Question 1

Consider the following statements regarding the nature of the Indian Constitution's amendment process:
1. The Indian Constitution is described as a synthesis of flexibility and rigidity.
2. The procedure for amendment is identical to that of the United States Constitution.
3. The British Constitution is considered more rigid than the Indian Constitution.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Accepted Answer

1 only. The text explicitly states that the Indian Constitution is a 'synthesis of both' flexibility and rigidity. It contrasts this with the procedure in Britain which is 'easy' (flexible) and the USA which is 'difficult' (rigid). Therefore, the procedure is not identical to the USA's, and the British constitution is more flexible, not more rigid, than India's.

Question 2

Statement I: Article 368 of the Constitution of India grants Parliament the constituent power to amend any provision of the Constitution by way of addition, variation or repeal.
Statement II: The Supreme Court, in the Kesavananda Bharati case, ruled that Parliament cannot amend those provisions which form the 'basic structure' of the Constitution.

Accepted Answer

Both Statement I and Statement II are correct and Statement II is the correct explanation for Statement I.. Statement I accurately describes the constituent power of Parliament as laid down in Article 368. Statement II correctly states the fundamental limitation placed on this power by the Supreme Court. This limitation, the 'basic structure' doctrine, is the primary judicial check on the amending power, thus serving as a direct explanation and qualification of the power mentioned in Statement I.

Question 3

With reference to the amendment of the Indian Constitution, consider the following statements:
1. The provisions for constitutional amendment are detailed in Part XX of the Constitution.
2. The Parliament's power to amend includes the power to repeal existing provisions.
3. The 'basic structure' doctrine was introduced by the Supreme Court in 1973.
Which of the statements given above is/are NOT correct?

Accepted Answer

None. All the statements are correct based on the provided text. Article 368 is in Part XX. The power to amend includes 'addition, variation or repeal'. The 'basic structure' doctrine was ruled by the Supreme Court in the Kesavananda Bharati case in 1973. Since all statements are correct, the answer is 'None'.

Question 4

Consider the following items related to the amendment of the Constitution of India:
1. The power of Parliament to amend the Constitution is absolute and unlimited.
2. The 'basic structure' doctrine was established by Parliament through a constitutional amendment.
3. The Indian Constitution's amendment procedure is considered as easy as in Britain.
4. The power to amend the constitution is referred to as the constituent power of the Parliament.
How many of the above statements are correct?

Accepted Answer

Only one. Statement 1 is incorrect; the power is limited by the 'basic structure' doctrine. Statement 2 is incorrect; the doctrine was established by a Supreme Court ruling, not a parliamentary amendment. Statement 3 is incorrect; the procedure is a synthesis of rigid and flexible, and not as easy as in Britain. Statement 4 is correct; the text mentions Parliament's 'constituent power' to amend. Therefore, only one statement is correct.

Question 5

Consider the following pairs:
1. Article 368 : Deals with Parliament's constituent power to amend.
2. Kesavananda Bharati case : Established the 'basic structure' doctrine.
3. British Constitution : Characterized by a difficult amendment procedure.
How many of the pairs given above are correctly matched?

Accepted Answer

Only two pairs. Pair 1 is correctly matched as Article 368 deals with Parliament's power to amend. Pair 2 is correctly matched as the Kesavananda Bharati case is the source of the 'basic structure' doctrine. Pair 3 is incorrectly matched; the text describes the amendment procedure in Britain as 'easy' (flexible), not difficult.

Question 6

Consider the following statements regarding the procedure for constitutional amendment under Article 368:
1. A constitutional amendment bill requires the prior permission of the President for its introduction.
2. In case of a disagreement between the two Houses on the bill, a joint sitting can be convened.
3. The President can return the bill for reconsideration by the Parliament.
4. The bill can be introduced by a private member.
How many of the statements given above are correct?

Accepted Answer

Only one. Only the fourth statement is correct. A constitutional amendment bill can be introduced by a minister or a private member. It does not require the President's prior permission, there is no provision for a joint sitting in case of disagreement, and the President must give assent and cannot return the bill for reconsideration.

Question 7

With reference to the amendment of the Constitution,
which of the statements given above is/are NOT correct?
1. The bill must be passed in each House by a majority of two-thirds of the total membership of the House.
2. If a bill amends federal provisions, it must be ratified by the legislatures of all the states.
3. State legislatures can initiate a constitutional amendment bill.

