NCERT Solutions - Constitution as a Living Document

Q1: Choose the correct statement from the following.
A constitution needs to be amended from time to time because

1. Circumstances change and require suitable changes in the constitution.
2.  A document written at one point of time becomes outdated after some time.
3.  Every generation should have a constitution of its own liking.
4.  It must reflect the philosophy of the existing government.

Ans: (1)
Explanation: A constitution must remain relevant as society, technology and political conditions evolve. Amendments allow the legal framework to adapt to new circumstances while preserving core principles. This ensures that laws and institutions work effectively in changing times rather than becoming obsolete.

Q2: Write True / False against the following statements.
(a) The President cannot send back an amendment bill for reconsideration of the 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) The Parliament can amend any section of the Constitution.
Ans:
(a) True
Explanation: Once a constitutional amendment bill is passed by both Houses of Parliament and, where required, ratified by state legislatures, it is presented to the President for assent. The President does not possess the power to return such an amendment bill for reconsideration.
(b) True
Explanation: Amendments are initiated and passed by Parliament (the elected representatives). While other institutions may influence or review amendments, the formal power to propose and approve amendments lies with Parliament and, in certain cases, with state legislatures for ratification.
(c) False
Explanation: The Judiciary cannot initiate amendment bills, but it can affect constitutional change through interpretation. Judicial review may read down or interpret provisions in a way that alters their legal effect; hence courts can influence constitutional development even though they do not amend the text.
(d) True
Explanation: Parliament can amend most parts of the Constitution by following the prescribed procedures. However, judicially evolved limits such as the basic structure doctrine restrict amendments that would destroy the Constitution's essential features.

Q3: 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
Ans:
(a) Voters are not directly involved in the formal amendment process. Constitutional amendments are made by elected representatives in Parliament and, where required, by state legislatures.
(b) President of India is involved at the final stage. After an amendment bill is passed by both Houses of Parliament (and ratified by states where required), it is presented to the President for assent. The President cannot send the amendment back for reconsideration.
(c) State Legislatures are involved in certain amendments. Amendments that affect the distribution of powers between Centre and states or provisions affecting states must be ratified by not less than one-half of the state legislatures.
(d) Parliament is central to the amendment process. Some constitutional provisions can be amended by a simple majority, while others require a special majority in both Houses; certain amendments also require state ratification.
(e) Governors have only a limited, indirect role. Where a state legislature must ratify an amendment, the governor's formal role is to assent to bills passed by the state legislature; governors do not independently influence the national amendment process.
(f) Judiciary plays a supervisory role by interpreting the Constitution and protecting its basic features. The Supreme Court has held that amendments violating the Constitution's basic structure are not permissible, thus placing a judicial check on parliamentary amendments.

Q4: 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.
Ans:

• It overrode portions of the Supreme Court's earlier jurisprudence, including constraints established by the Kesavananda Bharati judgment.
• The duration of the Lok Sabha was extended from five to six years, altering parliamentary terms.
• It imposed limitations on the power of judicial review and attempted to curtail the courts' ability to challenge certain legislative actions.
• It made wide-ranging changes to the Preamble, the Seventh Schedule and numerous Articles (around 53 Articles were affected), which many considered excessive and politically motivated.
• The amendment was enacted during the Emergency period when many opposition MPs and dissenters had been detained, creating concerns about the legitimacy of the process.

Q5 : 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.
Ans: (d)
Explanation: Option (d) is not a reasonable explanation because it is an absolute and unjustified claim. The legislature is a democratically elected body tasked with protecting citizens' rights through law-making. Conflicts with the judiciary arise from differing roles and interpretations, not because the legislature inherently cannot be trusted to protect rights.

Q6: 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.
Ans:
(a) Incorrect. The Constitution's text does not enumerate a fixed list of "basic tenets"; the basic structure doctrine was developed by the Supreme Court through judicial interpretation.
(b) Correct. Parliament may amend most parts of the Constitution, but amendments that destroy or alter its basic structure are held impermissible by the courts.
(c) Correct. The judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court, has identified and elaborated aspects that constitute the Constitution's basic structure through case law and subsequent judgments.
(d) Correct. The doctrine was articulated in the Kesavananda Bharati case and has been the subject of discussion and refinement in later decisions.
(e) Correct. The doctrine has effectively increased the judiciary's role as a protector of constitutional fundamentals; over time it has gained acceptance across political lines as a check on arbitrary constitutional change.

Q7: 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.
Ans: (e)
Explanation: The most reasonable conclusion is that many amendments in that period were non-controversial and had cross-party agreement, which allowed them to pass with the required support. When amendments are technical or consensual, they are more likely to be adopted rapidly without major judicial or political confrontation.

Q8: Explain the reason for requiring special majority for amending the Constitution.
Ans: Special majority is required to make constitutional amendments deliberately more difficult than ordinary legislation. This safeguard prevents transient political majorities from making fundamental or arbitrary changes to the Constitution. By requiring a larger consensus - typically both a majority of the total membership of a House and a two-thirds majority of members present and voting - the rule ensures broader support across political lines and promotes stability and continuity in the constitutional framework.

Q9: Many amendments to the Constitution of India have been made due to different interpretations upheld by the Judiciary and the Parliament. Explain with examples.
Ans: 

• The First Amendment Act of 1951 introduced changes to address practical problems and judicial interpretations that limited the working of certain provisions, especially in the area of free speech and land reform.
• Under Article 19, early judicial interpretations gave the right to freedom of speech a broad scope; some legislative changes were made to clarify reasonable restrictions and balance competing interests.
• Several laws aimed at abolishing the Zamindari system were struck down by courts as ultra vires; this led Parliament to amend the Constitution to validate land reforms.
• In Kesavananda Bharati (Kesavananda Bharati case), the Supreme Court limited Parliament's amending power by articulating the basic structure doctrine, creating a judicial check on amendments that would destroy core constitutional features.
• The 24th Amendment (1971) affirmed Parliament's power to amend most parts of the Constitution, including the Fundamental Rights, which reflected a clash over the scope of judicial review.
• The 42nd Amendment (1976) was highly controversial because it curtailed judicial review and introduced extensive changes during the Emergency; many of these were later reversed or moderated by the 44th Amendment and subsequent legislation.
• Judicial interpretation has also set practical limits, for example rulings that reservation quotas should not normally exceed 50% in public employment and education, shaping how amendments and laws are framed.

Q10: 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.
Ans:
I do not agree. The judiciary's power to review amendments is essential to maintain constitutional balance and protect minority rights. Elected representatives make laws, but courts interpret the Constitution and ensure that amendments do not destroy its fundamental framework or basic rights. Judicial review prevents arbitrary or majoritarian changes that could undermine democracy. Landmark decisions, such as the Kesavananda Bharati case, show that judicial oversight preserves the Constitution's core values and provides a check on transient political majorities, thereby upholding the rule of law and protecting citizens' liberties.