Amending the Constitution: Article 368, Basic Structure, Landmark Amendments & Statutory Bodies

Practice questions (17)

Attempt each one before opening the answer. Every explanation names the tempting wrong option as well as the right one, because that is where marks are lost.

1. Consider the following statements regarding the procedure under Article 368:
   1. A bill to amend the Constitution can be introduced only in either House of Parliament and not in a State Legislature.
   2. Such a bill may be introduced by a private member.
   3. If the two Houses disagree over such a bill, the President may summon a joint sitting.
   Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

   1. 1 only
   2. 1 and 2 only
   3. 2 and 3 only
   4. 1, 2 and 3
   Show answer

   Answer: B — 1 and 2 only

   Statements 1 and 2 are correct: an amendment bill begins only in Parliament and may be moved by a minister or a private member, without the President's prior recommendation. Statement 3 is wrong — each House must pass the bill separately by special majority, and the joint sitting under Article 108 is not available for constitutional amendments.

2. An amendment of which one of the following requires, in addition to a special majority in Parliament, ratification by the legislatures of not less than one-half of the States?

   1. The Fundamental Rights in Part III
   2. The admission of a new State under Article 2
   3. The abolition of a State Legislative Council
   4. The election of the President and its manner
   Show answer

   Answer: D — The election of the President and its manner

   Articles 54 and 55, on the President's election, are federal provisions listed in the proviso to Article 368(2). Fundamental Rights need only a special majority, because they are not federal; admitting a State (Art 2) and abolishing a Council (Art 169) are done by ordinary law and are not deemed amendments at all.

3. Consider the following pairs:
   Case — Holding
   1. Shankari Prasad (1951) — A constitutional amendment is not "law" under Article 13
   2. Golaknath (1967) — Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights
   3. Minerva Mills (1980) — Introduced the doctrine of prospective overruling
   4. I.R. Coelho (2007) — Ninth Schedule laws inserted after 24 April 1973 can be tested against the basic structure
   How many of the pairs given above are correctly matched?

   1. Only one
   2. Only two
   3. Only three
   4. All four
   Show answer

   Answer: C — Only three

   Pairs 1, 2 and 4 are correct. Pair 3 is wrong: prospective overruling was used in Golaknath (1967) to keep the earlier amendments alive while denying Parliament the power to amend Fundamental Rights. Minerva Mills is remembered for striking down Article 368(4) and (5).

4. The Kesavananda Bharati case, in which the basic structure doctrine was propounded, was decided by a bench of:

   1. eleven judges, by a majority of 6:5
   2. nine judges, by a majority of 5:4
   3. seven judges, unanimously
   4. thirteen judges, by a majority of 7:6
   Show answer

   Answer: D — thirteen judges, by a majority of 7:6

   Kesavananda Bharati (1973) was heard by thirteen judges, the largest bench in the Court's history, and decided by 7:6. Eleven judges and 6:5 describe Golaknath (1967), the case Kesavananda overruled, which is why that option is the trap.

5. With reference to the Constitution (Twenty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1971, consider the following statements:
   1. It made it obligatory for the President to give his assent to a Constitution Amendment Bill.
   2. It provided that nothing in Article 13 shall apply to an amendment made under Article 368.
   Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

   1. 1 only
   2. 2 only
   3. Both 1 and 2
   4. Neither 1 nor 2
   Show answer

   Answer: C — Both 1 and 2

   Both are correct. The 24th Amendment was Parliament's answer to Golaknath: it inserted Article 13(4) and Article 368(3) to take amendments out of Article 13, and made Presidential assent compulsory. A common error is to credit the assent rule to the 42nd or 44th Amendment.

6. In which case did the Supreme Court apply the basic structure doctrine to strike down a provision of the 39th Amendment that placed the election of the Prime Minister beyond judicial scrutiny?

   1. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)
   2. Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980)
   3. Waman Rao v. Union of India (1981)
   4. Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965)
   Show answer

   Answer: A — Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)

   In Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) the Court struck down clause (4) of Article 329A, inserted by the 39th Amendment, holding free and fair elections to be part of the basic structure. Minerva Mills is the tempting choice because it also struck down an amendment, but that was the 42nd.

7. Consider the following statements about the Minerva Mills case (1980):
   1. It struck down clauses (4) and (5) of Article 368, which had been inserted by the 42nd Amendment.
   2. It held that the balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles is a basic feature of the Constitution.
   3. It held that the Preamble is not a part of the Constitution.
   How many of the statements given above are correct?

   1. Only one
   2. Only two
   3. All three
   4. None
   Show answer

   Answer: B — Only two

   Statements 1 and 2 are correct. Statement 3 is wrong and was never Minerva Mills' holding: the view that the Preamble is not part of the Constitution came from the Berubari reference (1960) and was rejected in Kesavananda Bharati (1973), which held that it is part of the Constitution.

8. Which one of the following changes was NOT made by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976?

   1. Adding the words "socialist", "secular" and "integrity" to the Preamble
   2. Inserting the Fundamental Duties in Part IV-A
   3. Shifting education, forests, and weights and measures to the Concurrent List
   4. Making the right to property a constitutional right under Article 300A
   Show answer

   Answer: D — Making the right to property a constitutional right under Article 300A

   The right to property was taken out of Part III and placed in Article 300A by the 44th Amendment (1978), not the 42nd. The other three changes were made by the 42nd and still stand — which is why the 42nd is called the "mini-Constitution".

9. Consider the following pairs:
   Amendment — Subject
   1. 61st Amendment — Reduction of the voting age from 21 to 18 years
   2. 86th Amendment — Right to education under Article 21A
   3. 97th Amendment — Goods and Services Tax Council
   4. 104th Amendment — Reservation for economically weaker sections
   How many of the pairs given above are correctly matched?

