Assertion (A) : The power under 368 of the Constitution is a constituent power subject to the constitutional scheme as to distribution of legislative power according to entries in the Seventh Schedule.
Reason (R) : Because Sasanka Sekhar Maity Vs. Union of India decided so.
Codes :
Analysis of Assertion (A)
Assertion (A) states that the constituent power under $Article 368$ of the Constitution is subject to the constitutional scheme of legislative power distribution found in the $Seventh Schedule$.
The power under $Article 368$ allows Parliament to amend the Constitution. This is known as constituent power. While this power is subject to the basic structure doctrine (as established in the Kesavananda Bharati case), it is generally not considered subservient to the distribution of ordinary legislative powers outlined in the $Seventh Schedule$. Parliament can amend provisions related to legislative lists. Therefore, Assertion (A) is incorrect as it misrepresents the nature and scope of constituent power relative to the $Seventh Schedule$.
Analysis of Reason (R)
Reason (R) claims that the case Sasanka Sekhar Maity Vs. Union of India supports Assertion (A).
Research indicates that the cited case does not establish the principle mentioned in Assertion (A). The primary legal precedent governing the scope of amendment powers under $Article 368$ is the Kesavananda Bharati ruling, not the Sasanka Sekhar Maity case for this specific proposition. Thus, the basis provided in Reason (R) is factually inaccurate or irrelevant to supporting Assertion (A) correctly. Therefore, Reason (R) is also incorrect.
Conclusion
Based on the analysis:
- Assertion (A) is incorrect because constituent power under $Article 368$ is not limited by the legislative power distribution in the $Seventh Schedule$.
- Reason (R) is incorrect as the cited case does not support the claim made in Assertion (A).
Therefore, both Assertion (A) and Reason (R) are wrong.
Important Questions from Constitution Law
- Which criteria are used in legislations for treating juveniles differently from young adults?
(a) Physical development
(b) Economic development
(c) Intellectual development
(d) Socio emotional development
Select the most suitable option : - Read Assertion (A) and Reason(R) and answer using the codes given below :
Assertion (A) : The writ of Habeas Corpus can be granted to enable the detainee to argue his case in person.
Reason (R) : Because R Vs. Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Wynne (1992) decided so.
Codes : - Which of the following are matched incorrectly ?
i. Habeas Corpus – ‘To produce the body’
ii. Quo warranto – ‘Issued to a lower court to stop proceedings in a case’.
iii. Prohibition – ‘Issued to a lower court quashing a decision or order’
iv. Mandamus – ‘Commands a person to perform a public duty’. - Read Assertion (A) and Reason (R) to answer using codes given below :
Assertion (A) : One of the two Acts enacted under List I Entry 66 and the other under List III Entry 25 can be repugnant to each other.
Reason (R) : Because in Annamalai University Vs. Secretary of Inf. and Tourism Department decided so.
Codes : - It was remarked in ‘Golaknath Vs. State of Punjab’ that our ‘Preamble to the Constitution contains in a nutshell its ideals and aspirations’ by one of the judges ?