Accepted Answer

1, 2 and 3. All three statements are incorrect. The special majority required is a majority of the total membership of the House AND a majority of two-thirds of the members present and voting. Ratification is required only by half of the states, not all. An amendment can only be initiated in either House of Parliament, not in state legislatures.

Question 8

Statement I: The President of India must give his assent to a Constitutional Amendment Bill passed by the Parliament.
Statement II: The President of India does not have the power to withhold assent or return a Constitutional Amendment Bill for the reconsideration of the Parliament.

Accepted Answer

Both Statement I and Statement II are correct and Statement II is the correct explanation for Statement I.. Both statements are correct. The President's assent to a Constitutional Amendment Bill is mandatory. Statement II provides the precise reason for this: the constitutional procedure under Article 368 explicitly removes the President's power to either withhold assent or return the bill for reconsideration, making the assent obligatory.

Question 9

Consider the following voting requirements mentioned in the procedure for constitutional amendment under Article 368:
1. Special majority in each House of Parliament.
2. Simple majority in state legislatures for ratification.
3. Majority of the total membership of the House.
4. Majority of two-thirds of the members of the House present and voting.
How many of the above are part of the amendment procedure?

Accepted Answer

All four. All four are part of the procedure. 'Special majority' (item 1) is defined as a combination of a 'majority of the total membership of the House' (item 3) and a 'majority of two-thirds of the members of the House present and voting' (item 4). 'Simple majority' (item 2) is the requirement for ratification by state legislatures when amending federal provisions.

Question 10

Consider the following statements regarding the procedure for amending the Constitution of India:
1. An amendment to the Constitution can be initiated in either a State Legislature or the Parliament.
2. A constitutional amendment bill must be passed by each House of Parliament separately.
3. Ratification by state legislatures is required for all types of constitutional amendments.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Accepted Answer

2 only. Only statement 2 is correct. An amendment can only be initiated in Parliament. Each House must pass the bill separately, as there is no provision for a joint sitting. Ratification by state legislatures is necessary only when the bill seeks to amend the federal provisions of the Constitution, not for all amendments.

Question 11

Consider the following pairs regarding the amendment of the Indian Constitution:
Provision : Type of Majority Required
1. Fundamental Rights : Special Majority
2. Representation of states in Parliament : Simple Majority
3. Abolition of legislative councils in states : Special Majority + State Ratification
4. Citizenship–acquisition and termination : Simple Majority
How many of the pairs given above are correctly matched?

Accepted Answer

Only two pairs. Pair 1 is correct as Fundamental Rights are amended by a special majority. Pair 4 is correct as citizenship provisions are amended by a simple majority. Pair 2 is incorrect; representation of states in Parliament is a federal provision requiring a special majority plus state ratification. Pair 3 is incorrect; abolition or creation of legislative councils requires only a simple majority of Parliament.

Question 12

Consider the following statements:
Statement I: An amendment of the Constitution under Article 368 requiring a special majority needs the support of a majority of the total membership of each House and a majority of two-thirds of the members of each House present and voting.
Statement II: The expression 'total membership', for the purpose of a special majority, means the total number of members comprising the House, excluding any seats that are vacant or members who are absent.

Accepted Answer

Statement I is correct but Statement II is incorrect. Statement I correctly defines the special majority required under Article 368. Statement II is incorrect because the expression 'total membership' refers to the total number of members comprising the House, irrespective of whether there are vacancies or absentees. It does not exclude them.

Question 13

Consider the following provisions of the Constitution:
1. Salaries and allowances of the members of Parliament
2. Directive Principles of State Policy
3. Administration of tribal areas (Sixth Schedule)
4. Delimitation of constituencies
How many of the above provisions can be amended by a simple majority of the Parliament, outside the scope of Article 368?

Accepted Answer

Only three. Provisions related to salaries of MPs, the Sixth Schedule (administration of tribal areas), and delimitation of constituencies can all be amended by a simple majority. The Directive Principles of State Policy, however, require a special majority of the Parliament for amendment under Article 368.

Question 14

With reference to the amendment of federal provisions of the Constitution, consider the following statements:
1. An amendment bill affecting the federal structure requires the consent of all the state legislatures for its passage.
2. The Constitution specifies a mandatory time limit of six months within which states must give their consent to the bill.
3. Any amendment to the lists in the Seventh Schedule requires ratification by the state legislatures.
Which of the statements given above is/are NOT correct?

