Indian Polity Set 109
π
π Amendments β’ Schedule
Q.1) Which Constitutional Amendment Act added the Ninth Schedule to protect land reform and other laws from judicial scrutiny?
Ans > 1st Amendment Act (1951)
- Context of Agrarian Reforms: The First Amendment of 1951 was primarily enacted to overcome judicial obstacles that were hindering the implementation of state-level land reform and Zamindari abolition laws across India.
- Creation of the Ninth Schedule: It introduced the Ninth Schedule to act as a protective shield for specific laws against judicial review. Any legislation placed within this schedule could not be challenged for violating Fundamental Rights.
- Articles 31A and 31B: The amendment formally inserted Articles 31A and 31B. Article 31A protected state laws acquiring estates, while Article 31B explicitly validated all the legislative acts and regulations listed in the new Ninth Schedule.
- Additional Speech Restrictions: Beyond property rights, this amendment also expanded the permissible grounds for restricting freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(2), specifically adding “public order” and “friendly relations with foreign states.”
π States Reorganisation β’ Amendments
Q.2) Which Amendment abolished the classification of states into Part A, B, C, and D, and reorganized them into 14 States and 6 Union Territories?
Ans > 7th Amendment Act (1956)
- The States Reorganisation Commission: This amendment was enacted to implement the recommendations of the States Reorganisation Commission (Fazl Ali Commission), which was tasked with evaluating the reorganization of Indian states along linguistic lines.
- Abolition of Alphabetical Categories: The original Constitution divided states into four categories (Part A, B, C, and D) based on their historical governance structures. The 7th Amendment completely abolished this complex classification system.
- Creation of Union Territories: The amendment formally introduced the concept of “Union Territories.” Out of the former Part C and Part D states, a streamlined structure of 14 core linguistic States and 6 Union Territories was established.
- High Court Jurisdiction Extension: It also contained crucial judicial reforms, providing the explicit provision that Parliament could extend the jurisdiction of a High Court to cover a Union Territory, or establish a common High Court for two or more states.
π Fundamental Rights β’ Amendments
Q.3) Which Amendment Act affirmed the power of Parliament to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights?
Ans > 24th Amendment Act (1971)
- Reaction to the Golaknath Case: The 24th Amendment was a direct legislative response to the Supreme Court’s 1967 Golaknath judgment, which had previously ruled that Parliament did not possess the authority to take away or abridge Fundamental Rights.
- Modification of Article 13 and 368: The amendment altered both Article 13 and Article 368. It explicitly stated that the restrictions on amending laws defined in Article 13 would not apply to any constitutional amendments made under Article 368.
- Absolute Amending Power: By rewriting the text of Article 368, the government legally affirmed that Parliament possessed the absolute constituent power to amend, vary, or repeal any provision of the Constitution, including the Fundamental Rights chapter.
- Mandatory Presidential Assent: The amendment also changed legislative procedures by making it constitutionally mandatory for the President of India to give their assent to any Constitutional Amendment Bill passed by both houses of Parliament.
π Preamble β’ Amendments
Q.4) The 42nd Amendment Act (1976) added three new words to the Preamble. Which of the following is NOT one of them?
Ans > Republic
- The Mini-Constitution Era: The 42nd Amendment, enacted during the National Emergency in 1976 under Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, is often referred to as the “Mini-Constitution” because it brought about the most comprehensive changes in the history of the document.
- Preamble Modification: Before 1976, the Preamble described India as a “Sovereign Democratic Republic.” The amendment inserted the words “Socialist” and “Secular,” changing the opening description to “Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic.”
- Addition of Integrity: The amendment also altered the phrase “unity of the Nation” to read “unity and integrity of the Nation,” aiming to combat separatist tendencies and emphasize the indivisible nature of the Indian union.
- Republic as an Original Term: The word “Republic,” featured in the options, was not added by this amendment. It was present in the original preamble drafted by the Constituent Assembly and adopted on November 26, 1949.
π Fundamental Rights β’ Amendments
Q.5) Which Amendment Act deleted the Right to Property from the list of Fundamental Rights and made it a legal right?
Ans > 44th Amendment Act (1978)
- Restoring Constitutional Balance: Enacted by the Janata Party government after the Emergency, the 44th Amendment was primarily designed to undo several of the controversial and authoritarian provisions introduced by the 42nd Amendment.
