All ten exercise questions from the NCERT textbook Indian Constitution at Work, Chapter 9 “Constitution as a Living Document”, in the English edition’s own wording, with a full answer for each, followed by the questions the chapter asks inside the text (its three “Check your progress” boxes, the Activity, and the questions in the margins). Try answering them yourself first, then check.
1 Choosing the Correct Statement
Q. 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(b) A document written at one point of time becomes outdated after some time.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.
Answer: (a) is correct. Amendment is needed precisely because circumstances change over time, and the Constitution must adapt to these new circumstances. (b) is incorrect, because a constitution’s basic framework and spirit do not become outdated, only some provisions need change. (c) is incorrect, the Constitution is not rewritten every time a new generation’s preferences change, rather the existing Constitution is amended as needed. (d) is incorrect, the Constitution is not a reflection of any one government’s political philosophy, it is a durable framework that works even for governments of differing ideologies.
2 True or False
Q. Write True/False against the following statements.
(a) The President cannot send back an amendment bill for reconsideration of Parliament.
(b) Elected representatives alone have the power to amend the Constitution.
(c) The Judiciary cannot initiate the process of constitutional amendment but can effectively change the Constitution by interpreting it differently.
(d) Parliament can amend any section of the Constitution.
Answer:
(a) True. In the case of an amendment bill, the President does not have the power to send it back for reconsideration.
(b) True. The final say on amendments rests only with the people’s elected representatives, this is the principle of parliamentary sovereignty.
(c) True. The Judiciary cannot formally propose an amendment, but through its interpretations, such as the basic structure doctrine, it has effectively changed the Constitution to a great extent.
(d) False. Parliament cannot amend every part of the Constitution, it cannot make any amendment that violates the basic structure.
3 Who Plays a Role in the Amendment Process
Q. 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
Answer:
(d) Parliament’s role is the most central, all amendments are initiated only in Parliament, and passed by special majority.
(c) State Legislatures play a role in amending provisions tied to the federal structure or representation, ratification by half the State legislatures with simple majority is required.
(b) The President gives assent to an amendment bill, but cannot send it back for reconsideration, so his role is limited.
(f) The Judiciary cannot formally propose an amendment, but through the basic structure doctrine it decides whether an amendment is valid.
(a) Voters and (e) Governors have no direct role, there is no referendum provision for voters in India’s amendment process, and Governors have no direct constitutional connection to the amendment process.
4 The 42nd Amendment: Reasons for Controversy
Q. 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.
Answer: (a) and (d) are the real reasons, (b) and (c) are not.
(a) is correct, the 42nd amendment was made against the backdrop of the Emergency declared in June 1975, and the declaration of that Emergency was itself controversial.
(d) is correct, this amendment extended the Lok Sabha’s term, restricted the Judiciary’s review powers, and changed core parts like the Preamble, these provisions were controversial in themselves.
(b) is not a correct reason, the 42nd amendment, like all others, was passed with special majority, its controversy had nothing to do with a lack of special majority.
(c) is not a correct reason. The 42nd amendment did change the Seventh Schedule, and an amendment touching the Seventh Schedule falls in the class that must additionally be ratified by the legislatures of half the States, so it cannot be said that ratification had no place here. The amendment was in fact passed by following the procedure the Constitution lays down. The procedure was simply not what made this amendment controversial: the controversy was about the Emergency backdrop in which it was made and about the substance of its provisions.
5 The Wrong Explanation of the Legislature-Judiciary Conflict
Q. 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.
Answer: (d) is not a reasonable explanation. “Legislature cannot be entrusted to protect the rights of citizens” is an extreme statement, it completely dismisses the legislature’s role, whereas the real relationship is that the legislature and the judiciary together, in balance, protect citizens’ rights. (a), (b), (c) and (e) all reasonably explain the conflict: multiple interpretations of the Constitution are possible, debate and disagreement are a natural part of democracy, certain provisions have been given extra protection through special majority, and the Judiciary only decides constitutionality, it does not settle political debates about desirability.
6 The Basic Structure Doctrine: Correct or Incorrect Statements
Q. 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.
Answer:
(b), (d) and (e) are correct. The legislature can amend all parts of the Constitution except the basic structure (b); this theory was first expressed in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) (d); it has increased the Judiciary’s powers and has been accepted by the government and political parties (e).
(a) is incorrect, corrected version: the Constitution does NOT specify the basic tenets anywhere, the basic structure doctrine is nowhere written in the Constitution’s text, it emerged entirely from judicial interpretation.
