Choose the correct statement from the following.
A Constitution needs to be amended from time to time because,
A. Circumstances change and require suitable changes in the constitution.
B. A document written at one point of time becomes outdated after some time.
C. Every generation should have a constitution of its own liking.
D. It must reflect the philosophy of the existing government.
A constitution needs to be amended from time to time because circumstances change and require suitable change in the constitution.
Amendments are the updates in the constitution. These amendments fix issues and add new features which are needed and change or remove those which are no longer suitable. For example, in the 42nd amendment several duties were introduced in our constitution. These amendments were necessary to implement due to changing nature of the country and this can be seen through the social, economical and political perspectives. Hence the Indian constitution has been amended time to time to keep up with changes happening in our country.
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.
A. True
Explanation – President cannot send money bill back to the parliament for reconsideration because it was presented in the lok sabha with his permission. Then the president becomes obliged to the legislature although he can send other bills for reconsideration. After receiving his assent the bill becomes an act.
B. True
Explanation – Only the elected members and representatives have the power to amend the constitution as the elected members in the parliament has the right to vote and decision making. The legislature needs two-third majority vote in both the houses to agree upon the amendment.
C. False
Explanation – Judiciary can perform both the function of initiating the process of constitutional amendment and also effectively changing the Constitution by interpreting it. Although judiciary cannot participate in the legislature process due to constitutional implications but suggest or initiate the idea. Many examples prove that the judiciary can also effectively interpret the constitution like the Kesavananda Bharati Case of 42nd amendment.
D. True
Explanation – It is true that parliament can amend any section of the constitution by following the constitutional and legal procedures. The legislatures can make enormous changes to Indian constitution which are subject to balance and check phenomena by the judiciary and federal polity. Parliament members have the right to propose, pass or change any new amendment to an existing law.
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
A. The Voters are not involved in the amendment process of the Constitution.
B. President of India is involved as without his assent the amendment cannot be changed into a bill. After the bill has been ratified by both the two houses then it proceeds for the president’s signature dissimilar other bills, although president cannot send the amendment bill back for reconsideration to the houses.
C. For half of the State Legislatures voting in the favour of the amendment bill before it becomes an act is important as few articles of the constitution or distribution of powers between centre and the state, it becomes important to consult the state at the same time.
D. Parliament includes both the lower and the upper House which must pass the amendment bill. The amendment bill will only be passed if half strength of both separate houses is in favour of the bill to pass. The people who support the bill must represent two-third voters in both the houses.
E. Governors have no important role in the amendment of the constitution except those amendment bills that have to be passed by half of the states. In that case Governors puts their signatures on the bill passed by the State Legislature.
F. The judiciary (Supreme Court) specified and interpreted various provisions that concerns different rights. Judiciary helps in balancing the spirit and matter of the constitution.
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.
The 42nd amendment was one of the most controversial amendments following were the reasons for this controversy:
A. It was made during emergency and the declaration of that emergency was itself controversial.
D. It contained provisions which were controversial.
It was a clear attempt to overrule the ruling of the Supreme Court given in the Kesavananda Bharati case in 1973. Even after the duration of Lok Sabha were extended from five to six years, the 42nd amendment put restrictions on the power of judicial review of the courts in India. This amendment made several changes to the Preamble, to the Seventh Schedule and to 53 articles of the Indian Constitution which brought their own implications in the working and environment of the government
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.
Legislature cannot be entrusted to protect the rights of the citizens is not a reasonable explanation of the conflict between the legislature and the judiciary over different amendments because Legislature is that organ of the government which controls it and makes laws, and no one can obstruct with its authority to complete its task. The role of the judiciary is to resolve disputes and interpret the constitution and pass required order to do complete justice. Legislature is the most important authority which makes laws for any country.
The conflict between the judiciary and parliament is constant due to their power enhancement over the time and disagreements on several amendments and cases. In India it happened a lot where the legislature or the executive failed to fulfil their constitutional duties and then judiciary had to interfere to safeguard the constitutional provisions in public interest.
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.
