AIM ASSIGNMENT

WEEK 1 – DAY 5

POLITY
[MODEL ANSWER]

www.nextias.com
 2 MODEL ANSWER | AIM ASSIGNMENT | WEEK-1 DAY-5

POLITY

WEEK 1 DAY-5
Q1. The process of Constitutional amendment strikes a good balance between flexibility and rigidity. Explain.
Article 368 of the Constitution provides for the powers of the Parliament to amend the Constitution. The
process of Constitutional amendment underlines the basic idea of continuity of the Constitution as it reflects
the liveability and contemporary nature of the Constitution to change according to the changing dynamics
of the society.

The process of Amendment is a fine balance between flexibility and rigidity as reflected in the various
procedures enshrined in the Constitution.

BALANCE BETWEEN FLEXIBILITY AND RIGIDITY OF CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PROCEDURES

1. Balance in Amendment of Constitutional Provisions: The Constitution envisages certain provisions
that can be amended by simple majority (like states reorganization under articles 2 and 3; increasing
the jurisdiction of supreme court etc,.).

Also, certain provisions that contain the basic ideals of the Constitution are protected by rigidity that
need amendment by a special majority of parliament and ratification of half the state legislatures (like
provisions regarding 7th schedule and president and vice president elections which need to be kept
outside the political influences of the ruling government).

2. Flexibility in Amendment of Constitutional Amendment Bill: A Constitutional Amendment Bill can be

guided and passed by a flexible or rigid procedure. According to Rules of Procedure and Conduct of
Business in Lok Sabha any amendment to the Constitutional Amendment Bill requires only a simple
majority.

3. Smooth Initiation: Constitutional Amendment Bill can be initiated by any member of parliament without
prior permission in both houses of the parliament. This flexibility in initiation of the bill provides the avenue
for dynamism in the Constitution even if the objective of the introduced Constitutional Amendment Bill
requires a rigid majority.

4. Federalism of States: Indian parliament can flexibly reorganize a state’s name or boundaries with
simple majority but it cannot abrogate the powers given to the state legislatures under 7th schedule
without undertaking an amendment by a special majority of the Parliament and the ratification of half of
the state legislatures, striking a balance in division of power given to the states.

5. Basic Structure Doctrine: Though parliament can amend any of the provisions of the Constitution,
Kesavananda Bharati case ruled that the Basic Structure of the Constitution can not be violated using
the Constitutional Amendment Act. This portrays flexibility of the parliament to amend the Constitution
with a check and balance by the judiciary.

The Indian Constitution effectively balances flexibility and rigidity through its amendment process, protection
of core principles, and judicial oversight. This balance ensures that the Constitution remains relevant and
adaptive to changing circumstances while upholding its foundational values and structure.
 POLITY | AIM ASSIGNMENT | WEEK -1 DAY-5 3

Q2. Why is the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act also known as a mini-Constitution? Discuss the major
changes brought by it and its impact on political processes.
The most debatable and controversial enactment act, the 42nd Amendment Act of India was passed during
the emergency declared by the Indira government. It challenged the pre-existing principal model of the
Constitution, changing the definition of certain primary provisions of the Indian Constitution.

MINI-CONSTITUTION
The 42nd Amendment Act is known as the Mini Constitution because of the extensive alterations it made to
the Constitution and how this amendment seeked to change the ‘Basic Structure’ of the Indian Constitution.
The 42nd Amendment was a broad amendment that impacted many aspects of the Constitution:
1. It tried to overturn the Supreme Court’s decision in the Kesavananda Bharati case.
2. The Lok Sabha’s term was extended from five to six years.
3. This provision limited the judiciary’s review powers.
4. The Preamble, the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, and 53 Articles of the Constitution were all
changed as a result of the 42nd Amendment Act.