(c) is incorrect, corrected version: the Judiciary has clarified certain elements of the basic structure from case to case over time, but it has not drawn up any fixed, complete, final list of exactly what is and is not part of the basic structure.
7 A Conclusion From the 2000-2003 Amendments
Q. 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 public 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.
Answer: (e) is the most sound conclusion. The 2001-2003 period was one of coalition politics and bitter rivalry between the BJP and its opponents, yet ten amendments were made during this time, so it is reasonable to conclude that these amendments were not controversial and parties had already reached agreement on these subjects.
(b) is incorrect, this was a period of coalition politics, no single political party had a strong majority, yet amendments still happened, this itself shows that amendments do not depend merely on one party’s majority.
(d) is incorrect, there were real and bitter differences between parties in this period (such as the sharp BJP-versus-rivals rivalry), yet agreement was still reached on some subjects.
(a) and (c) are not directly supported by the book’s evidence, they remain speculation.
8 Why Special Majority Is Required
Q. Explain the reason for requiring special majority for amending the Constitution.
Answer:
1. The Constitution has a higher status than ordinary law, so it should not be changed as easily as ordinary law, otherwise it would lose its stability and dignity.
2. The special majority condition (half of the total membership plus two-thirds of those voting) ensures that an amendment has broad political consensus behind it, not just the ruling party’s support.
3. This prevents the ruling party from changing the Constitution arbitrarily even with a weak majority, it must bring at least some opposition parties along.
4. This process also preserves parliamentary sovereignty, that is, the final decision stays with elected representatives, but with enough caution that the decision is never arbitrary.
9 Amendments Born of Differing Interpretations
Q. Many amendments to the Constitution of India have been made due to different interpretations upheld by the Judiciary and Parliament. Explain with examples.
Answer:
1. When Parliament and the Judiciary clash over interpreting the Constitution, Parliament resorts to amendment to make its own interpretation authoritative, this happened especially during 1970-1975.
2. Three main examples: disagreement over the relationship between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles, disagreement over the scope of the right to private property, and disagreement over the limits of Parliament’s own power to amend the Constitution.
3. The biggest example is the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), where the Judiciary set limits on Parliament’s amending power through the basic structure doctrine, in response the 42nd amendment (1976) attempted to establish parliamentary supremacy.
4. In the Minerva Mills case (1980) the Judiciary repeated its earlier stand, showing that this was not a one-time conflict but a repeated dialogue that ultimately shaped the interpretation of the Constitution.
10 Should the Judiciary Decide the Validity of Amendments?
Q. 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.
Answer:
I do not agree with this. It is true that the power to amend rests with elected representatives, and this is also the basis of parliamentary sovereignty. But the Constitution is not merely a document of majority will, it also protects Fundamental Rights and the basic conditions of democracy. If the Judiciary had no power to examine the validity of an amendment, any ruling party could use its majority to change the Constitution’s very spirit, as nearly happened at the time of the 42nd amendment. The basic structure doctrine guards against exactly this danger: Parliament can amend, but cannot violate the basic structure. This balance is what keeps democracy safe from the arbitrary misuse of power.
11 In-text Questions (asked within the chapter)
The chapter also asks questions in its three “Check your progress” boxes, an Activity, the text itself and the margins. They are answered here in the order the book prints them.
Q. I know that the Constitution of the US came into existence more than 200 years ago and so far it has been amended only 27 times! Isn’t that very interesting?
Answer: Yes, but the comparison needs care. The US Constitution is a short document and is very hard to amend, so much of its change has come through interpretation rather than formal amendment. The Indian Constitution is far more detailed, and many of its amendments are technical (for example, extending the reservation of seats every ten years) or reflect a consensus among parties. So the number of amendments does not by itself show whether a constitution is weak or strong; what matters is the content of the changes.
Q. After reading the section above, a number of students in the class were confused. They made the following statements. What would you say about each of these statements?
(i) The Constitution is like any other law. It simply tells us what are the rules and regulations governing the government.
(ii) The Constitution is the expression of the will of the people, so there must be a provision to change the Constitution after every ten or fifteen years.
(iii) The Constitution is a statement of the philosophy of the country. It can never be changed.
(iv) The Constitution is a sacred document. Therefore any talk of changing it is against democracy.
Answer:
(i) Not correct. The makers placed the Constitution above ordinary law; it is the framework for democratic governance and reflects the dreams and aspirations of society, and it cannot be changed like an ordinary law.
