In India, which one of the following Constitutional Amendments was widely believed to be enacted to overcome the judicial interpretations of the Fundamental Rights?Β Β Β Β Β Β Β Β Β Β Β Β Β Β Β Β Β ...Read more
Statement 1 is incorrect because, as per Article 71(2) of the Indian Constitution, the actions performed by a person in the capacity of President or Vice-President remain valid even if their election is declared void by the Supreme Court. Article 71(2) explicitly states that such acts shall not be iRead more
Statement 1 is incorrect because, as per Article 71(2) of the Indian Constitution, the actions performed by a person in the capacity of President or Vice-President remain valid even if their election is declared void by the Supreme Court. Article 71(2) explicitly states that such acts shall not be invalidated due to the court’s declaration. It reads: “If the election of a person as President or Vice-President is declared void by the Supreme Court, acts done by him in the exercise and performance of the powers and duties of the office of President or Vice-President, as the case may be, on or before the date of the decision of the Supreme Court shall not be invalidated by reason of that declaration.”
Statement 2 is also incorrect. The Constitution of India does not have any provision allowing for the postponement of the Presidential election due to the dissolution of some Legislative Assemblies. The election must be held within the prescribed time, regardless of such dissolutions.
Statement 3 is incorrect because Article 111 of the Constitution, which outlines the process of granting or withholding assent to bills, does not impose a specific time limit for the President to act on a bill. Article 111 states: “When a Bill has been passed by the Houses of Parliament, it shall be presented to the President, and the President shall declare either that he assents to the Bill, or that he withholds assent therefrom.” There is no mention of a time frame within which the President is required to make this decision. The President may, however, return a non-Money Bill for reconsideration by Parliament, but even here, the Constitution does not set a specific deadline for the Presidentβs assent.
See less
The Supreme Court has agreed to review a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the modifications made to the right to freedom of speech and expression through the First Amendment to the Indian Constitution in 1951. The petitioner claims that this amendment undermines the basic structure doctrRead more
The Supreme Court has agreed to review a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the modifications made to the right to freedom of speech and expression through the First Amendment to the Indian Constitution in 1951. The petitioner claims that this amendment undermines the basic structure doctrine. In the first year of the Constitution’s implementation, certain judicial decisions, such as the Shankari Prasad case, created challenges, particularly regarding the fundamental rights chapter. To address these issues, Parliament enacted the First Constitutional Amendment, introducing Articles 19(2), 31A, and 31B.
See lessIssues in the first year of the Constitution:
β’ Some courts interpreted Article 19(1)(a), which guarantees the right to freedom of speech and expression, as so broad that individuals were not held accountable even if they advocated violent crimes, including murder. In contrast, other countries with written constitutions allow restrictions on free speech to prevent misuse.
β’ Article 19(1)(g), which confers the right to practice any profession or business, is subject to reasonable limitations in the “interests of the general public.” While these terms are broad enough to support state-led nationalization schemes, it was considered necessary to add clarity through a modification to Article 19(6).
β’ Article 31 also presented unforeseen challenges. Despite clauses (4) and (6) of Article 31, agrarian reform laws passed by state legislatures over the previous three years had faced legal delays, prevented their timely execution and affected large populations.
The First Constitutional Amendment sought primarily to modify Article 19 to address the above concerns, as well as to ensure the constitutional validity of land reform laws, particularly zamindari abolition laws, in various states. Additionally, a few minor changes were proposed to other articles to prevent potentialΒ futureΒ issues.