Accepted Answer

1 and 2 only. Statement 1 is incorrect; consent is required from only half of the state legislatures, not all. Statement 2 is incorrect; there is no time limit prescribed for the states to give their consent. Statement 3 is correct; the Seventh Schedule, which deals with the distribution of legislative powers, is a federal provision requiring state ratification for any amendment.

Question 15

With reference to the procedure for the amendment of the Constitution, consider the following statements:
1. The formation of new states and alteration of their boundaries is not deemed to be an amendment of the Constitution for the purposes of Article 368.
2. The consent of state legislatures for amending federal provisions must be passed by a special majority in their respective houses.
3. An amendment to Article 368 itself, which details the amendment procedure, requires ratification by half of the state legislatures.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Accepted Answer

1 and 3 only. Statement 1 is correct; formation of new states is done by a simple majority and is outside the purview of Article 368. Statement 2 is incorrect; state legislatures need to pass their consent only by a simple majority. Statement 3 is correct; the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution and its procedure (Article 368 itself) is a provision that requires a special majority plus ratification by half of the states.

Question 16

With reference to the power to amend the Constitution of India, consider the following statements:
1. State legislatures, similar to the US system, can initiate proposals for amending the Constitution.
2. The Parliament is constitutionally bound to approve a resolution passed by a state legislature for the creation or abolition of its legislative council.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Accepted Answer

Neither 1 nor 2. Statement 1 is incorrect. Unlike in the USA, the power to initiate a constitutional amendment in India lies exclusively with the Parliament. State legislatures cannot initiate any such bill. Statement 2 is incorrect. The only exception where states can make a proposal is by passing a resolution for the creation or abolition of legislative councils. However, the Parliament is not bound by this resolution and can choose to approve, disapprove, or take no action on it.

Question 17

Consider the following statements regarding the procedure for passing a constitutional amendment bill:
1. In case of a deadlock between the two Houses of Parliament over a constitutional amendment bill, a joint sitting can be convened.
2. The Constitution specifies a fixed time frame within which state legislatures must ratify or reject an amendment submitted to them.
3. The process of amending the Constitution is fundamentally different from a regular legislative process.
Which of the statements given above is/are NOT correct?

Accepted Answer

1, 2 and 3. All three statements are incorrect. Statement 1 is incorrect because there is no provision for a joint sitting to resolve a deadlock on a constitutional amendment bill. Statement 2 is incorrect as the Constitution does not prescribe any time frame for state legislatures to act on an amendment bill. Statement 3 is incorrect because the process is described as being similar to a legislative process, with the main exception being the requirement of a special majority.

Question 18

Consider the following criticisms levelled against the amendment procedure of the Indian Constitution:
1. The absence of a provision for a special body like a Constitutional Convention.
2. The requirement for ratification by three-fourths of the states for federal amendments.
3. The lack of a prescribed time limit for states to ratify amendments.
4. The provision for a joint sitting of Parliament in case of a deadlock.
How many of the above criticisms are valid as per the constitutional framework?

Accepted Answer

Only two. Criticisms 1 and 3 are valid. The Indian Constitution does not provide for a special body like a Constitutional Convention for amendments, and it is silent on the time frame for state ratification. Criticism 2 is invalid; the requirement is for ratification by only half of the states, not three-fourths. Criticism 4 is also invalid; the lack of a provision for a joint sitting is itself a criticism, not a feature of the procedure.

Question 19

Statement I: The Indian Constitution is described as striking a good balance between flexibility and rigidity in its amendment procedure.
Statement II: A major part of the Constitution can be amended by the Parliament alone through a special majority, while only a few provisions require ratification by the state legislatures.

Accepted Answer

Both Statement I and Statement II are correct and Statement II is the correct explanation for Statement I.. Statement I is a correct observation, famously made by K.C. Wheare, reflecting the nature of India's amendment process. Statement II is also correct, as it accurately describes the different methods of amendment. Statement II provides a strong reason for the balance mentioned in Statement I: the use of special majority for many articles provides rigidity, while the ability of Parliament to amend a major portion without state consent (and some parts by simple majority) provides flexibility. Thus, Statement II is a correct explanation for Statement I.

Question 20

Consider the following observations made by constitutional experts and leaders:
1. K.C. Wheare: Admired the variety in the amending process as 'wise but rarely found'.
2. Jawaharlal Nehru: Argued for flexibility, stating that making a Constitution rigid and permanent stops a nation's growth.
3. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar: Noted that the Constitution avoids the extreme conditions for amendment found in countries like America or Australia.
4. Granville Austin: Criticised the amending process as overly complicated and poorly conceived.
How many of the above statements are correctly attributed?

