CBSE Class 11 Political Science: NCERT Solutions for Chapter 9 - Constitution as a Living Document

Solution: The most appropriate reason why a constitution needs to be amended from time to time is that circumstances change and require suitable changes in the constitution. While a document written at one point might become outdated, and reflecting the philosophy of the existing government might be a consideration, the fundamental reason for amendment is the need to adapt to evolving societal, economic, and political conditions. The constitution must remain relevant and functional for the present and future generations.

Solution:

1. True. As per Article 368 (2) of the Indian Constitution, the President shall give assent to a constitutional amendment bill passed by both houses of Parliament and does not have the power to withhold assent or send it back for reconsideration.
2. True. The power to amend the Constitution is vested in the elected representatives of the people, primarily within the Parliament.
3. True. While the Judiciary does not have the power to initiate amendments, its role in interpreting the Constitution, including its amendments, can significantly shape its meaning and application, effectively influencing its scope and impact.
4. False. The Parliament can amend most sections of the Constitution, but it cannot amend the 'basic structure' of the Constitution, as established by the Supreme Court. Certain amendments also require ratification by State Legislatures.

Solution: The following are involved in the amendment of the Indian Constitution in the ways described:

1. Voters: Voters are not directly involved in the process of amending the Constitution. They elect representatives to the Parliament, who then undertake the amendment process.
2. President of India: The President is involved as the final approving authority. An amendment bill, after being passed by both houses of Parliament (and ratified by states where necessary), is presented to the President for assent. The President must assent to the bill.
3. State Legislatures: State Legislatures are involved in the amendment process for specific provisions of the Constitution. Amendments related to the division of powers between the Union and the States, or those affecting the representation of States in Parliament, require ratification by at least half of the State Legislatures.
4. Parliament: Parliament is the primary body responsible for amending the Constitution. It can initiate amendment bills, and passage requires either a simple majority or a special majority (two-thirds of members present and voting, and a majority of the total membership of each house), depending on the nature of the amendment.
5. Governors: Governors have a very limited and indirect role. They are involved only in the context of their State Legislature's ratification of certain amendment bills. The Governor signs bills passed by the State Legislature, which may include resolutions for ratifying constitutional amendments.
6. Judiciary: The Judiciary is involved in interpreting the Constitution and its amendments. It plays a crucial role in safeguarding the 'basic structure' of the Constitution, ensuring that amendments do not undermine its fundamental principles. While it cannot initiate amendments, its power of judicial review can affect the validity and scope of amendments.

Solution: The 42nd Amendment (1976) was highly controversial for several reasons, including:

• Timing during Emergency: It was enacted during a period of national emergency, a time when civil liberties were suspended and political opposition was suppressed, making the process and its outcomes questionable. The declaration of the emergency itself was controversial.
• Overriding Supreme Court Decisions: It sought to override the Supreme Court's decision in the Kesavananda Bharati case, which had laid down the 'basic structure' doctrine.
• Extension of Lok Sabha Term: The duration of the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies was extended from five to six years.
• Restrictions on Judicial Review: It imposed limitations on the power of judicial review by the courts, weakening the judiciary's check on legislative and executive actions.
• Extensive Changes: The amendment made sweeping changes to the Preamble, the Seventh Schedule, and numerous articles (over 50), fundamentally altering the constitutional balance.
• Suppression of Opposition: Many opposition Members of Parliament were in jail during the period the amendment was passed, limiting parliamentary debate and dissent.

While the amendment was passed with the required majority in Parliament, its controversial nature stemmed from the circumstances of its passage, the extent of its changes, and its impact on the constitutional framework and democratic principles.

Solution: The statement that is not a reasonable explanation for the conflict between the legislature and the judiciary over different amendments is: Legislature cannot be entrusted to protect the rights of the citizens.

Here's why:

• Different interpretations are possible: This is a valid reason. The Constitution is a complex document, and the legislature and judiciary may have differing views on its meaning and application, leading to conflicts during amendments.
• Debates and differences are natural in a democracy: Disagreements between branches of government are inherent in a system of checks and balances and are a sign of a healthy democracy.
• Higher importance to certain rules: The Constitution's structure, including provisions for special majorities for amendments, reflects an intent to protect fundamental principles, which can lead to judicial scrutiny if the legislature is perceived to be undermining them.
• Legislature cannot be entrusted to protect rights: This statement is unreasonable because it unfairly generalizes and undermines the role of the legislature. While the judiciary acts as a protector of rights, the legislature is also elected to represent the people and is responsible for making laws that protect citizens' rights. Attributing a complete lack of trustworthiness to the legislature in this regard is not a sound basis for understanding constitutional conflicts.