A. Incorrect statement.
Correct – there is no specification about the basic tenets in the Indian constitution, no basic structure of the tenets are specified. This theory is presented by the judiciary which looks and supervise the spirit. The basic structure theory is the creation of the Supreme Court.
B. Correct statement.
C. Incorrect statement.
Correct – Judiciary provides us with various interpretations of the basic structure of the Indian constitution time to time, though they did not define the basic structure of the constitution.
D. Correct statement.
E. Correct statement.
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.
There are following conclusions that I would draw and that are:-
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.
I choose the following options to draw my conclusion because these options perfectly fit at time of amendments in the time frame of 2000-2003. The era of coalition government emerged. It was the time when congress was in power under the leadership of Dr. Manmohan Signh. Congress won from clear majority hence no real differences among the parties. With consensus in the parliament the amendments were passed with two-third majority agreement. There were certain amount of public favour in certain rules.
Explain the reason for requiring special majority for amending the Constitution.
There is an important reason for requiring a special majority for amending the constitution to ensure that people are participating, debating on the bill by following the process properly. It also ensures that parties do not pass the amendment illogically and the proposed amendment gains the support of majority from the total strength of both the houses in the parliament. This special majority is required so that the opposition parties are taken into confidence and also this special majority is seen as an inclination towards creating broad support among parliament members on amendment procedure. To amend the bill it is really important to have majority. Those voting in favour of the bill should form at least half of the total strength of that House. Those members who are actually taking part in the voting process for amending the bill must constitute two-third of its supporters. Articles related to power distribution between the centre or the state or articles that are related to representation or with federal structure and fundamental right all these article amendments in a manner which ensures proper involvement and consultation of the state. The constitution has ensured this by providing the legislatures with half of the States to pass an amendment bill. Thus, through broad consensus the Constitution of India can be amended with special majority in decision making.
Many amendments to the Constitution of India have been made due to different interpretations upheld by the Judiciary and the Parliament. Explain with examples.
It is true that many amendments to the Constitution of India have been made due to different interpretations upheld by the Judiciary and the Parliament. As we know that the judiciary interprets and applies the law in the name of the state. There are any examples which prove this point. The First Amendment Act of 1951 brought many changes in the Constitution due to certain flaws that were found in the workings of the Constitution and which had to be remedied.
The Parliament’s authority to amend the Constitution has got some explicit limits which mention that no amendment can violate the basic structure of the Constitution. When there is a clash between the judiciary and the government then the Parliament had to add an amendment. Many times the Parliament has agreed with the judicial interpretation and wanted to amend the Constitution to overcome the ruling decision of the judiciary.
For example in the Kesavananda Bharati Case, in which the supreme court declared the level of which parliament could stand firm on property rights in the pursuit of land reforms, this led to the establishment of the doctrine of ‘Basic Structure of The Constitution’ which then limited the parliament power with regard to the constitutional amendment under article 368 of the Indian constitution.
Also, we see in the Golaknath case of 1967 in which the parliament could not restrain any fundamental rights in the constitution was abrogate by then government in 1971 by introducing the 24th amendment.
There are many more examples which support our statement. The constitution of India is flexible which means it is updated and not rigid. There are many amendments which were brought into the constitution due to different interpretations upheld by the Judiciary and the Parliament. The constitutional amendments of 43rd and 44th rejected most of the changes that were affected by the 38th, 39th and 42nd amendments. The constitutional balance was restored by these amendments in our constitution.
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.
If amending power is with the elected representatives, judiciary should not have the power to decide the validity of amendments, I completely disagree with this statement. Judiciary is an important branch of the government which upholds peace, order and good governance. Citizens of any county depend upon the judiciary to sustain their rights and interpret laws.
The judiciary is authorised in the constitutional interpretation. Judiciary is involved in active interpreting of the provisions of the constitution while announcing it judgement, this keeps the process abreast. This power of judiciary keeps a check on the unsuitable and arbitrary use of the amendments by any political party and also defends the fundamental rights of the people. In many jurisdictions the judiciary exercise its power to change laws through the process of judicial review. Ultimately, we see that it is the judiciary who brings out the final verdict in every matter.