Class | Subject | Book | Chapter | Session | Questions covered |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
XI | Political Science | Indian Constitution at Work (NCERT) | 9 – Constitution as a Living Document | 2026-27 | 10 of 10 |
Chapter at a glance
Topic | Key points |
|---|---|
Living document | The Constitution adapts to changing circumstances through amendments and judicial interpretation, yet keeps its core |
Amendment (Art 368) | Ordinary majority (some articles); special majority of Parliament (majority of total membership + two-thirds of members present and voting); special majority plus ratification by half the states (federal provisions) |
President | Cannot send back an amendment bill for reconsideration |
Types of amendments | Technical/administrative; differing interpretations; political consensus |
Controversial amendments | 38th, 39th, 42nd (1975–76, during Emergency); 44th Amendment restored balance |
Basic structure | Kesavananda Bharati (1973): Parliament cannot amend the basic structure |
Exercise Questions
Choose the correct statement from the following. A constitution needs to be amended from time to time because,
Answer
- Circumstances change and require suitable changes in the constitution.
- A document written at one point of time becomes outdated after some time.
- Every generation should have a constitution of its own liking.
- It must reflect the philosophy of the existing government.
Answer
The correct statement is: “Circumstances change and require suitable changes in the constitution.” A constitution does not become entirely outdated, should not be changed to suit each generation’s whims, and must not merely reflect the current government’s philosophy.
Circumstances change and require suitable changes in the constitution.
Write True / False against the following statements.
Answer
- The President cannot send back an amendment bill for reconsideration of Parliament.
- Elected representatives alone have the power to amend the Constitution.
- The Judiciary cannot initiate the process of constitutional amendment but can effectively change the Constitution by interpreting it differently.
- Parliament can amend any section of the Constitution.
Answer
- True (24th Amendment, 1971).
- True — only Parliament (and state legislatures in ratification) amend it; there is no referendum.
- True — through interpretation, e.g. the basic structure doctrine and the expanded meaning of Article 21.
- False — Parliament cannot amend the basic structure of the Constitution.
- True b) True c) True d) False
Which of the following are involved in the amendment of the Indian Constitution? In what way are they involved?
Answer
- Voters b. President of India c. State Legislatures d. Parliament e. Governors f. Judiciary
Answer
- Voters — not directly involved; there is no referendum. They influence amendments indirectly by electing representatives.
- President — involved: gives assent to the amendment bill (and cannot refuse or send it back).
- State legislatures — involved for amendments affecting federal provisions: ratification by at least half of the states.
- Parliament — involved: an amendment bill can be introduced only in Parliament and must be passed by each House (usually by special majority).
- Governors — not involved.
- Judiciary — indirectly involved: it can review amendments and strike down those violating the basic structure.
Parliament (passes the bill), President (assents), state legislatures (ratify federal amendments) and judiciary (reviews validity) are involved; voters (only indirectly) and Governors are not.
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?
Answer
- It was made during national emergency, and the declaration of that emergency was itself controversial.
- It was made without the support of special majority.
- It was made without ratification by State legislatures.
- It contained provisions, which were controversial.
Answer
(a) and (d). It was passed in 1976 during the Emergency, when opposition leaders were in jail, and it made sweeping changes: it tried to limit judicial review, extended the term of the Lok Sabha, gave priority to Directive Principles over Fundamental Rights and changed the Preamble. It was passed with a special majority and was ratified by the states, so (b) and (c) are incorrect.
- and (d)
Which of the following is not a reasonable explanation of the conflict between the legislature and the judiciary over different amendments?
Answer
- Different interpretations of the Constitution are possible.
- In a democracy, debates and differences are natural.
- Constitution has given higher importance to certain rules and principles and also allowed for amendment by special majority.
- Legislature cannot be entrusted to protect the rights of the citizens.
- Judiciary can only decide the constitutionality of a particular law; cannot resolve political debates about its need.
Answer
(d) is not a reasonable explanation. The legislature, as the elected body, is also a protector of citizens’ rights; the conflict arises from differences of interpretation and of roles, not because the legislature cannot be trusted.
- Legislature cannot be entrusted to protect the rights of the citizens.
Identify the correct statements about the theory of basic structure. Correct the incorrect statements.
Answer
- Constitution specifies the basic tenets.