(ii) Not correct. The Constitution does reflect the will of the people, but it is changed when the need arises, through amendment, not rewritten at fixed intervals; it has something contemporary and something of more durable importance.
(iii) Partly correct. It does express the philosophy of the country, but it is not unalterable: it has been amended 106 times. Only its basic structure cannot be amended.
(iv) Not correct. The Indian Constitution combines both views: it is a sacred document and also an instrument that may require changes from time to time. Changing it through elected representatives with a special majority is itself a democratic process.
Q. I don’t understand how a constitution can be flexible or rigid. Isn’t it the politics of that period which makes the constitution rigid or flexible?
Answer: A constitution is called flexible if it can be easily changed and rigid if it is very difficult to change. In India this is decided by the procedure written in the Constitution itself: some articles can be changed by a simple law of Parliament (flexible), most need a special majority under Article 368, and some also need ratification by half the States (rigid). Politics does affect how often amendments are made, as the chapter shows for 1974-76 and 2001-03, but the degree of rigidity or flexibility is fixed by the procedure, not by the politics of a period.
Q. What happens if some States want an amendment to the Constitution? Can’t they propose an amendment? I think this is another example of favouring the centre against the States!
Answer: States cannot initiate an amendment: all amendments are initiated only in Parliament. But this does not leave the States without a say. For amendments that touch the distribution of powers between the States and the central government, or representation, the legislatures of half the States must pass the amendment before it comes into effect. So the procedure gives the States participation and protects federalism, even though the power to propose lies with Parliament.
Q. Imagine that 400 members of Lok Sabha have voted on an amendment bill. How many members should support the bill to get the bill passed?
Answer: At least 273. An amendment bill needs two conditions together: (1) those voting in favour must be at least half of the total strength of the House: half of 545 rounded up is 273; (2) they must also be two-thirds of those voting: two-thirds of 400 is about 267. The bill must satisfy both, so the higher figure, 273, is needed.
Q. I am fed up with this business of special majority. It forces you to make difficult calculations all the time. Is it politics or maths?
Answer: It is politics, using arithmetic as a safeguard. The special majority ensures that an amendment has broad support among parties and parliamentarians: a ruling party with a thin majority can pass ordinary laws, but must take at least some opposition parties into confidence to amend the Constitution. As Dr. Ambedkar said, if those dissatisfied cannot obtain even a two-thirds majority, their dissatisfaction cannot be deemed to be shared by the general public.
Q. For making the following amendments to the Constitution of India, what conditions need to be fulfilled? Place a tick mark in the chart wherever applicable (Special majority / Ratification by States): Citizenship clause; Right to freedom of religion; Changes in the Union List; Changes in State boundaries; Provision regarding Election Commission.
Answer:
Citizenship clause: special majority (no ratification by States).
Right to freedom of religion: special majority (no ratification by States).
Changes in the Union List: special majority and ratification by States, because it concerns the distribution of powers between the States and the Centre.
Changes in State boundaries: neither; under Article 3 Parliament can do this “by law”, that is, by a simple majority like an ordinary law.
Provision regarding Election Commission: special majority (no ratification by States).
Q. Why was our Constitution amended so many times? Is there something wrong with our society or with the Constitution?
Answer: Neither. The chapter shows that the amendments fall into three groups: (1) technical or administrative changes, such as raising the retirement age of High Court judges from 60 to 62 (15th amendment) or extending reserved seats every ten years; (2) amendments arising from different interpretations of the Constitution by the judiciary and Parliament, mostly in 1970-75; and (3) amendments made through political consensus, such as the anti-defection law (52nd), lowering the voting age from 21 to 18 (61st), and the 73rd and 74th amendments. Barring the first decade, every decade saw amendments whatever party was in power, which shows they were needed to keep the Constitution in step with a changing society.
Q. I am still confused. If there is a written constitution, where is the scope for different interpretations? Or do people read in the constitution what they want to be there?
Answer: A written text still has to be applied to new situations, and words like “right to property” or “the power to amend” can be read in more than one way. It is part of democratic politics that different institutions interpret the Constitution, and especially the scope of their own powers, differently. In 1970-75 the judiciary and Parliament differed over the relationship between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles, the scope of the right to private property, and Parliament’s power to amend; Parliament then amended the Constitution to make its interpretation authoritative. Interpretation is a reasoned reading of the text and its spirit, not reading in whatever one wants.
