Subjective Questions on Indian Constitution with Answers- 2023 | Mains Questions on Constitution of India | Solved Subjective Questions on Constitution of India for Mains Point of view. | Important Subjective Questions of Constitution of India| Subjective Questions on Indian Polity.
Subjective Questions on Indian Constitution with Answers
Question 1 :- What is Preamble? Discuss in detail of Preamble of Indian Constitution and its objects and significance. How can you say that according to Preamble, India is a sovereign, socialist, secular and democratic republic. How these are applied by the courts. Refer to some decided cases? How the various ideals and goals enshrined in the preamble have been realised in the constitution? Refer some decided cases ?
Answer: PREAMBLE OF THE CONSTITUTION:
The preamble of an Act sets out the purpose and object for which a statute is enacted. The Preamble of the constitution declares :- We the people of India having solemnly resolved to constitute of India into a sovereign, socialist, secular democratic Republic and to secure to all its citizens. :- i) Liberty of thoughts, expression, belief, faith and worship. Ii) Justice, social, economics and political. Iii) Equality of Status and opportunity and to promote among them all.. iv) Fraternity assuring dignity of the individual and the unity an integrity of the Nation.
I our constitution Assembly this twenty sixth day of November, 1949 do hereby adopt enact and give to ourselves this constitution.
The Purpose of Preamble:- The Preamble to the constitution is a key to open the mind of the makers for which they made several provisions in the constitution. In constitution preamble occupies an important place & The constitution should be interpreted in the light of the ideals mentioned in the preamble.
Keswanand Bharti v.State of Kerla 1973. In Berubari case SC held that preamble is not a part of the constitution and therefore it was never regarded as the source of limitations powers. But in Keswanand Bharti case the SC held that Preamble is a part of the Constitution and all importance is to be attached to it in interpreting the constitution. The basic purpose is defined as under:
i) It discloses the source of the constitution.
ii) It lays down the date of the commencement of the constitution.
iii) It sets out the rights and freedoms which the people of India wished to secure for themselves.
iv) It declares the nature of the government which it wishes to establish in the country.
Preamble declares that people of India are the source of the constitution of India. The govt., derives all its authority from the people of India. Administrators are elected by the People of India. The nature of the government, which the preamble establishes is a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic. Sovereign because const., does not recognize the legal supremacy of any other country. A democratic because government of the people, by the people and for the people. Secular because it treats all the religions equally. It does not recognize any religion as a State Religion.
Socialist because it implies economic equality and equitable distribution of income. In such state important means of production is controlled by the State. And republic because the Head of State is not a hereditary Monarch, political sovereignty resides in the people and Head of State is President of India who is elected by the people for a fixed term.
Objectives of the Constitution:-
The objectives is to secure to its people, justice. Liberty, and fraternity, the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the nation. // In keswaanand Bharti case it has been held that the preamble is the part of the constitution and therefore it can be amended by the Parliament under its amending power under article 368 with the condition that it should not exercise it
amending power so as to destroy the basic features in the preamble.
By 42nd amendment of the constitution of India, Parliament did amend the Preamble inserting the words “ socialist secular” before” Democratic Republic and “ integrity”before of the nation. Spirit of these amendments only expressly stated what was already present in the constitution impliedly, the additions did not impair the basic features.In Aruna Roy v. Union of India 2003 secularism has been held to be knowledge of and respect for all religions and fostering feeling of respect for them. Although socialism has nowhere been defined in the constitution.
In D.S.Nakara v. Union of India 1983 it has been taken to mean raising the living standard of the weaker section and labourers and to guarantee for them lifelong social security while Excel Wear v. Union of India 1979, it was held that the effect of adding the word Socialist is that the court should give more effect to nationalization and state ownership. In brief our socialism is a unique combination of Maxism.
Landmark Judgment on Constitution of India 2023
Question 2 :- “Article 14 permits classification, but prohibits class legislation.” Discuss this statement.
OR
What do you understand by reasonable classification in the context of “ Right of Equality”? Can a single person be treated as a class?
Answer:
Classification and class legislation : The guarantee of equality before the law and equal protection of the laws does not mean that all the laws must be universal in application to all persons irrespective of differences in their nature and circumstances. Equal treatment with persons in unequal circumstances amounts to inequality and hence article 14 permits classification of people difference between those put in class is distinct from the others and bears a reasonable relations to the object sought to be achieved by the legislature.