- Deletion from Part III: It officially removed the Right to Property from the prestigious list of Fundamental Rights. Specifically, it deleted Article 19(1)(f) (freedom to acquire, hold, and dispose of property) and Article 31 from Part III.
- Creation of Article 300A: Instead of abolishing the right entirely, the amendment shifted it to Part XII of the Constitution, creating a new Article 300A which states that “no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law.”
- Implications of a Legal Right: By downgrading property to a constitutional or legal right, citizens lost the privilege to directly approach the Supreme Court under Article 32 for its enforcement, though they can still use Article 226 in High Courts.
π Anti-Defection β’ Amendments
Q.6) The Tenth Schedule, containing provisions for disqualification on the ground of defection, was added by which Amendment Act?
Ans > 52nd Amendment Act (1985)
- Combating Political Instability: The 52nd Amendment was introduced in 1985 to curb the widespread political phenomenon of horse-trading and defection, famously characterized in Indian politics by the phrase “Aaya Ram Gaya Ram.”
- Introduction of the Tenth Schedule: It created the Tenth Schedule, universally known as the Anti-Defection Law. This schedule lays out the exact grounds on which a Member of Parliament or a State Legislature can be disqualified for changing political allegiance.
- Mechanics of Disqualification: A legislator can be disqualified if they voluntarily give up their party membership, vote contrary to the party whip’s directives without prior permission, or if an independently elected member joins a political party after the election.
- Authority of the Presiding Officer: The schedule originally granted the Speaker or the Chairman of the respective house the final, unchallengeable authority to decide on disqualification petitions, though this absolute immunity was later subjected to judicial review by the Supreme Court.
π Elections β’ Amendments
Q.7) Which Amendment Act reduced the voting age from 21 years to 18 years for the Lok Sabha and state legislative assembly elections?
Ans > 61st Amendment Act (1988)
- Amendment of Article 326: The 61st Amendment directly modified Article 326 of the Constitution, which deals with elections to the House of the People (Lok Sabha) and the Legislative Assemblies of States on the basis of adult suffrage.
- Empowering the Youth: The primary rationale behind lowering the voting age from 21 to 18 was to encourage political participation among the unrepresented youth, giving them a direct voice in the democratic process and government selection.
- Implementation Timeline: Although the Act was passed by Parliament in 1988, it officially came into force on March 28, 1989. The Election Commission of India subsequently undertook a massive drive to register millions of newly eligible voters.
- Global Alignment: This change brought India in line with the established democratic practices of many other major nations, such as the United States and the United Kingdom, which had already established 18 as the standard legal voting age.
π Fundamental Rights β’ Amendments
Q.8) Which Amendment Act made elementary education a Fundamental Right and added Article 21A to the Constitution?
Ans > 86th Amendment Act (2002)
- Insertion of Article 21A: The most significant change brought by the 86th Amendment was the creation of Article 21A in Part III. This new article explicitly declared that the State shall provide free and compulsory education to all children aged 6 to 14.
- Modification of Directive Principles: The amendment also altered Article 45 under the Directive Principles of State Policy. Previously, Article 45 covered up to age 14, but it was changed to mandate state care and education for children up to the age of six.
- Addition of a Fundamental Duty: It added a new clause (k) to Article 51A (Fundamental Duties), making it the constitutional obligation of every parent or guardian to provide educational opportunities for their child between the ages of 6 and 14.
- Catalyst for the RTE Act: This constitutional amendment served as the foundational legal basis for the subsequent drafting and passing of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act, which was finally enacted by Parliament in 2009.
π Executive β’ Amendments
Q.9) The 91st Amendment Act (2003) limited the size of the Council of Ministers (at both Centre and states) to what percentage of the total strength of the lower house?
Ans > 15%
- Curbing Jumbo Ministries: The primary objective of the 91st Amendment was to put an end to the political practice of creating excessively large “jumbo cabinets.” Politicians often created unnecessary ministerial posts merely to satisfy coalition partners or appease defectors.
- The 15 Percent Ceiling: It amended Articles 75 and 164 to mandate that the total number of Ministers, including the Prime Minister or Chief Minister, shall not exceed 15% of the total number of members of the Lok Sabha or the State Legislative Assembly, respectively.
- Provision for Smaller States: Recognizing the unique administrative needs of smaller legislative assemblies, the amendment included a specific clause ensuring that the number of Ministers in a state, including the Chief Minister, shall not be fewer than twelve.