Q. So, it is all about politics! Didn’t I say that this entire thing about constitutions and amendments is linked to politics rather than law?
Answer: Partly true. The controversial 38th, 39th and 42nd amendments were made during the Emergency declared in June 1975, when many opposition MPs were in jail, and the new government elected in 1977 cancelled most of their changes through the 43rd and 44th amendments; that is clearly linked to politics. But law also shaped the outcome: the amendments had to follow the procedure of Article 368, and the judiciary held that no amendment can violate the basic structure. Politics and law work together.
Q. Find out the amendments about the right to education (RTE) and the Goods and Services Tax (GST). What do you think is the importance of these amendments?
Answer: RTE: the 86th Amendment Act (2002) inserted Article 21A, making free and compulsory education for all children of 6 to 14 years a Fundamental Right; it also added a matching Fundamental Duty of parents. Its importance: education became a right that citizens can claim, a step towards equality of opportunity. GST: the 101st Amendment Act (2016) enabled a single Goods and Services Tax in place of many central and State indirect taxes, and created the GST Council of the Union and the States. Its importance: one national market, and a new form of cooperative federalism, since it needed ratification by the States.
Q. Ah! So it is the judiciary that has the final word! Is this also judicial activism?
Answer: In one sense, yes: the basic structure theory is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution; it emerged from judicial interpretation in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), and it places the judiciary as the final authority in deciding whether an amendment violates the basic structure. But the court did this to protect the spirit of the Constitution, not to take over Parliament’s role: Parliament can still amend any part of the Constitution within this limit, and all institutions have come to accept the theory.
Q. It’s all wrong. First they say that an amendment requires consensus and now we see that Judges change the whole meaning of the Constitution.
Answer: The criticism has a point: rulings on the fifty per cent limit on reservations, the creamy layer, and the right to education, life and liberty have amended the Constitution informally without any formal amendment. But such rulings work within the Constitution and are accepted by the other institutions; the judiciary interprets provisions, it does not write new ones on its own. This interplay of formal amendment and judicial interpretation is exactly what makes the Constitution a living document.
Q. State whether the following statements are correct or not:
(i) After the Basic Structure ruling, Parliament does not have power to amend the Constitution.
(ii) The Supreme Court has given a clear list of the basic features of our Constitution, which cannot be amended.
(iii) Judiciary has the power to decide whether an amendment violates basic structure or not.
(iv) The Kesavananda Bharati ruling has set clear limits on Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.
Answer:
(i) Not correct. The ruling allows Parliament to amend any and all parts of the Constitution, within the limit that no amendment may violate the basic structure.
(ii) Not correct. There is no fixed list; the Court has, case by case since 1973, given instances of what constitutes the basic structure.
(iii) Correct. The ruling places the judiciary as the final authority in deciding whether an amendment violates the basic structure.
(iv) Correct. It set specific limits on Parliament’s amending power: no amendment can violate the basic structure.
Q. I get it! It’s like a see-saw. Or is it a game of tug of war?
Answer: More like a see-saw that must stay balanced. Parliament represents the people and is expected to have an upper hand, but it must work within the framework of the Constitution, which gives powers to the other organs too. Democracy is about votes and representation, and also about the rule of law and checks on arbitrary power; all institutions must be responsible to the people and maintain a balance with each other. It becomes a tug of war only when one side tries to dominate, as in the clash of the 1970s.
Q. Of course, if there are no rights and no elections, the Constitution won’t make much sense. And if there is no well being, elections and rights won’t make sense. Is this how we understand the ‘spirit’ of our Constitution?
Answer: Yes. The Court in the Kesavananda case turned to the spirit of the Constitution rather than its letter: the basic structure is that without which the Constitution cannot be imagined at all, such as rights and elections. The spirit also includes the common vision shared at its making: dignity and freedom of the individual, social and economic equality, the well-being of all people, and unity based on national integrity. Rights, elections and well-being together make up that spirit.
Q. Let us not ignore that there are many instances of political immaturity as well. Does one have to list these?
Answer: There have been such instances, and the chapter itself mentions some: the 38th, 39th and 42nd amendments made during the Emergency while many opposition MPs were in jail, and the attempts to get the Kesavananda ruling reconsidered. One need not list every lapse; the point is that, in spite of them, political parties and leaders have on the whole shown maturity, accepting the basic structure, restoring the constitutional balance through the 43rd and 44th amendments, and reaching consensus on many later amendments.