   1. Only one
   2. Only two
   3. Only three
   4. All four
   Show answer

   Answer: B — Only two

   Pairs 1 and 2 are correct. The 97th Amendment (2011) dealt with co-operative societies; the GST Council came with the 101st (2016). EWS reservation was the 103rd (2019); the 104th extended SC/ST seat reservation and ended Anglo-Indian nomination — adjacent numbers are the trap.

10. With reference to the Constitution (One Hundred and Sixth Amendment) Act, 2023, consider the following statements:
    1. It reserves one-third of the seats for women in the Lok Sabha, the State Legislative Assemblies and the Legislative Assembly of Delhi.
    2. It also reserves one-third of the seats for women in the Rajya Sabha and the State Legislative Councils.
    3. The reservation is to take effect after a delimitation based on the first census taken after the Act's commencement.
    Which of the statements given above are correct?

    1. 1 and 2 only
    2. 2 and 3 only
    3. 1 and 3 only
    4. 1, 2 and 3
    Show answer

    Answer: C — 1 and 3 only

    Statements 1 and 3 are correct (Articles 330A, 332A, 239AA and 334A). Statement 2 is wrong: the reservation applies only to directly elected Houses, so the Rajya Sabha and the Legislative Councils are outside it.

11. In Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992), why did the Supreme Court hold Paragraph 7 of the Tenth Schedule to be invalid?

    1. It curbed the higher courts' jurisdiction without ratification by the States
    2. It allowed a split by one-third of a legislature party
    3. It violated the legislators' freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a)
    4. It gave the Election Commission the final say on disqualification
    Show answer

    Answer: A — It curbed the higher courts' jurisdiction without ratification by the States

    Paragraph 7 barred courts from disqualification matters. Because that affected the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and High Courts, it needed ratification by half the States under the proviso to Article 368(2), which was never obtained; the Court severed it and upheld the rest. The split provision was a different paragraph, deleted later by the 91st Amendment.

12. Consider the following statements:
    1. In L. Chandra Kumar (1997), the Supreme Court held that the power of judicial review of the High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 is part of the basic structure.
    2. In Union of India v. Rajendra N. Shah (2021), the Supreme Court struck down Part IX-B in so far as it relates to co-operative societies in the States, because it had not been ratified by the States.
    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

    1. 1 only
    2. 2 only
    3. Both 1 and 2
    4. Neither 1 nor 2
    Show answer

    Answer: C — Both 1 and 2

    Both are correct. L. Chandra Kumar held that tribunals under Articles 323A and 323B cannot oust the High Courts' review, and Rajendra N. Shah shows that an amendment can fail on procedure alone: co-operatives are a State subject, so the 97th Amendment needed ratification for that part. Part IX-B still governs multi-State co-operatives.

13. Which one of the following is a constitutional body?

    1. National Commission for Women
    2. National Commission for Minorities
    3. National Commission for Protection of Child Rights
    4. National Commission for Scheduled Tribes
    Show answer

    Answer: D — National Commission for Scheduled Tribes

    The National Commission for Scheduled Tribes is constitutional under Article 338A, inserted by the 89th Amendment (2003). The other three were created by Acts of Parliament — the NCW Act 1990, the NCM Act 1992 and the Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act 2005 — and are statutory however national their remit.

14. Consider the following statements:
    1. The National Commission for Minorities is a statutory body.
    2. Jains were notified as a minority community at the national level in 2014.
    3. The Constitution of India defines the term "minority".
    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

    1. 1 and 2 only
    2. 2 only
    3. 1 and 3 only
    4. 1, 2 and 3
    Show answer

    Answer: A — 1 and 2 only

    Statements 1 and 2 are correct: the Commission rests on the NCM Act, 1992, and Jains joined the five communities notified in 1993. Statement 3 is the trap — Articles 29 and 30 protect minorities, but the Constitution nowhere defines the word; communities are notified by the Central Government under the 1992 Act.

15. The National Commission for Protection of Child Rights was constituted under which one of the following?

    1. Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005
    2. Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009
    3. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
    4. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015
    Show answer

    Answer: A — Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005

    The NCPCR was set up in 2007 under the Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005. The Right to Education Act and the POCSO Act are traps because the Commission monitors their implementation — they give it work, but they did not create it.

16. Consider the following statements:
    1. The Central Bureau of Investigation was set up by a resolution of the Ministry of Home Affairs in 1963.
    2. In Vineet Narain (1997), the Supreme Court directed that the Central Vigilance Commission be given statutory status and superintendence over the CBI.
    3. Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, which required prior approval to investigate officers of the rank of Joint Secretary and above, was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2014.
    How many of the statements given above are correct?

    1. Only one
    2. Only two
    3. All three
    4. None
    Show answer

    Answer: C — All three

    All three are correct. The CBI rests on an executive resolution of 1 April 1963 and draws its police powers from the DSPE Act, 1946; Vineet Narain led to the CVC Act, 2003; and a Constitution Bench struck down Section 6A in 2014 as violating equality before law. Candidates often mark statement 1 false, assuming the CBI must have its own Act.

17. Consider the following statements about NITI Aayog:
    1. It was established by an Act of Parliament in 2015.
    2. Its Governing Council includes the Chief Ministers of all the States.
    3. It has the power to allocate funds to the States.
    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

    1. 1 and 2 only
    2. 2 only
    3. 2 and 3 only
    4. 1, 2 and 3
    Show answer

    Answer: B — 2 only

    Only statement 2 is correct. NITI Aayog was created by a Union Cabinet resolution on 1 January 2015, not by an Act, so it is an executive body; and unlike the Planning Commission's influence over plan transfers, it is a think tank with no power to allocate funds.