- Strengthening Anti-Defection Laws: In addition to cabinet size limits, this amendment fortified the Tenth Schedule. It deleted the provision that protected defectors from disqualification if a political party experienced a split involving at least one-third of its legislative members.
π Co-operative Societies β’ Amendments
Q.10) Which Amendment Act gave constitutional status and protection to co-operative societies?
Ans > 97th Amendment Act (2011)
- Creating a Fundamental Right: The 97th Amendment significantly elevated the legal standing of co-operatives by amending Article 19(1)(c). It made the right to form co-operative societies a guaranteed Fundamental Right, placing it on par with forming unions and associations.
- Addition of Part IXB: It inserted a completely new section, Part IXB, into the Constitution titled “The Co-operative Societies.” This part laid down uniform rules for the incorporation, board structure, and democratic control of these societies across all Indian states.
- New Directive Principle: The amendment also introduced a new Article 43B into the Directive Principles of State Policy, formally directing the state governments to promote the voluntary formation, autonomous functioning, and professional management of co-operative societies.
- Supreme Court Intervention: In 2021, the Supreme Court partially struck down the amendment, ruling that Part IXB could only apply to multi-state co-operative societies. The court argued that single-state co-operatives remained exclusively within the legislative domain of the State List.
π Judiciary β’ Amendments
Q.11) Which Amendment Act replaced the collegium system with the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), which was later struck down by the Supreme Court?
Ans > 99th Amendment Act (2014)
- Overhauling Judicial Appointments: The 99th Amendment sought to radically change how judges were appointed to the Supreme Court and High Courts. It aimed to replace the long-standing, judiciary-led “Collegium System” with a more transparent, executive-involved body.
- Creation of the NJAC: The amendment established the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) through newly inserted Articles 124A, 124B, and 124C. The commission was designed to include the Chief Justice, two senior judges, the Law Minister, and two eminent persons.
- The Fourth Judges Case (2015): The constitutional validity of this amendment was heavily challenged in the Supreme Court. In a landmark 4-1 verdict in 2015, commonly referred to as the Fourth Judges Case, the court struck down the entire amendment.
- Protecting Judicial Independence: The Supreme Court ruled that the NJAC violated the “Basic Structure” of the Constitution by severely compromising the independence of the judiciary, which required the primacy of judges in the appointment and transfer process.
π Economy β’ Amendments
Q.12) The Goods and Services Tax (GST) was introduced in India by which Constitutional Amendment Act?
Ans > 101st Amendment Act
- One Nation, One Tax: The 101st Amendment marked the most significant indirect tax reform in Indian history. It aimed to create a unified national market by subsuming numerous state and central indirect taxes (like VAT, excise, and service tax) into a single GST.
- Concurrent Taxation Powers: It inserted a vital new Article 246A, which gave both the Parliament and State Legislatures concurrent power to make laws regarding goods and services tax, fundamentally altering the federal fiscal structure of the country.
- Establishment of the GST Council: The amendment introduced Article 279A, mandating the creation of the GST Council. Chaired by the Union Finance Minister, this joint federal forum is responsible for making binding recommendations on tax rates, exemptions, and dispute resolutions.
- Abolition of the Cascading Effect: By allowing seamless input tax credits across the supply chain and across state borders, the constitutional framework of GST was specifically designed to eliminate the “tax on tax” cascading effect that plagued the older taxation regime.
π Constitutional Bodies β’ Amendments
Q.13) Which Amendment Act provided constitutional status to the National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC)?
Ans > 102nd Amendment Act
- Elevation from Statutory to Constitutional: Prior to this amendment, the National Commission for Backward Classes was merely a statutory body created by an act of Parliament in 1993. The 102nd Amendment elevated it to a constitutional body, granting it greater authority.
- Insertion of Article 338B: It inserted Article 338B, which outlines the structure, duties, and powers of the NCBC. This placed the commission on the exact same constitutional footing as the existing National Commissions for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
- Powers of a Civil Court: By granting it constitutional status, the NCBC was officially endowed with the powers of a civil court. It can now independently summon witnesses, demand public records, and investigate grievances regarding the rights of socially and educationally backward classes.