MAJOR CHANGES BROUGHT BY THE 42ND AMENDMENT ACT AND ITS IMPACT ON POLITICAL PROCESSES:
1. Changes in the Preamble: The words socialist, secular, and integrity were added to India’s Constitution.
This guided the future government to integrate these ideals in their governance and policy manifestos.
2. Changes in the 7th Schedule: Five subjects, namely, Education, Forests, Weights & Measures,
Protection of Wild Animals and Birds, and Administration of Justice were moved from the State List to
the Concurrent List. This increased the number of federal disputes and cases between the states and
central government in the judicial arena.
3. Adding New Part IV-A (Article 51A): On the recommendations of the Swaran Singh Mehta Committee,
which the government established in 1976, the citizens’ ten Fundamental Duties were included in the
new Part IV-A of the Constitution. This transformed the role of citizens from bearer of rights to warriors
of implementation with set duties in the society.
4. Changes in the Parliament:
• The 42nd Amendment Act made the President answerable to the cabinet’s advice.
• It permitted the deployment of central forces in the state to cope with law and order conflicts
(Article 257A)
• The Speaker of the Lok Sabha and the Prime Minister were given unique discretionary powers
(Article 329A).
• Directive Principles were given precedence over Fundamental Rights, and any legislation enacted
by the parliament to this effect was kept out of the court’s judicial review.
5. Changes to the Judicial Powers of the High Courts and the Supreme Court: The judicial review
power and writ jurisdiction of the High Courts and Supreme Court were curtailed. This restricted the
power of the courts to issue stay orders or injunctions
6. Added New Directive Principles of State Policy: Three new Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP)
in Part IV of the Constitution have been added to the existing list, and one has been changed:
1. Article 39: To provide an opportunity for children’s healthy growth.
2. Article 39A: To promote fair justice and to give poor people free legal assistance.
3. Article 43A: Take steps to ensure that workers are involved in the management of industries.
4. Article 48A: To safeguard forests and wildlife, as well as to protect and improve the environment.
 4 MODEL ANSWER | AIM ASSIGNMENT | WEEK-1 DAY-5

This added social, economic and environmental purview to the governance process of the upcoming
governments.
The 42nd Amendment was criticized for its extensive changes and perceived erosion of important ideals of
the Constitution. Subsequent amendments and judicial interpretations have partly rolled back some of these
changes, restoring a balance between parliamentary supremacy and constitutional safeguards. However,
the impact of 42nd amendment as a landmark act will be etched in the political history of India.
Q3. What is the Basic Structure Doctrine? Explain its evolution through various Supreme Court Judgements
The Basic Structure Doctrine holds that certain fundamental features of the Constitution, such as the
Supremacy of the Constitution, the Rule of Law, and the Independence of the Judiciary, cannot be amended
or abrogated by the Parliament through a Constitutional Amendment under Article 368. This Doctrine serves
as a check on the power of the Parliament to amend the Constitution preserving its fundamental values and
principles while ensuring that the Constitution remains a “living document” responsive to the changing times
and circumstances of the society.
In simple terms, the Basic Structure Doctrine suggests that there are certain parts of the Indian Constitution
that form the core ideals of the Constitution, and have intrinsic value. They cannot be altered or removed from
the Indian Constitution. Such parts form the basis and reflect the principles of the makers of the Constitution.
The parts of the Constitution which form a part of the Basic Structure are:
1. Supremacy of the Constitution
2. Unity and Sovereignty of India
3. Democratic and Republican Form of Government
4. Federal Character of the Constitution
5. Secular Character of the Constitution
6. Separation of Power
7. Individual Freedom and Liberty
8. Rule of Law
9. Judicial Review
10. Parliamentary System of the Government
11. Rule of Equality
12. Harmonious Balance between the Fundamental Rights and DPSPs
13. Free and Fair Elections
14. Power of the Parliament to amend the Constitution under Article 368
15. Power of the Supreme Court of India under Articles 32, 136, 142 and 147
16. Power of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227

EVOLUTION OF BASIC STRUCTURE DOCTRINE THROUGH VARIOUS JUDGEMENTS

The evolution of the Basic Structure Doctrine is through a series of judicial cases that discussed the power
of the Parliament to amend the Constitution under Article 368 of the Constitution.
1. Shankari Prasad vs. the Union of India, 1951: Shankari Prasad vs. the Union of India, 1951, is one of the
initial cases of the Supreme Court where the Basic Structure Doctrine started evolving. Shankari Prasad
challenged the Constitutionality of the 1st Constitutional Amendment, 1951 that inserted Article 31-A and
Article 31-B, curtailing the right to property of the citizens. Shankari Prasad held that the Parliament
does have the power to amend the Fundamental Rights under Part III of the Constitution.
 POLITY | AIM ASSIGNMENT | WEEK -1 DAY-5 5

