The right to belong beyond official documentation

Statement 1 is correct: The Ninth Schedule was introduced through the First Constitutional Amendment (1951) to protect certain laws from judicial review, even if they violated Fundamental Rights (Part III of the Constitution). Statement 2 is incorrect: The protection under the Ninth Schedule is not absolute. As per the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) and reaffirmed in the I.R. Coelho case (2007), laws placed in the Ninth Schedule after April 24, 1973, can still be challenged if they violate the "Basic Structure" of the Constitution. Thus, while the Ninth Schedule provides a degree of protection, the Supreme Court retains the power to review laws that undermine the Constitution’s core principles. Hence, the correct answer is option (a) 1 only.

Statement 1 is incorrect: The term "basic structure" is not explicitly mentioned in the Indian Constitution. It was first propounded by the Supreme Court in the landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973). The Court ruled that while Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution under Article 368, there are certain features of the Constitution that form its basic structure and cannot be altered or destroyed through amendments by Parliament. Although the basic structure doctrine includes elements such as federalism, secularism, democracy, and fundamental rights, these features are not explicitly listed as the 'basic structure' in the Constitution itself. Statement 2 is incorrect: The Constitution of India does not explicitly mention the power of judicial review. Instead, this power is derived from various provisions, particularly Articles 13, 32, 131-136, 143, 226, and 246. Judicial review allows the Supreme Court and High Courts to examine the constitutionality of legislative and executive actions, ensuring they do not violate fundamental rights or other constitutional provisions. This power is essential in maintaining the supremacy of the Constitution and protecting citizens' rights. Hence, neither of the statements is correct.

* The First Amendment Act, of 1951, added the fourth clause to Article 15 that empowered the government to make any law for the upliftment of socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled * Tribes. The added clause elucidates that in case such special provisions are introduced, they cannot be said to be breaching Article 15 and Article 29(2) of the Constitution. * The need to insert this clause was felt after the decision of the Supreme Court in the State of Madras v. Srimathi Champakam (1951). According to the facts of this case, the Madras government issued an Order that provided reservation on the grounds of religion, race, and caste. This Order was contended to be in breach of Article 15(1) of the Indian Constitution. The Court also gave a literal interpretation to the constitutional provisions and held that reserving seats in public institutions for backward classes violates Articles 15(1) and 29(2). Therefore, to nullify the effect of similar judicial pronouncements, Article 15 was amended. * Similarly, Article 19(1)(a) grants the right to free speech and expression to Indian citizens. This right is considered an essential feature of democracy. However, Article 19(2) specifies the restrictions that can curtail this freedom. The First Amendment to the Indian Constitution altered these restrictions by widening their ambit. The second change, via the Amendment Act of 1951, was made to Clause 6 of Article 19. Note: UPSC deleted this question when the final answer key was issued.

* The correct answer is D. a part of the Constitution but has no legal effect independently of other parts. * The Preamble of the Indian Constitution sets out the guiding principles and objectives of the document. While it is an integral part of the Constitution (Kesavananda Bharati case), it cannot be directly enforced in a court of law. * The Supreme Court of India has clarified that the Preamble can be used to interpret ambiguous provisions within the Constitution, but cannot be used to strike down laws as unconstitutional on its own. It serves as a guiding light for understanding the spirit and intent of the Constitution.

Statement 1 is incorrect. High Courts have the power to declare central laws unconstitutional. This power is derived from their inherent jurisdiction to uphold the Constitution. Statement 2 is incorrect. While the Supreme Court cannot question the amending power of the Parliament, it can review the constitutional validity of an amendment. The landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala established the doctrine of the 'basic structure' of the Constitution. Any amendment that violates this basic structure can be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

The Ninth Schedule was introduced by the First Constitutional Amendment Act, 1951 to protect certain laws, particularly those related to land reforms, from judicial review. Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru introduced the Constitution (First Amendment) Bill in the Lok Sabha in 1951. This amendment aimed to safeguard progressive socio-economic legislation from being struck down by courts on the grounds of violating fundamental rights, particularly the right to property under Article 31 (which was later repealed by the 44th Amendment in 1978).

Statement 1 is Correct: The key difference lies in Parliamentary Supremacy. In the British model, Parliament is considered sovereign. This means its legislative powers are supreme, and its laws cannot be challenged by any other body. In India, the Constitution is supreme. Parliament's power to legislate is limited by the Constitution. The judiciary can review laws passed by Parliament and strike them down if they violate the Constitution. Statement 2 is also Correct: This is a specific example of the limitation on Parliament's power in India. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has the authority to review amendments made to existing laws (Acts) and determine if they are constitutional. This power of judicial review ensures the Constitution remains the supreme law.

Statement 1 is Incorrect: The 44th Amendment actually aimed to reverse the provision introduced by the 39th Amendment, which had placed the elections of the President, Vice President, Prime Minister, and Speaker of the Lok Sabha beyond judicial review. The 44th Amendment restored the power of judicial review for these elections. Statement 2 is Correct: The Supreme Court of India struck down the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2014, in 2015 in the case of Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India. This amendment sought to replace the Collegium system with the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) for appointing judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts. The Court held that the NJAC undermined judicial independence, a part of the basic structure doctrine, and was therefore unconstitutional.

Statement 1 is correct: Under Article 128, the Chief Justice of India may, at any time, with the previous consent of the President, request a retired Judge of the Supreme Court or a retired Judge of a High Court (who is duly qualified) to sit and act as a Judge of the Supreme Court. Statement 2 is not correct: Although there is no explicit Article in the Constitution equivalent to Article 137 (which grants review power to the SC) for High Courts, the High Courts are "Courts of Record" under Article 215. As a Court of Record, a High Court has the inherent power to review its own orders and judgments to correct any patent error or prevent a miscarriage of justice. This has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in various rulings.

According to article 124(1), There shall be a Supreme Court of India consisting of a Chief Justice of India and, until Parliament by law prescribes a larger number, of not more than thirty-three other Judges.
Thus, the Constitution vests the authority to increase the number of Judges in the Parliament.

The article states that P.S. Deshmukh's amendment to include religious criteria was met with sharp resistance from Jawaharlal Nehru and Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar, who argued for India's secular principles. B.R. Ambedkar's neutral citizenship clause was affirmed, and the proposal was defeated. The framers did not treat citizenship as a matter on which Parliament could do as it pleased, implying limitations on Article 11.

All four statements are accurate as per the article. The article explicitly mentions the adoption of 'jus soli' in 1955, the introduction of Section 6A in 1985, the 2003 amendment regarding 'illegal migrants', and the 2019/2024 amendments introducing religious criteria.

Statement 1 is incorrect; the article states that in upholding Section 6A, the Supreme Court 'appeared to fortify' the principle that Parliament's power under Article 11 is 'virtually unlimited', rather than upholding implied limitations. Statements 2 and 3 are correct. The article explicitly mentions the Court viewing Parliament's power as unlimited in the context of Section 6A and upholding the ECI's power to scrutinize citizenship for electoral roll eligibility in 'Association for Democratic Reforms vs Union of India'.