- Article 342A and Presidential Power: The amendment also introduced Article 342A, which centralized the power to identify Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBCs). It mandated that the President, in consultation with the Governor, would notify the backward classes list for a state.
π Fundamental Rights β’ Amendments
Q.14) The 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) was introduced by which Amendment Act?
Ans > 103rd Amendment Act
- Modifying Fundamental Rights: The 103rd Amendment directly altered the Fundamental Rights chapter by inserting new clauses into Article 15 and Article 16. It permitted the state to make special provisions for the advancement of any economically weaker sections of citizens.
- The 10 Percent Quota: It specifically allowed the government to provide up to a 10% maximum reservation for EWS candidates in government jobs (Article 16) and admissions to educational institutions, including private, unaided institutions (Article 15).
- Overcoming the Indra Sawhney Ceiling: This amendment was a strategic legislative move to bypass the strict 50% reservation ceiling established by the Supreme Court in the 1992 Indra Sawhney case, which had ruled that economic backwardness alone could not be the sole criterion for reservation.
- Janhit Abhiyan Judgment Validation: The constitutional validity of the 103rd Amendment was heavily contested. In November 2022, a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court upheld the EWS quota in a 3:2 majority verdict, affirming it did not violate the basic structure.
π Representation β’ Amendments
Q.15) Which Amendment Act extended the reservation of seats for SCs and STs in the Lok Sabha and state assemblies but discontinued the nomination of Anglo-Indians?
Ans > 104th Amendment Act
- Decadal Extension Pattern: The 104th Amendment continued the long-standing tradition of extending political reservations. It amended Article 334 to extend the reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies for another 10 years, up to 2030.
- Ending Anglo-Indian Nominations: In a major departure from past practice, this amendment deliberately omitted the extension of the provision that allowed the President and Governors to nominate members of the Anglo-Indian community to the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies.
- Rationale for Discontinuation: The government justified discontinuing the Anglo-Indian quota by stating that the community had successfully integrated into the broader society, and their severely diminished population size no longer warranted dedicated, nominated political representation.
- Historical Context of Article 334: Originally, the Constitution makers had intended for political reservations under Article 334 to last for only 10 years after 1950. However, through continuous constitutional amendments (8th, 23rd, 45th, 62nd, 79th, 95th, and now 104th), it has been continuously extended.
π Judicial Review β’ Articles
Q.16) Which Article provides the express basis for ‘Judicial Review’ by declaring laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights as void?
Ans > Article 13
- The Shield of Fundamental Rights: Article 13 acts as the primary protective shield for the Fundamental Rights chapter. It explicitly mandates that any lawβwhether enacted before or after the Constitution commencedβthat violates Part III shall be declared void to the extent of the inconsistency.
- Pre and Post-Constitutional Laws: It is divided into key clauses. Article 13(1) deals with pre-constitutional laws, rendering them void if they clash with fundamental rights. Article 13(2) prohibits the State from making any new post-constitutional law that takes away these rights.
- Broad Definition of ‘Law’: To ensure maximum protection, Article 13(3) provides an extremely broad definition of “law.” It includes not just parliamentary acts, but also ordinances, government orders, bye-laws, rules, regulations, notifications, and even established customs with the force of law.
- The Doctrine of Severability: This article is the foundation for the judicial Doctrine of Severability. If a statute contains an unconstitutional provision, the courts will strike down only the offending part, allowing the valid remainder of the law to survive if it can stand alone.
π Supreme Court β’ Writs
Q.17) The power of the Supreme Court to issue writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights is derived from:
Ans > Article 32
- The Heart and Soul: Dr. B.R. Ambedkar famously referred to Article 32 as the “heart and soul” of the Constitution. It is unique because the right to seek constitutional remedies is itself guaranteed as a Fundamental Right within Part III.
- Original Jurisdiction Scope: Article 32 grants the Supreme Court original jurisdiction, meaning an aggrieved citizen can bypass lower courts and directly approach the highest court of the land when their fundamental rights are violated by the state.
- Not Exclusive to the Supreme Court: While the jurisdiction is original, it is not strictly exclusive to the Supreme Court. Citizens have the concurrent right to approach the High Courts under Article 226 for the exact same enforcement of fundamental rights.
- Suspension Only During Emergency: The power granted by Article 32 is so robust that it cannot be suspended under normal circumstances. The Constitution specifies that this right can only be suspended by the President during a declared National Emergency under Article 359.