2. Sajjan Singh vs. the State of Rajasthan, 1965: In Sajjan Singh vs. the State of Rajasthan, 1965, the
Constitutionality of the 17th Constitutional Amendment was challenged further amending Article 31-B
and included 44 more Acts under the IX Schedule. The Supreme Court upheld the judgment passed in
the Shankari Prasad vs. the Union of India, 1951, and held the 17th Constitutional Amendment as valid.
The Supreme Court reiterated that the Parliament shall have the power to amend any part of the
Constitution and ‘law’ under Article 13 does not include Constitutional Amendment Acts.
3. I.C. Golaknath vs. the State of Punjab, 1967: The I.C. Golaknath vs. the State of Punjab, 1967, was
again one of the most fundamental judgments of the Supreme Court which contributed to the evolution
of the Basic Structure Doctrine. The main issue under consideration was whether the Parliament has
the power to amend the Constitution and abridge and take away the Fundamental Rights under the Part
III.
The judgment was passed by a Bench of 11 Judges. The Supreme Court overturned the earlier judgements
under the Shankari Prasad and Sajjan Singh Case. The Supreme Court held that the Parliament of
India does not have the power to amend the Fundamental Rights enshrined in Part III of the
Constitution as Fundamental Rights are sacrosanct. Only the Constituent Assembly shall have the
power to amend the Constitution and abridge the Fundamental Rights. The Supreme Court held that
the Article 368 only explains the procedure of amendment to the Constitution but does not explicitly give
any power to the Parliament to amend the Constitution.
4. Kesavanand Bharati vs. the State of Kerala and Anr (1973): The Supreme Court, in its judgment,
established the “Doctrine of Basic Structure of the Constitution”, which holds that certain fundamental
features of the Constitution, such as the Supremacy of the Constitution, the Rule of Law, and
the Independence of the Judiciary, cannot be amended or abrogated by the Parliament through
a Constitutional Amendment. The Supreme Court upheld the 24th Constitutional Amendment Act,
1971 which provided that the Parliament shall have the power to amend the Constitution, including the
Fundamental Rights. However, there were certain features, also known as the “Basic Structure” which
cannot be amended by the Parliament.
The Supreme Court also held that the power to judicial review of the Supreme Court is a part of the
Basic Structure of the Constitution and cannot be taken away by the Parliament.
5. Indira Gandhi vs. Raj Narain, 1975: The Supreme Court for the first time post Kesavananda Bharati
Case applied the “Doctrine of Basic Structure” declaring “free and fair elections” as the part of Basic
Structure of the Constitution. The Court invalidated the 39th Constitutional Amendment which moved
the elections of Prime Minister, President, Vice President and Speaker away from the power of judicial
review.
6. Minerva Mills vs. Union of India: While upholding the Constitutionality of Article 31C, the Supreme
Court stated the supremacy of the Constitution is the most crucial aspect. The power to amend
the Constitution provided to the legislature, thus, cannot be an absolute one, and it must respect
the Basic Structure of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that harmonizing the Fundamental
Rights (Part III) and the Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV) is also a part of the Basic Structure
and thus laws made to implement Article 39(b) and (c) cannot be declared unConstitutional just
because they violate the principles under Article 14 and 19.
7. I.R. Coelho vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, 2007: The Supreme Court held that laws placed in the Ninth
Schedule after April 24, 1973 are subject to judicial review and can be tested on the test of “Basic
Structure Doctrine”. It meant that laws placed under the Ninth Schedule after the prescribed date
became open to the process of judicial review. This expanded the scope of the doctrine of Basic
Structure to judicial review of laws placed under the Ninth Schedule.
The Basic Structure doctrine, while instrumental in safeguarding the Indian Constitution from potential abuses
of power, has been subject to various criticisms including judicial overreach, vagueness, obstructionist and
conservative and concept. However, the Basic Structure Doctrine has immensely impacted and shaped the
 6 MODEL ANSWER | AIM ASSIGNMENT | WEEK-1 DAY-5

overall constitutional jurisprudence in India establishing and strengthening the principles of Constitutional
Supremacy.
Q4. Discuss the significance of the IR Coelho case, in strengthening the hold of the doctrine of Basic
Structure.
IR Coelho Case, 2007 also known as I.R. Coelho vs. the State of Tamil Nadu (2007) is a landmark case
which strengthened the implementation of the “Doctrine of Basic Structure”. The case in toto, removed the
protective shield around the Ninth Schedule which protected the laws under it from the process of Judicial
Review.

