I. Judicial review extends to constitutional amendments.
II. Laws inserted into the Ninth Schedule after 24th April, 1973 remain open to scrutiny for violation of the basic structure.
III. Parliament's amending power under Article 368 is unlimited.
Which of the above statements is/are correct ?
Constitutional Amendments and Judicial Review
This section examines the provided statements concerning constitutional amendments in India.
Statement I: Judicial Review of Amendments
Statement I is correct. The Supreme Court of India, in the landmark Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), affirmed that constitutional amendments are subject to judicial review. The Court introduced the 'basic structure doctrine', which posits that while Parliament can amend the Constitution, it cannot alter or destroy its fundamental features or basic structure. This review power ensures amendments comply with constitutional essentials.
Statement II: Ninth Schedule Post-1973
Statement II is correct. The date 24th April 1973 is the date of the Kesavananda Bharati judgment. The Supreme Court ruled that constitutional amendments, including those placing laws into the Ninth Schedule, made *after* this date are open to judicial review if they violate the basic structure doctrine. Therefore, laws added to the Ninth Schedule subsequent to 24th April 1973 can be examined for compatibility with the basic structure.
Statement III: Parliament's Amending Power Scope
Statement III is incorrect. The power of Parliament to amend the Constitution under Article 368 is explicitly limited by the basic structure doctrine established in the Kesavananda Bharati case. Amendments cannot fundamentally alter or damage the core principles and identity of the Constitution.
Summary of Correct Statements
Based on the analysis:
- Statement I is correct.
- Statement II is correct.
- Statement III is incorrect.
Thus, statements I and II are correct.
Important Questions from Mixed Topic (AIBE)
- Directions : The following question consists of two statements, one labelled as Assertion (A) and the other labelled as Reason (R). You are to examine these two statements carefully and decide if the Assertion (A) and the Reason (R) are individually true and if so, whether the Reason (R) is a correct explanation of the Assertion (A).
Assertion (A) : The Constitution of India does not adopt a rigid separation of powers among the Legislature, Executive and Judiciary.
Reason (R) : The constitutional framework incorporates a system of checks and balances, allowing limited functional overlap among the organs of the State.
In the context of the Constitution of India, which one of the following is correct ? - "The rules of natural justice were not confined to the narrow precincts of the prevailing definition of quasi-judicial functions." This principle was laid down in which case ?
- Ajeet Singh, a famous singer, enters into a contract with Yash Aditya Music Company agreeing to perform exclusively for them for 2 years and not to perform for any other company during that period. After one year, Ajeet Singh refuses to perform for Yash Aditya Music Company and begins performing for BR Chopra & Company. Yash Aditya Music Company files a suit seeking an injunction restraining Ajeet Singh from performing for BR Chopra & Company.
Which of the following statements is correct under the Specific Relief Act, 1963 ? - Under constitutional jurisprudence in India, repeated re-promulgation of Ordinances without placing them before the Legislature was described by the Supreme Court as a "fraud on the Constitution" in which decision ?
- Under the Patents Act, 1970, a patent is granted to an inventor in India. Which of the following correctly reflects a limitation on the patentee's rights under the law ?
