Which one of the following statements about a Bill for Amendment of the Constitution of India isnotcorrect?
Joint sitting can be resorted to for passing a Bill amending the Constitution of India.
Analyzing Statements on Constitutional Amendment Bills
The question asks us to identify the statement that is not correct regarding a Bill for Amendment of the Constitution of India. Let's examine each statement based on the provisions of the Constitution of India, particularly \(\text{Article } 368\).
Statement 1: It is governed by Article 368(2) of the Constitution of India.
This statement refers to the procedure for amending the Constitution. \(\text{Article } 368\) of the Constitution deals with the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution and the procedure therefor. Clause (2) of \(\text{Article } 368\) outlines the specific requirements for passing a Constitutional Amendment Bill, such as the need for a special majority in each House of Parliament and, in some cases, ratification by State Legislatures. Therefore, a Bill for Amendment of the Constitution is indeed governed by \(\text{Article } 368(2)\). This statement appears to be correct.
Statement 2: Joint sitting can be resorted to for passing a Bill amending the Constitution of India.
A joint sitting of both Houses of Parliament is provided for under \(\text{Article } 108\) of the Constitution. It is a mechanism to resolve deadlocks between the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha on ordinary legislation. However, \(\text{Article } 368\) lays down a specific and stringent procedure for passing a Constitutional Amendment Bill, requiring passage by a special majority in each House separately. There is no provision in \(\text{Article } 368\) or elsewhere in the Constitution that allows for a joint sitting to pass a Constitutional Amendment Bill. Thus, joint sittings cannot be used for this purpose. This statement appears to be incorrect.
Statement 3: The State Legislatures cannot initiate any Bill or proposal for amendment of the Constitution of India.
\(\text{Article } 368(2)\) specifies that an amendment of the Constitution may be initiated only by the introduction of a Bill for the purpose in either House of Parliament. State Legislatures do not have the power to initiate a proposal or Bill for amending the Constitution. Their role is limited to ratifying amendments to certain provisions of the Constitution, as required by the proviso to \(\text{Article } 368(2)\). This statement appears to be correct.
Statement 4: The previous sanction of the President of India is not required for introducing any Bill in the Parliament for amendment of the Constitution of India.
\(\text{Article } 368\) outlines the procedure for introducing and passing a Constitutional Amendment Bill. It does not stipulate that the previous sanction or recommendation of the President is required for introducing such a Bill in Parliament. While Presidential assent is required after the Bill has been passed by both Houses (and ratified by States, if necessary), prior sanction for introduction is not mandated by \(\text{Article } 368\). This statement appears to be correct.
Based on the analysis, the statement that is not correct is Statement 2, which claims that a joint sitting can be resorted to for passing a Constitutional Amendment Bill.
Summary of Analysis
| Statement | Analysis based on Constitution | Correct/Incorrect? |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Governed by \(\text{Article } 368(2)\). | \(\text{Article } 368(2)\) specifies the procedure for amendment. | Correct |
| 2. Joint sitting can be used. | Joint sittings (\(\text{Article } 108\)) are for ordinary bills, not constitutional amendments (\(\text{Article } 368\)). Each house must pass separately by special majority. | Incorrect |
| 3. State Legislatures cannot initiate. | Initiation is only in Parliament as per \(\text{Article } 368(2)\). | Correct |
| 4. No prior Presidential sanction needed. | \(\text{Article } 368\) does not require prior sanction for introduction. | Correct |
Therefore, the statement that is not correct is that a joint sitting can be resorted to for passing a Bill amending the Constitution of India.
Revision Table: Constitutional Amendment Procedure
| Aspect | Description |
|---|---|
| Initiation | Only by introduction of a Bill in either House of Parliament. |
| Passage in Parliament | Requires special majority in each House separately: majority of the total membership of the House AND a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting. |
| Joint Sitting | Not applicable for Constitutional Amendment Bills. |
| Ratification by States | Required for amendments affecting federal provisions (e.g., election of President, extent of executive/legislative power of Union/States, distribution of legislative powers, any of the Lists in the Seventh Schedule, representation of States in Parliament, the provisions of \(\text{Article } 368\) itself). Requires resolution by Legislatures of not less than one-half of the States by a simple majority. |
| Presidential Assent | After passage by Parliament (and ratification by States, if required), the Bill is presented to the President who shall give assent (\(\text{Article } 368(2)\) amended by 24th Amendment Act, 1971). |
| Prior Presidential Sanction | Not required for introduction of the Bill. |
Additional Information on Amending the Constitution
The process for amending the Constitution of India is designed to be neither too rigid nor too flexible, striking a balance between parliamentary sovereignty and constitutional supremacy. The requirement of special majorities in Parliament and, for certain provisions, ratification by states, ensures that constitutional amendments reflect a broad consensus.