π High Courts β’ Writs
Q.18) The power of the High Courts to issue writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights and “for any other purpose” is derived from:
Ans > Article 226
- A Broader Jurisdictional Scope: While Article 32 limits the Supreme Court to issuing writs solely for Fundamental Rights, Article 226 grants High Courts a significantly broader scope. They can issue writs for both Fundamental Rights and “for any other purpose.”
- Enforcing Legal Rights: The phrase “for any other purpose” allows High Courts to intervene in cases where ordinary legal or statutory rights are violated, making them the primary forum for administrative law challenges and grievances against state bureaucracy.
- Discretionary, Not Guaranteed: Unlike Article 32, which is a guaranteed Fundamental Right, the remedy provided under Article 226 is discretionary. A High Court can refuse to exercise its writ jurisdiction if a viable alternative legal remedy exists for the petitioner.
- Territorial Boundaries: A High Court’s power under Article 226 is generally confined to its territorial limits. However, the 15th Amendment clarified that it can issue writs outside its territory if the actual “cause of action” partially or wholly arose within its jurisdiction.
π Writs β’ Judiciary
Q.19) Which writ literally means “we command” and is issued by a court to compel a public authority to perform its legal duties?
Ans > Mandamus
- The Command to Perform: Derived from Latin meaning “we command,” Mandamus is a potent judicial order. It is used to force a public official, government department, lower court, or statutory corporation to perform a mandatory public or statutory duty that they have refused to execute.
- Restricted to Public Bodies: Crucially, this writ cannot be issued against a private individual or a private organization. It is exclusively a public law remedy designed to keep the state machinery accountable to its legally mandated duties.
- Exceptions to the Rule: There are strict constitutional exemptions. Mandamus cannot be issued against the President of India or the Governor of a State regarding the exercise of their official duties, nor can it be issued against a sitting Chief Justice of a High Court acting in a judicial capacity.
- Requirement of Duty and Demand: For a court to issue Mandamus, the petitioner must prove two things: that they possess a legal right to compel performance, and that they made a prior, formal demand to the authority which was subsequently refused.
π Writs β’ Judiciary
Q.20) Which writ is issued to inquire into the legality of a person’s claim to a public office?
Ans > Quo-Warranto
- Questioning Legal Authority: Quo-Warranto literally translates to “by what authority or warrant.” It is a specialized writ used by the courts to investigate the legality of a person’s claim or occupation of a substantive public office.
- Preventing Power Usurpation: The primary objective of this writ is to prevent an individual from usurping a public office to which they have no legal right. If the court finds the claim defective, it can directly oust the person from the position.
- Criteria for the Public Office: The writ is highly specific; it can only be issued concerning a substantive public office of a permanent character that is created either directly by a statute or by the Constitution itself. It does not apply to private entities or ministerial offices.
- Relaxation of Locus Standi: Uniquely among writs, the strict rule of “locus standi” (who can sue) is relaxed for Quo-Warranto. Any public-minded citizen can file a petition challenging the appointment, even if their own personal rights have not been directly violated by the occupation of the office.
π Landmark Judgments β’ Basic Structure
Q.21) In which landmark case did the Supreme Court outline the “Basic Structure” doctrine, stating that Parliament cannot alter the fundamental features of the Constitution?
Ans > Kesavananda Bharati case (1973)
- The Largest Constitutional Bench: The Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala case holds the record for being heard by the largest bench in Supreme Court history, comprising 13 judges who deliberated for 68 days before delivering a razor-thin 7-6 majority verdict.
- Birth of the Basic Structure: The court ruled that while Parliament possesses vast powers under Article 368 to amend any part of the Constitution, this power is not absolute. It cannot be used to destroy or alter the “Basic Structure” or essential framework of the document.
- Reversing the Golaknath Precedent: In delivering this verdict, the Supreme Court overruled its own 1967 Golaknath judgment. It conceded that Parliament could indeed amend Fundamental Rights, provided such amendments did not violate the basic structure.
- Judicial Review Established: The court did not provide an exhaustive list of basic features but identified elements like secularism, democracy, federalism, and judicial review as core components, effectively granting the judiciary the final say on the validity of any constitutional amendment.
π Landmark Judgments β’ FR & DPSP
Q.22) In which case did the Supreme Court hold that the harmony and balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles is an essential feature of the basic structure of the Constitution?