Accepted Answer

Only three. Statements 1, 2, and 3 are correctly attributed. K.C. Wheare praised the variety, Nehru advocated for flexibility, and Ambedkar highlighted its facile nature compared to other countries. Statement 4 is incorrect; Granville Austin praised the amending process, calling it 'one of the most ably conceived aspects of the Constitution' and described it as 'merely diverse', not complicated.

Question 21

With reference to the evolution of the doctrine of basic structure, consider the following pairs:
1. Shankari Prasad case : Parliament can amend Fundamental Rights.
2. Golak Nath case : Fundamental Rights are given a transcendental and immutable position.
3. Minerva Mills case : Judicial review is a basic feature of the Constitution.
4. Waman Rao case : The doctrine of basic structure applies to all constitutional amendments enacted since 1950.
How many of the pairs given above are correctly matched?

Accepted Answer

Only three pairs. The Shankari Prasad case (1951) affirmed Parliament's power to amend Fundamental Rights. The Golak Nath case (1967) held that Fundamental Rights were immutable. The Minerva Mills case (1980) established judicial review as a basic feature. However, the Waman Rao case (1981) clarified that the basic structure doctrine would apply only to constitutional amendments enacted after April 24, 1973, not to all amendments since 1950. Therefore, the first three pairs are correctly matched, but the fourth is not.

Question 22

Consider the following statements:
Statement I: The Parliament enacted the 24th Amendment Act (1971) to restore its amending power concerning Fundamental Rights.
Statement II: The Supreme Court in the Golak Nath case (1967) had ruled that a constitutional amendment act was a 'law' under Article 13 and could be held void for violating Fundamental Rights.
Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above statements?

Accepted Answer

Both Statement I and Statement II are correct and Statement II is the correct explanation for Statement I.. The Supreme Court's judgment in the Golak Nath case (1967) curtailed Parliament's power to amend Fundamental Rights by defining a constitutional amendment as 'law' under Article 13. In direct reaction to this, Parliament passed the 24th Amendment Act (1971) to explicitly declare that it had the power to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, and that such an act would not be considered 'law' under Article 13. Thus, Statement II provides the direct cause for the action described in Statement I.

Question 23

Consider the following statements regarding the Supreme Court's judgment in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973):
1. It overruled the judgment given in the Golak Nath case.
2. It invalidated the 24th Amendment Act (1971).
3. It laid down that Parliament cannot abridge or take away any of the Fundamental Rights.
Which of the statements given above is/are NOT correct?

Accepted Answer

2 and 3 only. The Kesavananda Bharati judgment overruled the Golak Nath case verdict. However, it upheld the validity of the 24th Amendment Act (1971), thereby affirming Parliament's power to amend Fundamental Rights. The key limitation it introduced was the doctrine of 'basic structure', stating that Parliament cannot amend the basic features of the Constitution. It did not impose a blanket ban on amending all Fundamental Rights. Therefore, statements 2 and 3 are incorrect.

Question 24

Consider the following judicial and legislative actions:
1. Invalidation of a provision of the 39th Amendment Act in the Indira Nehru Gandhi case.
2. Invalidation of a provision of the 42nd Amendment Act in the Minerva Mills case.
3. Clarification of the prospective application of the doctrine from April 24, 1973, in the Waman Rao case.
4. The ruling that Parliament cannot abridge or take away any Fundamental Rights in the Golak Nath case.
How many of the above are instances where the Supreme Court applied or clarified the 'basic structure' doctrine after its initial pronouncement in 1973?

Accepted Answer

Only three. The 'basic structure' doctrine was laid down in the Kesavananda Bharati case on April 24, 1973. The Indira Nehru Gandhi case (1975), Minerva Mills case (1980), and Waman Rao case (1981) are all subsequent instances where the doctrine was applied or clarified. The Golak Nath case (1967) predates the doctrine and therefore cannot be an instance of its application. Thus, three of the listed actions are correct.