- Legislature can amend all parts of the Constitution except the basic structure.
- Judiciary has defined which aspects of the Constitution can be termed as the basic structure and which cannot.
- This theory found its first expression in the Kesavananda Bharati case and has been discussed in subsequent judgments.
- This theory has increased the powers of the judiciary and has come to be accepted by different political parties and the government.
Answer
- Incorrect. Corrected: The Constitution does not specify the basic tenets; the judiciary has evolved the idea.
2. Correct.
- Incorrect. Corrected: The judiciary has not given a complete list; it has identified some elements (supremacy of the Constitution, democracy, secularism, federalism, separation of powers, judicial review) case by case.
4. Correct.
5. Correct.
Correct: (b), (d), (e). Corrected: (a) the Constitution does not specify the basic tenets; (c) the judiciary has not given an exhaustive list, deciding case by case.
From the information that many amendments were made during 2000-2003, which of the following conclusions would you draw?
Answer
- Judiciary did not interfere in the amendments made during this period.
- One political party had a strong majority during this period.
- There was strong pressure from the public in favour of certain amendments.
- There were no real differences among the parties during this time.
- The amendments were of a non-controversial nature and parties had an agreement on the subject of amendments.
Answer
(e) is the reasonable conclusion. During 2000–2003 a coalition government (NDA) was in power with no single party having a two-thirds majority, so amendments could pass only with consensus among parties. This shows they were largely non-controversial. (b) is wrong; (a), (c) and (d) cannot be concluded from the information.
- The amendments were non-controversial and parties agreed on them.
Explain the reason for requiring special majority for amending the Constitution.
Answer
Answer
- The Constitution is the supreme law; it should not be changed easily by a temporary or narrow majority.
- A special majority (a majority of the total membership of each House, and two-thirds of members present and voting) ensures that amendments have broad support, usually including some opposition parties.
- It protects fundamental rights, minorities and the federal structure from hasty changes.
- At the same time, it keeps the Constitution flexible enough to change when there is wide agreement.
- For federal provisions, ratification by half the states protects the interests of states.
To ensure amendments have broad consensus, protecting the supreme law, rights, minorities and federalism from narrow majorities, while still allowing change.
Many amendments to the Constitution of India have been made due to different interpretations upheld by the Judiciary and Parliament. Explain with examples.
Answer
Answer
- Right to property and land reforms: courts struck down some land reform laws as violating the right to property; Parliament responded with the 1st Amendment (1951) creating the Ninth Schedule, and later the 4th, 17th, 25th Amendments.
- Power to amend Fundamental Rights: in the Golaknath case (1967) the Supreme Court held that Parliament could not amend Fundamental Rights. Parliament passed the 24th Amendment (1971) asserting this power. In Kesavananda Bharati (1973) the court accepted it but held that the basic structure cannot be changed.
- 42nd Amendment (1976) tried to put amendments beyond judicial review; the court struck down parts of it in Minerva Mills (1980).
- Reservations: after court judgments on reservations in promotions and the 50 % ceiling, Parliament passed amendments (e.g. 77th, 81st, 82nd, 85th).
- Judicial appointments: the 99th Amendment (NJAC) was struck down in 2015.
E.g. land reforms and property right (1st, 4th, 17th, 25th Amendments), Golaknath vs the 24th Amendment and Kesavananda, Minerva Mills and the 42nd, reservations in promotions (77th, 81st, 85th), and NJAC (99th).
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
Answer
I disagree. Elected representatives have the power to amend, but this power comes from the Constitution and is therefore limited by it. Without judicial review, a temporary majority could destroy democracy, federalism, secularism or fundamental rights — as attempted during the Emergency through the 42nd Amendment. The judiciary, as the guardian of the Constitution, ensures that amendments do not violate its basic structure. This protects citizens and minorities while still allowing Parliament wide freedom to amend. Judicial review thus balances parliamentary sovereignty with constitutional supremacy.
No; amending power is limited by the Constitution, and judicial review protects its basic structure from misuse by temporary majorities.
Topic checklist
- Why the Constitution has endured; living document
- Methods of amendment (Art 368)
- Kinds of amendments; contents of amendments
- Basic structure doctrine
- Constitution as a living document: role of judiciary and Parliament