Ans > Minerva Mills case (1980)
- Challenging the 42nd Amendment: The Minerva Mills case was a direct legal challenge to sections of the 42nd Amendment (1976), which had aggressively attempted to place all Directive Principles of State Policy above the Fundamental Rights and completely remove amendments from judicial review.
- The Bedrock of Balance: The Supreme Court delivered a landmark ruling declaring that the Indian Constitution is founded on the bedrock of balance between Fundamental Rights (Part III) and Directive Principles (Part IV). To give absolute primacy to one over the other would destroy this harmony.
- Striking Down Sections 4 and 55: The court utilized the Basic Structure doctrine to strike down Section 4 and Section 55 of the 42nd Amendment. It explicitly ruled that a limited amending power is itself a basic feature of the Constitution, which Parliament cannot enlarge into an absolute power.
- Reaffirming Judicial Review: By invalidating clauses that sought to oust the jurisdiction of courts, the Minerva Mills judgment firmly established that judicial review is an inviolable part of the basic structure, ensuring Parliament cannot act as the sole judge of its own constitutional boundaries.
π Landmark Judgments β’ Emergency
Q.23) In the S.R. Bommai case (1994), the Supreme Court laid down strict guidelines for the application of which Article?
Ans > Article 356 (President’s Rule)
- Curbing the Misuse of Article 356: For decades, the central government frequently misused Article 356 to dismiss rival state governments on arbitrary political grounds. The S.R. Bommai judgment established strict, binding guidelines to halt this blatant misuse of Presidential power.
- The Floor Test Requirement: The most crucial directive from the court was that a Chief Minister’s majority must exclusively be tested on the floor of the Legislative Assembly, and not based on the subjective opinion of the Governor or the President.
- Subject to Judicial Review: The court shattered the notion that a Presidential proclamation under Article 356 was immune from scrutiny. It ruled that the proclamation is fully subject to judicial review, and courts can examine if it was based on relevant and non-malafide material.
- Secularism as Basic Structure: In a landmark addition, the bench also affirmed that “Secularism” is a foundational feature of the Constitution’s basic structure. Consequently, a state government actively subverting secular principles can legitimately be dismissed under Article 356.
π Landmark Judgments β’ Ninth Schedule
Q.24) In the I.R. Coelho case (2007), the Supreme Court ruled that laws placed in the Ninth Schedule are open to judicial review if inserted after which pivotal date?
Ans > April 24, 1973
- Piercing the Ninth Schedule Shield: Historically, the Ninth Schedule was used by Parliament as a “black hole” to immunize laws from constitutional challenges. The I.R. Coelho judgment effectively ended this absolute immunity by ruling that the Ninth Schedule cannot act as a blanket shield.
- The April 24, 1973 Cut-off: The Supreme Court established April 24, 1973βthe exact date the Kesavananda Bharati judgment was deliveredβas a rigid cut-off line. Any law inserted into the Ninth Schedule on or after this date is fully open to judicial review.
- Application of the Rights Test: The court clarified that simply placing a law in the Ninth Schedule does not protect it if it violates the essence of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 15, 19, or 21, as these form part of the basic structure.
- Preventing Constitutional Fraud: The ruling was essential to maintain the supremacy of the judiciary. The court noted that allowing Parliament an unrestricted mechanism to bypass fundamental rights via the Ninth Schedule would equate to destroying the Constitution by stealth.
π Constitutional Doctrines β’ Legislature
Q.25) Which doctrine states that if a law made by a state legislature clashes with a law made by Parliament on the same subject in the Concurrent List, the central law prevails?
Ans > Doctrine of Repugnancy
- Rooted in Article 254: The Doctrine of Repugnancy is explicitly derived from Article 254 of the Constitution. It acts as the primary conflict-resolution mechanism to manage legislative clashes within the federal structure, specifically concerning items in the Concurrent List (List III).
- The Rule of Central Supremacy: The doctrine dictates that if there is a direct, irreconcilable conflict between a law enacted by a State Legislature and a law enacted by Parliament on a Concurrent List subject, the parliamentary law will absolutely prevail over the state law.
- The Concept of Implied Repeal: For repugnancy to occur, the conflict must be so deep that obeying one law necessitates breaking the other, or when Parliament intends its law to be an exhaustive code, leading to the “implied repeal” of the conflicting state legislation.