- Types of Amendments: The Constitution can be amended in three ways:
- By simple majority of Parliament (outside the scope of \(\text{Article } 368\), e.g., formation of new states, abolition/creation of Legislative Councils).
- By special majority of Parliament (\(\text{Article } 368\)).
- By special majority of Parliament and ratification by half of the State Legislatures (\(\text{Article } 368\)).
- Basic Structure Doctrine: The Supreme Court, in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), ruled that the Parliament's power to amend the Constitution under \(\text{Article } 368\) does not enable it to alter the 'basic structure' of the Constitution. This doctrine acts as a limitation on the amending power.
- \(\text{Article } 368(1)\): This clause, inserted by the 24th Amendment Act, 1971, explicitly states that Parliament may, in exercise of its constituent power, amend by way of addition, variation or repeal any provision of this Constitution in accordance with the procedure laid down in this article.
Understanding the specific procedure laid down in \(\text{Article } 368\) is crucial for distinguishing it from the procedure for ordinary legislation, especially concerning mechanisms like joint sittings.
Similar Questions
Which one of the following statements about the Vice-President of India is not correct ?
Which one of the following States does not have a Legislative Council?
Rajya Sabha has exclusive jurisdiction in
A Joint Sitting of the Parliament is resorted to, for resolving the deadlock between two Houses of the Parliament for passing which of the following Bills?
1. Money Bill
2. Constitutional Amendment Bill
3. Ordinary Bill
Select the correct answer using the code given below.
The President of India is elected by an Electoral College comprising of elected members of which of the following?
1. Both the Houses of the Parliament
2. The Legislative Assemblies of States
3. The Legislative Councils of States
4. The Legislative Assemblies of NCT of Delhi and Puducherry
Select the correct answer using the code given below.
Consider the following statements:
1. The President of India shall have the power to appoint and remove the Speaker of Lok Sabha.
Which of the statements given above is /are correct?
2. The Speaker has to discharge the functions of his office himself throughout his term and cannot delegate his functions to the Deputy Speaker during his absence from the station or during his illness.Which of the following statements regarding Rajya Sabha is/are correct?
1. The maximum permissible strength of the Rajya Sabha is 250.
2. In Rajya Sabha, 238 members are elected indirectly from the States and Union Territories.
3. It shares legislative powers equally with Lok Sabha in matters such as the creation of All India Services.
Select the correct answer using the code given below:Consider the following statements about the President of India:
1. The President has the right to address and send messages to the Council of Ministers to elicit specific information.
2. The President can call for information relating to proposals for legislation.
3. All decisions of the Council of Ministers relating to the administration of the Union must be communicated to the President.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?Who among the following Prime Ministers of India was defeated by a vote of No Confidence?
1. Morarji Desai
2. Viswanath Pratap Singh
3. H.D. Deve Gowda
4. Atal Bihari Vajpayee
Select the correct answer using the code given below:Which of the following statements relating to the powers of the President of India is/are correct?
1. The executive power of the Union shall be vested in the President.
2. The executive power shall be exercised by the President only through officers subordinate to him.
3. The supreme command of the defense forces of the Union shall be vested in the President.
Select the correct answer using the code given below.
Important Questions from Central Government
Who appoints the Chief Election Commissioner of India?
What is correct about the dismissal of Deputy Chairman of Rajya Sabha ?
i. He can be dismissed by no-confidence motion
ii. To introduce such resolution prior notice of 14 days is essential
iii. Such resolution should be passed by absolute majority
iv. Such resolution should be passed by a majority of the ten members of the house
What is correct ?
i. Finance Bill can be introduced in Lok Sabha only
ii. Rajya Sabha can detain the Finance Bill
If the Vice President removed from his office, what shall happened?
Consider the following statements :
1. In India, there is no law restricting the candidates from contesting in one Lok Sabha election from three constituencies.
2. In 1991 Lok Sabha Election, Shri Devi Lal contested from three Lok Sabha constituencies.
3. As per the- existing rules, if a candidate contests in one Lok Sabha election from many constituencies, his/her party should bear the cost of bye elections to the constituencies vacated by him/her in the event of him/her winning in all the constituencies.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