Latest Amendments on Constitution of India2023
But article 14 does not permit class legislation which means undue discrimination by conferring some advantages or privileges upon an arbitrarily selected group of people though all of them are similarly circumstanced in relation to privilege conferred on the selected class. In other words class legislation amounts to unequal treatment with equals and hence void under article 14.// Equality is for equals i.e. to say those who are similarly circumstanced are entitled to an equal treatment. The guarantee of equality does not imply that the same rules should be made applicable to all persons in spite of differences in their circumstances and conditions. Refer case Ramesh Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar l978.
In APBC Singh v. Jharkand state Vaishya Federation 2006, the Jharkhand state had amalgamated Extremely backward class and backward class into one group for the purpose of reservation in professional and educational institutions. The court has held that the decision of the state govt., amalgamating the extremely Backward classes and Backward classes is violative of
Article 14 because two different classes have been treated similarly. Merely showing that the Council of Ministers had applied their minds in order to arrive at the decision is not tenable and such decision is arbitrary and unreasonable and is subject to judicial review.
In a case of chiranjeet lal v.Union of India 1951, It was held that single individual may be considered as a class in special circumstances. The SC ruled that a law may be constitutional even if it applies to a single individual on account of some special circumstances or reasons applicable to him, that individual may be treated as a class itself. Ordinarily a legislation pertaining to a single person would not be valid unless it was possible for the court to discern the special circumstances differentiating that particular person from the rest.
If a classification is discernible in the Act, a presumption arises in favour of its constitutionality, but the person affected may show that while there are others having the same differentiating attribute as he, only he is covered by the Act and not others and the Act will then be void.
What article 14 prohibits is class legislation. But it does not forbid reasonable classification. The classification should not be arbitrary but must rest upon some real and substantial distinction having some relationship which is reasonable to the things in respect of which the classification is sought to be made. The classification can be based on the basis of geography or other objects or occupation. Refer case: Shashi Mohan v. State of W.Bengal-1958
In Menka Gandhi case v Union of India- 1978 SC : SC emphasized on the content and reach of the great equalising principle enunciated in Article 14. Warning against any attempt to truncate its all embracing scope and meaning which might violate it activist magnitude, SC observed that equality is a dynamic concept with many aspects and dimensions and it cannot be imprisoned within traditional and doctrinaire limits.
The court reiterated the majority view in E.P.Royappa v.state of Tamil Nadu 1974 that Art. 14 strikes at arbitrariness in State action and ensures fairness and equality of treatment. The principle of reasonableness which legally as well as philosophically is an essential element of equality or non-arbitrariness pervades article 14 like a brooding omnipresence.
In Ajay Hasia v.Khalid Mujib 1981 SC struck down as constitutionally invalid, the allocation of as high a percentage as 33 1/3 of the total marks for the oral interview for admission to the Engineering college and declared it as infecting the admission procedure with the vice of arbitrariness. The court firmly laid down ha “ what article 14 strikes at negation of equality” so ruled , the court said that not more than 15% of the total marks should be allocated for the oral interview.
United Nations Security Council
United Nations General Assembly
In the series of cases State laws creating special Courts to deal with the problems of law and order have been questioned. A law creating special courts can therefore be sustained only if it makes reasonable classification either of the offences or of the cases or of the persons, triable by the special courts. Difficulties usually arise when the law establishing these courts fails to do so itself and instead leaves it to the govt., to decide this matter.
In such situation the courts have held that the law would not be valid if it does not lay down the policy or principle to regulate and control administrative discretion to decide which cases offences or persons would be triable by these courts.
In Bhagwanti v Union of India-1989 it has been held that classification between marriage during service and after retirement for the purpose of giving family pension is arbitrary and violative of Article 14. In state of UP v. Committee Management 2010 SC the respondents were running unaided school which was upgraded as High School and Intermediate college in 1991-1999.
After 30.6.84 Junior schools wee granted recognition covered by the Grants-in-aid scheme but the court held that the action of the State creates class within class which is arbitrary and violates Article 14 of the constitution. A distinction between two schools of the same category was created while one category of schools continued to get the grants-in-aid benefit inspite of upgradation of other junior High school were excluded from benefit.
Click Here To Download the Complete File