Indian Polity Quiz: Constitutional Amendment and the Basic Structure

The correct answer is C, Article 368. It is titled Power of Parliament to amend the Constitution and procedure therefor, and it sets out both the special majority needed in each House and the cases in which the legislatures of the states must also ratify the change.

Option A is wrong because Article 356 provides for President's rule in a state on the failure of constitutional machinery. Option B is wrong because Article 360 deals with a financial emergency. Option D is wrong because Article 370 contained the temporary provisions with respect to the State of Jammu and Kashmir. The four numbers are close enough that candidates mark the wrong one in a hurry, so link 368 with amendment, 352 with national emergency, 356 with President's rule and 360 with financial emergency before the examination.

The correct answer is C, Part XX. Part XX of the Constitution is a very short part, headed Amendment of the Constitution, and it contains Article 368 alone. Its position near the end of the Constitution, after the emergency and miscellaneous provisions, is what examiners test.

Option A is wrong because Part XVIII carries the emergency provisions, Articles 352 to 360. Option B is wrong because Part XIX is the miscellaneous part, with Articles 361 to 367. Option D is wrong because Part XXI holds the temporary, transitional and special provisions, which include Articles 369 to 392. Note how neatly the parts follow the article numbers here: if you remember that Article 368 sits alone in its own Part XX, the neighbouring parts fall into place on either side.

The correct answer is C, Kesavananda Bharati case, 1973. A bench of thirteen judges, the largest ever assembled at the time, held by a majority of seven to six that Parliament may amend any part of the Constitution, including the Fundamental Rights, but may not damage or destroy its basic structure.

Option A is wrong because Shankari Prasad in 1951 upheld the First Amendment and held that an amendment was not ordinary law, so it could take away Fundamental Rights. Option B is wrong because Golaknath in 1967 went to the other extreme and held that Fundamental Rights could not be abridged at all; it was this ruling that Kesavananda overruled. Option D is wrong because Minerva Mills in 1980 applied the doctrine rather than laid it down, striking down clauses 4 and 5 of Article 368. The chain Shankari Prasad, Golaknath, Kesavananda, Minerva Mills is worth memorising in that order.

The correct answer is A, Golaknath case. In Golaknath in 1967 an eleven judge bench held by six to five that Parliament had no power to amend the Fundamental Rights. Parliament replied with the Twenty-fourth Amendment of 1971, and in Kesavananda Bharati in 1973 the Court overruled Golaknath, restoring the amending power while subjecting it to the basic structure limit.

Option B is wrong because the Berubari Union opinion of 1960 concerned the cession of Indian territory and the status of the Preamble, and was not overruled here. Option C is wrong because S. R. Bommai came much later, in 1994, and dealt with President's rule under Article 356. Option D is wrong on the calendar alone, since Minerva Mills was decided in 1980, seven years after Kesavananda, and followed it rather than being overruled by it. Watch the direction of overruling in such questions.

The correct answer is A, Twenty-fourth Amendment, 1971. It was passed in answer to the Golaknath ruling. It amended Article 13 and Article 368 to make clear that Parliament could take away or abridge a Fundamental Right by amendment, and it made the President's assent to such a bill compulsory, so an amendment bill can neither be withheld nor returned for reconsideration.

Option B is wrong because the Twenty-fifth Amendment of 1971 curtailed the right to property and inserted Article 31C. Option C is wrong because the Forty-second Amendment of 1976 added the Fundamental Duties and tried to bar judicial review of amendments through clauses 4 and 5 of Article 368. Option D is wrong because the Forty-fourth Amendment of 1978 reversed several of those changes and made the right to property a legal right under Article 300A. The pairing to hold is Golaknath with the Twenty-fourth Amendment.

The correct answer is A, Forty-second Amendment. Enacted in 1976 on the recommendations of the Swaran Singh Committee, it changed so many provisions at one stroke that it is called the mini Constitution: it added the Fundamental Duties in Part IVA, inserted the words socialist, secular and integrity in the Preamble, extended the term of the Lok Sabha to six years and moved five subjects, among them education and forests, from the State List to the Concurrent List.

Option B is wrong because the Forty-fourth Amendment of 1978 was the corrective amendment that undid much of this. Option C is wrong because the Fifty-second Amendment of 1985 brought in the anti defection law in the Tenth Schedule. Option D is wrong because the Seventy-third Amendment of 1992 gave constitutional status to panchayats. Only the Forty-second carries the nickname.