SIGNIFICANCE OF I.R. COELHO JUDGMENT IN STRENGTHENING THE HOLD OF DOCTRINE OF BASIC STRUCTURE
1. The primary issue in the IR Coelho case was the Constitutionality of certain laws placed in the Ninth
Schedule of the Indian Constitution. The Ninth Schedule was introduced by the First Amendment in
1951 to protect land reform and other progressive laws from judicial review. Over time, numerous laws
were added to this schedule, some of which allegedly violated fundamental rights.
2. Applicability of Judicial Review: The Supreme Court held that laws placed in the Ninth Schedule after
April 24, 1973 are subject to judicial review and can be tested on the test of “Basic Structure Doctrine”. It
meant that laws placed under the Ninth Schedule after the prescribed date became open to the process
of judicial review.
3. Judicial Review as part of Basic Structure: The Supreme Court ruling signified that the process of
judicial review is the most important feature of all parts of “Basic Structure” and cannot be taken away,
either directly or indirectly.
4. Protection of Fundamental Rights: The Supreme Court also signified that no law can be shielded
from the test of violation of Fundamental Rights and every statutory act shall have to pass the test of
fundamental rights.
5. Balance between Laws, Rules and Enactments and Basic Structure of the Constitution: Since the
laws, acts and regulations under Ninth Schedule were placed under Judicial Review, the case signified
a balance between what enactments can be protected for being progressive and by how far they can
change the principles mentioned in the Constitution.
6. Basic Structure Doctrine to Ordinary Laws: While generally ordinary laws are not subject to Basic
Structure Doctrines, the laws which are put under the Ninth Schedule via Constitutional Amendment are
subject to both the fundamental rights as well as the Basic Structure Doctrine. This was established by
the I.R. Coelho Judgement.
7. Retrospective Effect of Ninth Schedule: The Ninth Schedule is retrospective in operation, i.e., if laws
are inserted in the Ninth Schedule after they are declared unConstitutional, they are considered to have
been in the Schedule since their commencement, and thus valid. This changed after the I.R. Coelho
Case, as the laws which were declared unConstitutional after 24th April, 1973 remained unConstitutional
and void.
The I.R. Coelho Judgement is considered pivotal in strengthening and reassuring the Basic Structure Doctrine.
However, while the I.R. Coelho Judgment is hailed for protecting the Basic Structure of the Constitution and
reinforcing the importance of fundamental rights, it has also faced criticism for potentially overstepping judicial
boundaries, creating legal uncertainty, obstructing socio-economic reforms, and straining judicial resources.
Q5. Critics of the doctrine of Basic Structure contend that it has transformed the role of the Supreme Court
as the watchdog of the Constitution. In this light discuss the rationale and criticisms of the Basic
Structure.
The doctrine of Basic Structure essentially holds that certain fundamental features of the Constitution cannot
be altered or abrogated through amendments. These fundamental features include the sovereignty of India,
the democratic system of government, the rule of law, secularism, the federal character of the Constitution,
and the separation of powers between the three branches of government.
 POLITY | AIM ASSIGNMENT | WEEK -1 DAY-5 7

RATIONALE OF THE DOCTRINE OF BASIC STRUCTURE:

1. The rationale behind the doctrine of Basic Structure is to ensure that the Indian Constitution remains
true to its original intent and purpose.
2. The Constitution’s framers recognized that the Constitution must be flexible enough to adapt to changing
circumstances, but they also understood that certain fundamental principles must remain inviolable.
3. By establishing the doctrine of Basic Structure, the Supreme Court has ensured that the Constitution
remains a living document that can evolve over time while remaining true to its core values and principles
as envisioned by our Constitutional forefathers.

