Constitution as a Living Document — NCERT Solutions

The chapter explains the conflict by saying that different interpretations of the Constitution are possible, debates are natural in democracy, and the Constitution provides for amendment through special majority. The option that is not a reasonable explanation is (e), because the Judiciary does not say it can only decide the constitutionality of a law and cannot resolve political debates about its need; that is not how the chapter presents the conflict.

• a. Incorrect. The Constitution does not itself specify the basic structure in a clear list. The idea emerged from judicial interpretation.
• b. Correct. Parliament can amend all parts of the Constitution except the basic structure.
• c. Correct. The Judiciary has defined what may count as basic structure.
• d. Correct. The theory first emerged in the Kesavananda Bharati case and was developed in later judgments.
• e. Correct. The theory has increased the importance of the Judiciary and has been accepted by political parties and the government.

Corrected statement for (a): The Constitution does not explicitly list the basic structure; it has been identified by the Judiciary through interpretation.

From the fact that many amendments occurred in 2000–2003, we can infer that the amendments were not simply due to one party's strong majority or only public pressure. The chapter says this period was marked by coalition politics, yet amendments still happened because many were based on an evolving consensus. So the best conclusion is (e): the amendments were generally non-controversial and there was agreement on the subject.

A special majority is required so that the Constitution is not changed by a mere simple majority or by a thin ruling majority. The chapter says the amendment process should have broad support among political parties and parliamentarians. This ensures that changes reflect a larger consensus, protect important constitutional principles, and do not allow easy or arbitrary tampering with the Constitution. It also shows that constitutional amendment is more serious than ordinary law-making.

Many amendments were made because the Parliament and the Judiciary often gave different interpretations of the Constitution.

Examples from the chapter:

• On the relationship between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles, Parliament amended the Constitution when it did not agree with judicial interpretation.
• On the issue of right to private property, amendments were made to respond to judicial rulings.
• On the scope of Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution, Parliament made amendments between 1970 and 1975 to overcome adverse judicial interpretations.
• The 42nd Amendment was also made partly to override the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Kesavananda case.

Thus, amendments often happened because the legislature and judiciary disagreed over the meaning and limits of constitutional provisions.

I do not agree. Even if elected representatives have the power to amend the Constitution, the Judiciary must be able to check whether an amendment violates the basic structure. The chapter explains that this protects the Constitution from misuse of majority power. The Judiciary ensures that amendments stay within constitutional limits and do not destroy democracy, rule of law, rights, or federalism. Without this safeguard, a temporary majority could change the Constitution in an arbitrary way. Therefore, judicial review of amendments is necessary to maintain the balance between rigidity and flexibility and to protect democracy.