Question 25

With reference to the constituent power of the Parliament, consider the following statements:
1. In the Shankari Prasad case, the Supreme Court held that the word 'law' in Article 13 does not include constitutional amendment acts.
2. The 42nd Amendment Act, 1976, declared that there is no limitation on the constituent power of Parliament.
3. In the Minerva Mills case, the Supreme Court held that a limited amending power is a basic feature of the Constitution.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Accepted Answer

1, 2 and 3. All three statements are correct. The Shankari Prasad case (1951) distinguished ordinary law from constituent law. The 42nd Amendment (1976) was an attempt by Parliament to assert unlimited amending power. The Minerva Mills case (1980) struck down this attempt, ruling that Parliament's amending power is limited, and this limitation is itself a 'basic feature' of the Constitution that cannot be removed.

Question 26

Consider the following pairs:
Landmark Case : Element of Basic Structure Established
1. Minerva Mills Case (1980) : Harmony and balance between fundamental rights and directive principles
2. S.R. Bommai Case (1994) : Federalism
3. Indra Sawhney Case (1992) : Free and fair elections
4. I.R. Coelho Case (2007) : Powers of High Courts under Articles 226 and 227
How many of the pairs given above are correctly matched?

Accepted Answer

Only two pairs. Pair 1 is correct; the Minerva Mills Case established the harmony and balance between FRs and DPSPs as part of the basic structure. Pair 2 is correct; the S.R. Bommai Case affirmed federalism as a basic feature. Pair 3 is incorrect; the Indra Sawhney Case established 'Rule of law', while the Kihoto Hollohon Case dealt with 'Free and fair elections'. Pair 4 is incorrect; the I.R. Coelho Case dealt with 'Rule of law' and 'Separation of powers', among others, while the L. Chandra Kumar Case established the powers of High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 as a basic feature.

Question 27

Consider the following statements:
Statement I: The Supreme Court has established that the Parliament's power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 is not absolute.
Statement II: The doctrine of 'basic structure' acts as a substantive limit on the Parliament's amending power, preventing it from destroying the Constitution's fundamental tenets.

Accepted Answer

Both Statement I and Statement II are correct and Statement II is the correct explanation for Statement I.. Statement I is correct as the doctrine of basic structure inherently limits Parliament's amending power. Statement II correctly explains the mechanism of this limitation; the doctrine ensures that while Parliament can amend, it cannot abrogate the core principles of the Constitution. Therefore, Statement II is the correct explanation for Statement I.

Question 28

Consider the following features of the Indian Constitution:
1. Welfare state (socio-economic justice)
2. Harmony and balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles
3. Effective access to justice
4. Powers of the High Courts under Articles 226 and 227
How many of the above have been held by the Supreme Court to be elements of the 'basic structure' of the Constitution?

Accepted Answer

All four. From the various judgements of the Supreme Court, all four listed items have emerged as elements of the basic structure of the Constitution. These include the concept of a Welfare state, the balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles, effective access to justice, and the powers of the High Courts under Articles 226 and 227.

Question 29

With reference to the elements of the Basic Structure doctrine,
which of the following was NOT established in the Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973)?

Accepted Answer

Judicial review. According to the provided table of cases, Supremacy of the Constitution, Federal character of the constitution, and the Parliamentary System were among the elements of the basic structure established in the Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973). Judicial review, while a basic feature, was explicitly mentioned as an element in the subsequent Indira Nehru Gandhi Case (1975) and Minerva Mills Case (1980).

Question 30

Consider the following statements regarding the 'basic structure' of the Constitution:
1. The power of Judicial Review was affirmed as a basic feature in the Minerva Mills Case (1980).
2. The powers of the Supreme Court under Articles 32, 136, 141 and 142 are considered part of the basic structure.
3. The Supreme Court has provided a final and exhaustive list of what constitutes the 'basic structure'.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Accepted Answer

1 and 2 only. Statement 1 is correct; the Minerva Mills Case (1980) affirmed judicial review as a basic feature. Statement 2 is also correct; the powers of the Supreme Court under these specific articles are listed as elements of the basic structure. Statement 3 is incorrect; the text explicitly states that 'the Supreme Court is yet to define or clarify as to what constitutes the basic structure of the Constitution', indicating the list is not exhaustive and the doctrine is evolutionary.

Question 31

Consider the following pairs:
Case : Year of Judgement
1. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab : 1967
2. Minerva Mills v. Union of India : 1980
3. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India : 1992
4. I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu : 2006
How many of the pairs given above are correctly matched?

Accepted Answer

Only two pairs. The correctly matched pairs are Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967) and Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980). The S.R. Bommai case was in 1994, and the I.R. Coelho case was in 2007.

