Amendment and the Basic Structure — Practice Questions
UPSC Prelims-pattern practice questions on Article 368, types of majority, State ratification and basic structure case law, with full explanations.
Questions
These are original UPSC-pattern practice questions. Attempt each one before revealing the answer.
Which of the following can be effected by Parliament by a simple majority, without it being deemed an amendment of the Constitution for the purposes of Article 368?
- Formation of a new State
- Abolition of the Legislative Council of a State
- Alteration of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21
- Quorum in Parliament
Select the correct answer using the code given below.
Solution
Formation of new States (Articles 3 and 4), abolition of Legislative Councils (Article 169) and quorum in Parliament can all be changed by simple majority outside Article 368. Changing a Fundamental Right such as Article 21 needs a special majority under Article 368(2).
Answer: A
With reference to Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), consider the following statements:
- It was decided by a bench of thirteen judges.
- It overruled the judgment in Golaknath v. State of Punjab.
- It struck down the 24th Constitutional Amendment.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Solution
Statement 1 is correct — thirteen judges, 7:6. Statement 2 is correct — it overruled Golaknath (1967). Statement 3 is incorrect — it upheld the 24th Amendment while holding that the basic structure cannot be altered.
Answer: B
A “special majority” under Article 368(2) means a majority of:
Solution
In each House separately: a majority of the total membership of that House and not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting. There is no joint sitting for amendment Bills (option A). Option B describes a different, higher standard. State ratification (option D) is needed only for federal provisions, and it comes on top of a special majority, not a simple one.
Answer: C
Arrange the following judgments in chronological order:
- Golaknath v. State of Punjab
- Minerva Mills v. Union of India
- Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala
- I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu
Select the correct answer using the code given below.
Solution
Golaknath (1967) → Kesavananda Bharati (1973) → Minerva Mills (1980) → I.R. Coelho (2007). So 1-3-2-4.
Answer: D
Clauses (4) and (5) of Article 368, inserted by the 42nd Amendment to bar judicial review of constitutional amendments, were struck down in which case?
Solution
Minerva Mills (1980) struck down Article 368(4) and (5), holding that a limited amending power is itself a basic feature. Kesavananda (1973) and Golaknath (1967) predate the 42nd Amendment (1976); Waman Rao (1981) fixed the cut-off date for Ninth Schedule review.
Answer: A
Mains
“The Indian Constitution is neither too rigid nor too flexible.” Explain with reference to the amendment procedure under Article 368.
Solution
Introduction: Article 368 provides graded methods of amendment, so that different parts of the Constitution can be changed with different degrees of difficulty.
Body:
- Flexibility: many provisions (new States, Legislative Councils, citizenship, Parliament’s quorum) change by simple majority; Parliament alone initiates; no referendum or special convention is needed; over a hundred amendments since 1950.
- Rigidity: special majority for most provisions; State ratification for federal provisions (election of the President, Seventh Schedule, the courts, GST Council, Article 368 itself); no joint sitting to break deadlocks.
- Judicial limit: the basic structure doctrine (Kesavananda, 1973) adds a substantive limit that no majority can cross.
Conclusion: The graded scheme — borrowed partly from South Africa — lets the Constitution adapt to change while protecting its federal compact and its core identity.