- The Presidential Assent Exception: Article 254(2) offers a rare exception. If a state law on a concurrent subject clashes with an earlier central law, the state law can still survive and operate within that specific state, provided it was explicitly reserved for and received the President’s assent.
π Writs β’ Judiciary
Q.26) The writ of “Habeas Corpus” can be issued against:
Ans > Both public authorities and private individuals
- Protecting Personal Liberty: Habeas Corpus, meaning “to have the body of,” is the most powerful judicial tool for safeguarding individual liberty against arbitrary or illegal detention. It compels the detaining authority to present the detained person physically before the court.
- Unique Dual Applicability: Unlike Mandamus or Prohibition, which are strictly public law remedies, Habeas Corpus is unique because it can be issued against both state authorities (like the police or jailers) and private individuals (in cases of illegal confinement or kidnapping).
- Rule of Locus Standi Relaxed: Recognizing that a detained person may be physically unable to approach the court, the rigid rule of locus standi is relaxed. Any relative, friend, or public-spirited person can file a Habeas Corpus petition on behalf of the detainee.
- When It Cannot Be Issued: The writ is not absolute. Courts will refuse to issue it if the detention is lawful, if the proceeding is for contempt of a legislature or a court, or if the detention order was issued by a competent court of law.
π Writs β’ Judiciary
Q.27) Which writ is issued by a higher court to a lower court to transfer a pending case to itself or to quash an order already passed by the lower court?
Ans > Certiorari
- The Power to Be Certified: Certiorari translates to “to be certified” or “to be informed.” It is an essential supervisory writ issued by the Supreme Court or a High Court to a lower judicial or quasi-judicial body to review their actions and decisions.
- Grounds for Issuance: This writ is specifically invoked when a lower court or tribunal has acted completely without jurisdiction, exceeded its jurisdictional limits, violated the principles of natural justice, or committed a glaring error of law that is apparent on the face of the record.
- Transfer or Quashing Power: Certiorari serves a dual purpose. A higher court can use it to preemptively transfer a pending case to its own jurisdiction to ensure a fair trial, or it can use it to completely quash (invalidate) an order that the lower body has already finalized.
- Expansion Beyond Judicial Bodies: Originally, Certiorari was strictly confined to correcting judicial and quasi-judicial bodies. However, post-1991 Supreme Court rulings expanded its scope, allowing it to be issued against administrative authorities if their decisions directly affect the rights of citizens.
π Writs β’ Judiciary
Q.28) While Prohibition is only preventive, which writ is both preventive and curative?
Ans > Certiorari
- The Distinction of Timing: The fundamental difference between the writs of Prohibition and Certiorari lies in the exact stage of the legal proceedings at which the higher court decides to intervene in the lower court’s actions.
- Prohibition as Purely Preventive: The writ of Prohibition is strictly preventive. It is issued to a lower court or tribunal while a proceeding is still actively ongoing, specifically to order them to halt the process because they are stepping outside their legal jurisdiction.
- Certiorari’s Curative Nature: Certiorari, by contrast, is both preventive and curative. While it can be used to transfer a case before a decision is made, it is most commonly used in its curative capacity to quash a legally flawed order or judgment after it has already been passed.
- Shared Jurisdictional Grounds: Despite their differences in timing and effect, both Prohibition and Certiorari share identical legal grounds for issuance: namely, the absence of jurisdiction, excess of jurisdiction, or a blatant violation of the fundamental rules of natural justice.
π Landmark Judgments β’ Tribunals
Q.29) In the L. Chandra Kumar case (1997), the Supreme Court ruled that the power of judicial review of the High Courts under Article 226 and the Supreme Court under Article 32 cannot be ousted even by a constitutional amendment, regarding matters decided by:
Ans > Administrative Tribunals
- Context of Administrative Tribunals: The 42nd Amendment had introduced Article 323A, allowing Parliament to set up Administrative Tribunals for service matters. Crucially, Clause 2(d) of this article allowed laws to completely exclude the jurisdiction of all courts (except the Supreme Court under Article 136) over these tribunals.
- Striking Down the Exclusion Clause: In the landmark L. Chandra Kumar judgment, a seven-judge bench unanimously struck down Clause 2(d) of Article 323A. The court declared that excluding the High Courts’ writ jurisdiction was fundamentally unconstitutional.
