec)Golden Triangled)Crystal TriangleCorrect answer is option 'C'. 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 14,19,21 is cumulatively called-a)Diamond Triangleb)Silver Trianglec)Golden Triangled)Crystal TriangleCorrect answer is option 'C'. 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 14,19,21 is cumulatively called-a)Diamond Triangleb)Silver Trianglec)Golden Triangled)Crystal TriangleCorrect answer is option 'C'. 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 14,19,21 is cumulatively called-a)Diamond Triangleb)Silver Trianglec)Golden Triangled)Crystal TriangleCorrect answer is option 'C'. 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 14,19,21 is cumulatively called-a)Diamond Triangleb)Silver Trianglec)Golden Triangled)Crystal TriangleCorrect answer is option 'C'. 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 14,19,21 is cumulatively called-a)Diamond Triangleb)Silver Trianglec)Golden Triangled)Crystal TriangleCorrect answer is option 'C'. 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 14,19,21 is cumulatively called-a)Diamond Triangleb)Silver Trianglec)Golden Triangled)Crystal TriangleCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.