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. 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(b) A document written at one point of time becomes outdated after some time.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 (b) is incorrect, because a constitution’s basic framework and spirit do not become outdated, only some provisions need change.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.