Question 32

With reference to the chronological order of landmark constitutional cases, consider the following statements:
1. The Shankari Prasad v. Union of India case predates the Golak Nath v. State of Punjab case.
2. The Waman Rao v. Union of India case was decided after the Minerva Mills v. Union of India case.
3. The S.R. Bommai v. Union of India case was decided before the Indra Sawhney v. Union of India case.
Which of the statements given above is/are NOT correct?

Accepted Answer

3 only. Statement 1 is correct as Shankari Prasad (1951) was before Golak Nath (1967). Statement 2 is correct as Waman Rao (1981) was after Minerva Mills (1980). Statement 3 is incorrect as S.R. Bommai (1994) was decided after Indra Sawhney (1992). The question asks for the incorrect statement.

Question 33

Consider the following landmark cases:
1. Minerva Mills v. Union of India
2. Waman Rao v. Union of India
3. S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India
4. Kihoto Hollohon v. Zachilhu
How many of the above cases were decided in the 1980s?

Accepted Answer

Only three. The years of the judgements are: Minerva Mills (1980), Waman Rao (1981), S.P. Sampath Kumar (1987), and Kihoto Hollohon (1993). Therefore, three of the listed cases were decided in the 1980s.

Question 34

Consider the following statements regarding landmark Supreme Court judgements:
1. The judgement in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala was delivered in 1973.
2. The judgement in Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain was delivered before the Kesavananda Bharati case.
3. The judgement in I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu was delivered in the 21st century.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Accepted Answer

1 and 3 only. Statement 1 is correct (Kesavananda Bharati, 1973). Statement 2 is incorrect as the Indira Nehru Gandhi case (1975) was decided after the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973). Statement 3 is correct as the I.R. Coelho case was decided in 2007, which is in the 21st century.

Question 35

Consider the following pairs:
Case : Year of Judgement
1. Kihoto Hollohon v. Zachilhu : 1993
2. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India : 1994
3. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India : 1997
Which of the pairs given above are correctly matched?

Accepted Answer

1, 2 and 3. All three pairs are correctly matched. The years of the judgements are: Kihoto Hollohon v. Zachilhu (1993), S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994), and L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997).

Question 36

The current affairs highlight several 'Salient Features of the Indian Constitution'. Considering the evolution of the 'basic structure' doctrine as detailed in the provided static content, how many of the following features are explicitly recognized as elements of the basic structure by the Supreme Court?

1. Federal character of the Constitution
2. Single Citizenship
3. Secular character of the Constitution
4. A blend of rigidity and flexibility

Accepted Answer

Only two. Statement 1 is correct; the 'Federal character of the Constitution' was recognized as a basic feature in cases like Kesavananda Bharati (1973) and S.R. Bommai (1994). Statement 3 is correct; the 'Secular character of the Constitution' was also affirmed in the same cases. However, Statement 2, 'Single Citizenship', while a salient feature, is not listed as a basic structure element in the provided judicial pronouncements. Statement 4, 'A blend of rigidity and flexibility', is a description of the amendment process. The related basic structure element is the 'Limited power of Parliament to amend the Constitution' (established in Minerva Mills Case, 1980), which is a constraint on this flexibility, not the blend itself. Therefore, only two of the listed features are explicitly part of the basic structure doctrine.

Question 37

The Jammu & Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, which bifurcated the state into two Union Territories, has been subject to legal scrutiny. Considering the 'basic structure' doctrine, how many of the following elements, established as basic features in various Supreme Court judgments, are directly relevant to a judicial review of this Act?

1. Federal character of the Constitution (as held in *S.R. Bommai Case*)
2. Sovereign, democratic and republican nature of the Indian polity (as held in *Kesavananda Bharati Case*)
3. Powers of the High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 (as held in *L. Chandra Kumar Case*)
4. Harmony and balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles (as held in *Minerva Mills Case*)

Accepted Answer

Only three. The Jammu & Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, directly impacts several basic features. 1. 'Federal character' is relevant as a full-fledged state was converted into Union Territories, altering the federal balance. 2. The 'Sovereign, democratic and republican nature' is relevant as the move affects the democratic governance structure of the region. 3. The 'Powers of High Courts' are also relevant as the reorganisation affects the judicial structure and jurisdiction within the new UTs. However, 4. 'Harmony between FRs and DPSPs' is a more general principle and less directly implicated by the specific structural changes of the Reorganisation Act compared to the other three. Therefore, three of the statements are directly relevant.

Amendment of the Constitution & Basic Structure

Unlock All Questions