Constitutional Amendment: UPSC Previous Year Questions (Polity)

Explanation

Part XX of the Indian Constitution outlines the procedure for amending the Constitution. Article 368, which falls under this part, states that Parliament, in the exercise of its constituent power, may amend any provision of the Constitution through addition, variation, or repeal, following the prescribed procedure. Addition: Introducing new provisions into the Constitution (e.g., Fundamental Duties were incorporated through the 42nd Amendment). Variation: Modifying existing provisions (e.g., the voting age was lowered from 21 to 18 by the 61st Amendment). Repeal: Removing provisions from the Constitution (e.g., Right to Property ceased to be a Fundamental Right after the 44th Amendment).

Explanation

Article 368, Part XX outlines the procedure for amending the Constitution, ensuring a balance between flexibility and stability.

Statement 1 is incorrect: Prior permission of the President is not required to introduce the bill for amending the Constitution in India. It is required in case of a money bill.

Statement 2 is correct: The 24th Constitutional Amendment made it obligatory for the President to give his assent, when a Constitution Amendment Bill was presented to him.

Statement 3 is correct: Article 368 of the Indian constitution requires that the constitution of India can be amended by both houses of parliament by a 2/3 majority(special majority). In case of disagreement between both houses, there is no provision to summon a joint session of parliament. Procedure for the Constitution Amendment (Article 368):

Borrowed from Constitution of South Africa Introduction of bills Amendment bill can be introduced only in either house of Parliament Who can introduce? Either by a minister or private member. President’s role in introduction of bill Prior permission of the President is not required to introduce the bill. Type of Majority needed Special Majority: Majority of the total membership of that house (50%) + by a majority of not less than 2/3 of the members of that house present and voting (2/3 of Present and Voting). Bill in houses Both the houses need to pass the bill with special majority Joint seating (Art. 108) There is no provision for a joint sitting in case of disagreement between the two Houses. Amending federal provisions Special majority + ratification by the legislatures of half of the states by a simple majority. Role of President in assenting the bill 24th constitutional amendment: It also amended Article 368 to provide expressly that Parliament has power to amend any provision of the Constitution. The amendment further made it obligatory for the President to give his assent, when a Constitution Amendment Bill was presented to him. Role of state legislature in introducing bill State legislature cannot introduce such a bill.

Explanation

Statement 1 is incorrect: It was the 39th Constitutional Amendment (1975), passed during the Emergency, that placed elections for key offices like Prime Minister beyond judicial review. The 44th Amendment (1978) reversed several provisions of the 42nd Amendment, restoring civil liberties and the right to property.

Statement 2 is correct: The 99th Constitutional Amendment aimed to establish the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC). But in 2015, the Supreme Court struck it down, affirming the collegium system. Justice JS Kehar, who was part of the bench that struck down the NJAC, emphasized that NJAC undermined the judicial independence which is crucial for safeguarding citizens’ rights.

Explanation

Statement 1 is incorrect: Though the 42nd Amendment Act of 1976 curtailed the power of HC in judicial review and debarred the HC from considering the constitutional validity of any central law. But the 43rd Amendment Act of 1978 restored the original position of the HC. Moreover now the HC is considered as the principal civil courts of original jurisdiction in each state and union territory. They can declare any central law to be constitutionally invalid in their jurisdiction.

Statement 2 is incorrect: The Constitution of India allows for amendments under Article 368 but the Supreme Court has the authority to review constitutional amendments, particularly to ensure that such amendments do not violate the basic structure of the Constitution. The Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) established the basic structure doctrine, where the Supreme Court ruled that Parliament could amend the Constitution but could not alter its basic structure.

Explanation

Statement 1 is incorrect: An amendment of the Constitution can be initiated by the introduction of a bill in either house of the Parliament. (not only in Lok Sabha).

Statement 2 is incorrect: If the bill seeks to amend the Federal provisions of the Constitution, then it must also be ratified by the legislatures of half of the states by a simple majority and not all the states.

Explanation

Option (b) is correct: The 91st Constitutional Amendment Act limits the number of ministers in the Council of Ministers, including the Prime Minister, to a maximum of 15% of the total members of the Lok Sabha (House of the People). The limit was imposed to keep the size of the cabinet in check and reduce unnecessary bureaucratic expansion, ensuring that the government remains efficient and effective. Options (a), (c) and (d) are incorrect: 90th Amendment concerns the reservation of seats for Scheduled Tribes in the legislatures of Nagaland, Meghalaya, Mizoram, and Arunachal Pradesh The 92nd Amendment deals with the addition of languages to the Eighth Schedule of the Constitution. 93rd Amendment enables reservations for socially and educationally backward classes in admission to educational institutions including private educational institutions, whether aided or unaided by the State, other than the minority educational institutions

Explanation

The Eighth Schedule of the Indian Constitution lists the officially recognized languages of India. This schedule was expanded in 2003 through the Constitution (Ninety-second Amendment) Act, which added four additional languages: Bodo, Dogri, Maithili, and Santhali. This amendment increased the total number of languages in the Eighth Schedule from 18 to 22. The 93rd Constitutional Amendment Act enables reservations for socially and educationally backward classes in admission to educational institutions including private educational institutions, whether aided or unaided by the State, other than the minority educational institutions. The 91st Constitutional Amendment Act limits the number of ministers in the Council of Ministers, including the Prime Minister, to a maximum of 15% of the total members of the Lok Sabha (House of the People)(Similarly it applies to State CoM also.) 90th Constitutional Amendment Act provided for maintaining the erstwhile representation of the Scheduled Tribes in the Assam legislative assembly from the Bodoland Territorial Areas District (Article-332 (6))

Explanation

According to the 91st Constitution Amendment Act,2003, the number of ministers, including the Prime Minister or Chief Minister, cannot exceed 15% of the total membership of the Lok Sabha at the Centre or the Legislative Assembly at the State level. It was formulated primarily to address concerns about the excessive size of the Council of Ministers and to strengthen anti-defection laws. The Act aimed to streamline the functioning of the Indian government and curb political opportunism.

Explanation

The 104th Constitution Amendment Bill deals specifically with the issue of reservation or quota for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBCs) in private educational institutions. It was aimed to extend the reservations or affirmative action to private educational institutions so that SEBCs could access quality education in private institutions as well. Before this amendment, reservation policies applied primarily to government-run institutions, and private institutions were largely free to admit students on their own terms, without any mandatory quota for backward classes.

Explanation

The 98th Constitutional Amendment Bill was introduced in India to reform the judicial appointment process by establishing a National Judicial Commission (NJC). The NJC was proposed to replace the existing collegium system, which had been criticized for its lack of transparency and accountability in selecting judges. The Commission would have included the Chief Justice of India, senior judges, and members from the executive, ensuring a more inclusive and structured process for judicial appointments. However, the proposed amendment did not come into effect, as it was struck down by the Supreme Court, which upheld the collegium system in its 2015 judgment. Probably UPSC has mistakenly used word ‘Act instead of bill’.