The correct answer is D, clauses 4 and 5. The Forty-second Amendment had added clause 4, saying that no amendment shall be called in question in any court, and clause 5, saying that the amending power of Parliament was unlimited. In Minerva Mills the Court struck down both, holding that judicial review and the limited nature of the amending power are themselves part of the basic structure.

Option A is wrong because clauses 1 and 2 are the original provisions on the amending power and the procedure, and they remain in force. Option B and Option C are wrong because clause 3, which says that Article 13 shall not apply to an amendment, was inserted by the Twenty-fourth Amendment and was not struck down. The neat way to hold this is that the Forty-second Amendment added clauses 4 and 5 and Minerva Mills removed exactly those two.

The correct answer is B, Sixty-first Amendment. Passed in 1989, it amended Article 326 and lowered the voting age for elections to the Lok Sabha and the state legislative assemblies from twenty-one years to eighteen years, which brought a very large number of young voters on to the rolls for the general election that followed.

Option A is wrong because the Fifty-second Amendment of 1985 inserted the Tenth Schedule and the anti defection law. Option C is wrong because the Seventy-fourth Amendment of 1992 dealt with municipalities and added the Twelfth Schedule. Option D is wrong because the Eighty-sixth Amendment of 2002 inserted Article 21A and made free and compulsory education for children of six to fourteen years a Fundamental Right. Remember Article 326 along with the Sixty-first Amendment, because the article is asked as often as the number.

The correct answer is A, First Amendment, 1951. It inserted Articles 31A and 31B along with the Ninth Schedule, so that land reform and zamindari abolition laws placed in that schedule could not be challenged for violating the Fundamental Rights. The same amendment also added the grounds of public order, friendly relations with foreign states and incitement to an offence as reasonable restrictions on the freedom of speech.

Option B is wrong because the Fourth Amendment of 1955 dealt with compulsory acquisition of property and added laws to the existing schedule. Option C is wrong because the Seventh Amendment of 1956 carried out the reorganisation of states. Option D is wrong because the Seventeenth Amendment of 1964 only added more land reform laws to the Ninth Schedule. The point to carry away is that later amendments filled the Ninth Schedule, but the First Amendment created it.

The correct answer is A, not less than one half of the states. For matters such as the election of the President, the extent of the executive power of the Union and the states, the Supreme Court and the High Courts, the Seventh Schedule, the representation of states in Parliament and Article 368 itself, the bill must first be passed by each House by a special majority and then ratified by the legislatures of at least half the states, each by a simple majority.

Option B is wrong because two thirds is the fraction of members present and voting in Parliament, not of the states, and this mixing of the two fractions is the trap. Option C and Option D are wrong because the Constitution nowhere requires three fourths of the states or unanimity; the makers deliberately avoided the rigidity of such a rule. Note also that no time limit is fixed for the states to ratify.

The correct answer is D, One hundred and sixth Amendment. Passed in 2023 and called the Nari Shakti Vandan Adhiniyam, it inserted Articles 330A and 332A to reserve one third of the seats in the Lok Sabha and in the state legislative assemblies, as well as in the Delhi assembly, for women, the reservation to take effect after the delimitation exercise carried out on the basis of the relevant census.

Option A is wrong because the One hundred and first Amendment of 2016 introduced the Goods and Services Tax through Articles 246A, 269A and 279A. Option B is wrong because the One hundred and third Amendment of 2019 provided reservation for the economically weaker sections. Option C is wrong because the One hundred and fourth Amendment of 2020 extended reservation of seats for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the legislatures and ended the nomination of Anglo Indians. Learn these four numbers together, as examiners set them as one another's distractors.

The correct answer is D, neither 1 nor 2. Statement 1 is wrong because the Constitution nowhere uses the expression basic structure or defines it. The doctrine is a creation of the Supreme Court in Kesavananda Bharati in 1973, and the courts have added features to it case by case, which is why no closed list exists. Statement 2 is wrong as it stands because the Constitution contains no provision that declares judicial review with such a purpose written into it; the power flows from provisions such as Articles 13, 32, 131 to 136, 226 and 246, and the language about safeguarding liberties and preserving ideals is the language of judgments and commentaries, not of the text.

Option A and Option B are therefore wrong, each accepting one of the two flawed statements, and Option C is wrong because it accepts both. The lesson for statement based questions is to be strict about the words defines and provision: a doctrine developed by the courts is not a definition given by the Constitution.