- Inviolability of High Court Powers: The Supreme Court forcefully reaffirmed that the power of judicial review vested in the High Courts under Article 226, and the Supreme Court under Article 32, is an integral, untouchable part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
- Tribunals as Supplementary Bodies: The judgment clarified that Administrative Tribunals act as supplementary bodies, not absolute substitutes for the higher judiciary. Therefore, all decisions made by these tribunals are automatically subject to scrutiny before a division bench of the respective state’s High Court.
π Fundamental Rights β’ Amendments
Q.30) Which Constitutional Amendment Act deleted the right to property from Part III and made it a legal right under Article 300A in Part XII?
Ans > 44th Amendment Act
- The Final Demise of Property as a Fundamental Right: Before 1978, the Right to Property was one of the most heavily litigated parts of the Constitution, causing constant friction between the legislature striving for socialist reforms and the judiciary defending fundamental rights.
- Execution by the 44th Amendment: The Morarji Desai-led government passed the 44th Amendment Act, which definitively resolved this decades-long conflict by outright repealing Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31, completely excising property rights from Part III of the Constitution.
- The Mechanics of Article 300A: The right was resurrected in a diminished form through the newly drafted Article 300A in Part XII. It simply states: “No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law.”
- Protection Against the Executive, Not Legislature: As a constitutional legal right, Article 300A protects citizens from arbitrary executive seizure of property. However, it offers no protection against the legislature; Parliament or State Assemblies can easily pass a law to acquire private property without the strict constitutional obligation to pay market-rate compensation.
π Quick Summary β Indian Polity Set 109
- 1st Amendment: Added the Ninth Schedule to protect land reforms from judicial scrutiny.
- 7th Amendment: Reorganized states on linguistic lines and abolished Part A/B/C/D classification.
- 24th Amendment: Affirmed Parliament’s power to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights.
- 42nd Amendment: Added “Socialist”, “Secular”, and “Integrity” to the Preamble.
- 44th Amendment: Deleted the Right to Property as a Fundamental Right.
- 52nd Amendment: Added the Tenth Schedule to combat political defections.
- 61st Amendment: Reduced the voting age from 21 years to 18 years.
- 86th Amendment: Made elementary education a Fundamental Right (Article 21A).
- 91st Amendment: Limited the Council of Ministers size to 15% of the lower house strength.
- 97th Amendment: Granted constitutional status and protection to co-operative societies.
- 99th Amendment: Attempted to create the NJAC (later struck down by Supreme Court).
- 101st Amendment: Introduced the Goods and Services Tax (GST).
- 102nd Amendment: Granted constitutional status to the National Commission for Backward Classes.
- 103rd Amendment: Introduced the 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS).
- 104th Amendment: Extended SC/ST seat reservations but ended Anglo-Indian nominations.
- Article 13: Provides the basis for Judicial Review against laws violating Fundamental Rights.
- Article 32: Empowers the Supreme Court to issue writs for Fundamental Rights.
- Article 226: Empowers High Courts to issue writs for Fundamental and other legal rights.
- Mandamus Writ: “We command” – compels a public authority to perform its duty.
- Quo-Warranto Writ: Inquires into the legality of a claim to a public office.
- Kesavananda Bharati (1973): Established the “Basic Structure” doctrine of the Constitution.
- Minerva Mills (1980): Reaffirmed harmony between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles.
- S.R. Bommai (1994): Established strict guidelines to curb the misuse of Article 356 (President’s Rule).
- I.R. Coelho (2007): Ruled laws placed in the 9th Schedule after April 24, 1973, are open to judicial review.
- Doctrine of Repugnancy: In case of conflict on Concurrent List subjects, central law prevails over state law.
- Habeas Corpus Writ: Can be issued against both public authorities and private individuals for illegal detention.
- Certiorari Writ: Used by a higher court to transfer a pending case or quash a lower court’s order.
- Prohibition vs Certiorari: Prohibition is preventive; Certiorari is both preventive and curative.
- L. Chandra Kumar (1997): Ruled that the writ jurisdiction of High Courts and Supreme Court cannot be ousted by tribunals.
- Right to Property: Reclassified from a Fundamental Right to a legal right under Article 300A (44th Amendment).
Timer β³
15:00
Progress (0/30)
Click any card to flip and reveal the summarized answer!
Smart Review: Questions you got wrong appear here for focused study.