CRITICISMS OF THE DOCTRINE OF BASIC STRUCTURE:

1. Judicial Overreach: It gives the judiciary too much power to override the decisions of the elected
representatives and permanent executive. For example, banning liquor sale on highways was a check
on the primary source of revenue of many state governments.
2. Lack of Clarity: The Constitution does not explicitly define what constitutes the Basic Structure, leading
to vagueness and elusiveness of the basic and essential features of the Constitution. For example, In
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, each of the judges on the bench had their own conclusion.
3. Limiting Constitutional Amendments: It limits the power of the parliament to amend the Constitution,
thereby impeding the process of Constitutional reform to hinder progress. For example, NJAC being
struck down, despite flaws in the Collegium system.
4. Inconsistent with Separation of Powers: A system of checks and balances is healthy only when the
duties of one branch is not usurped by the another. A court may have the power to review, but not rewrite
a Constitutional amendment.
5. Conservative Bias: Some critics argue that the Basic Structure doctrine is biased towards conservative
values and has been used to uphold the status quo.
Chief Justice of India, Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud has called the ‘Basic Structure doctrine’ a north star “which
guides and gives a certain direction to the interpreters and implementers of the Constitution when the path
ahead is convoluted.”

nnnn
 AIM – 2025 POLITY
WEEK 1 DAY 6 ASSIGNMENT QUESTIONS GUIDELINES
1. ‘Equality under the Indian constitution is not merely about formal equality, it also
incorporates the idea of substantive equality’. Discuss this statement in light of
constitutional provisions and relevant Supreme Court judgments.

Approach for Question 1

Discuss how equality under the Indian Constitution goes beyond formal equality to include
substantive equality. Highlight constitutional provisions like Articles 14, 15, and 16,
ensuring equal protection and opportunities. Reference Supreme Court judgments such as
Indra Sawhney (1992) on reservations and Vishaka (1997) on workplace equality. Analyze
how these uphold substantive equality by addressing socio-economic disparities and
promoting inclusivity. Illustrate with examples for clarity and depth in your answer.
(Source- Internet)

2. The United States and India have their own distinctive jurisprudence on freedom of speech
and expression despite the similarities in constitutional provisions. Analyse.

Approach for Question 2

Compare US and Indian jurisprudence on freedom of speech despite similar constitutional

provisions. Highlight US robust protection under the First Amendment, emphasizing
minimal state interference. Contrast with Indian restrictions under Article 19(2), balancing
free speech with public order and morality. (Source-Laxmikant)

3. What do you understand by the Right to the internet in the Indian context? In light of recent
Internet shutdowns in various parts of India argue whether we need to move towards the
Right to Internet from the right to access to Internet.

Approach for Question 3

Define the Right to Internet in the Indian context, emphasizing its significance beyond
access as a fundamental right crucial for democracy and development. Discuss recent
internet shutdowns' impact on rights and argue for or against evolving towards a dedicated
 Right to Internet for broader protection and regulatory clarity. Support with examples and
constitutional perspectives for a comprehensive answer. (Source-Internet)

4. The 'Basic Structure Doctrine' although essential for preserving checks and balances, is a
judicial innovation imposing substantive restrictions on the other branches of government.
In this context, analyze how this doctrine could threaten legislative sovereignty in India.

Approach for Question 4

Analyze the impact of the Basic Structure Doctrine on legislative sovereignty in India.
Discuss how judicial interpretation of the Constitution's core principles limits Parliament's
amendment powers. Explore instances like Kesavananda Bharati (1973) and subsequent
cases where the judiciary has curtailed legislative actions. Assess implications for
democratic governance and separation of powers, citing examples to support arguments
effectively. (Source-Laxmikant)

5. The Indian Constitution has often faced criticism for being shackled by its past and too
complex to be moulded with the changing times. Do you think the Constitution has become
a frozen relic? Also discuss the role of the people in preserving its spirit while expanding its
reach.

Approach for Question 5

Assess criticisms of the Indian Constitution as a "frozen relic" and its adaptability to
contemporary needs. Discuss its resilience through amendments and judicial interpretations.
Highlight the people's role in preserving its spirit through activism, elections, and
constitutional challenges. Analyze challenges like judicial activism and political will in
balancing tradition with modernity for a nuanced argument. (Source-Laxmikant)



2|Page