NCERT Solutions for Class 11 Political Science Chapter 1 - Constitution

Answer:

(c) It ensures that good people come to power.

Answer:

The Constitution specifies how Parliament is to be formed and what are its powers.

Answer:

(a) TRUE

Answer:

(b) FALSE

Answer:

(b) FALSE

Answer:

(a) TRUE

Answer:

1. This inference about the making of the Indian Constitution is incorrect. No doubt, the Constituent Assembly was not elected on the basis of adult franchise. But, the Constituent Assembly was the galaxy of stalwarts like Dr. Rajendra Prasad, Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru, Dr. Ambedkar, Sardar Patel and Maulana Azad. Almost all the leaders were the members of the Constituent Assembly. In fact, the Constituent Assembly was a representative body of all the sections of people.
2. This inference is correct because there was a consensus among the leaders on the main principles of the Constitution. These principles were forged during the long struggle for freedom.
3. This inference is correct because the Indian Constitution is a bag of borrowing. It was not the purpose of our Constitution makers to produce an original or unique Constitution. What they wanted was a good and workable one. The framers of the Constitution have drawn freely from the British and American Constitutions.

Answer:

1. Dr. Rajendra Prasad, Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, Sardar Patel, Maulana Azad, etc. were all well respected leaders of the Indian masses who played a very important role in framing the Indian Constitution. Moreover, these leaders emphasised on discussion and arguments.
2. The Constitution has made a balance arrangement of the three organs of the government. There is a distribution of powers between the Centre and the States on one hand and on the other hand, there is a distribution of powers among the three organs of the government.
3. The Objectives Resolution encapsulated the aspirations and values behind the Constitution. The Indian Constitution enshrined fundamental values and the highest aspirations shared by the people. Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles are included in the Constitution.

Answer:

It is necessary for a country to have a clear demarcation of powers and responsibilities in the Constitution. There is a great need of demarcation of powers between the Centre and the States. Powers and responsibilities should also be clearly distributed among the three organs of the government. In the absence of such a demarcation, decision-making power and responsibility will not be clearly fixed. It will lead to conflict between the different organs of the government, especially between the executive and judiciary. Moreover, it will affect the efficiency of the government.
For the protection and the rights of the citizens, clear demarcation of powers is needed.

Answer:

It is necessary for a Constitution to place certain limitations on the powers of the government. Constitution limits the power of a government in many ways. Generally, the powers of the government are limited by giving fundamental rights to the citizens. The government cannot violate the fundamental rights. In India, fundamental rights are mentioned in the Constitution. The Supreme Court protects the rights of the citizens.

Answer:

The Japanese Constitution was framed under the supervision of American General MacArthur. But, the Indian Constitution was framed by the Constituent Assembly. After Independence, the Constituent Assembly became independent and all restrictions were removed. It was fully independent in framing the Constitution. The British government had no role in framing the Indian Constitution.

Answer:

Our Constitution is not an outdated book. No doubt our Constitution was enforced on 26 January, 1950, but it has been amended from time to time. Rajat should obey the Constitution because the Indian Constitution has been framed by the Constituent Assembly on behalf of the people of India. The Constitution has not been imposed upon us. It originates from the people of India and is promulgated in the name of the people. The people are the source of all authority and all powers lie with them. Since the Constitution is founded on the authority of the people, no state or group of states can destroy it.

Answer:

Harbans rightly said that the Indian Constitution has succeeded in giving us a framework of democratic government. Parliamentary democracy has been established under the Constitution. Democratic government is functioning successfully since 1950. Fourteen elections of the Lok Sabha have been held free and fair. All the organs of the government are working within the limits of the Constitution.

Answer:

1. The underlying value is that there is equality between boys and girls. No discrimination can be made on the basis of sex.
2. The underlying value is that there shall be higher slab of sales tax on luxury items which are used by rich people.
3. The underlying value is that India is a secular state. Hence, no religious instructions should be given in government schools and colleges.
4. The underlying value is that there should be no exploitation either by the state or by privileged classes in the society.

Answer:

(c) Bring independence from colonial rule.

Answer:

(a) It is true that common people are having neither time nor knowledge to understand the legal and complicated language of these debates. (b) This statement argues that Constituent Assembly debates are not relevant but we do not agree with this statement. (c) This statement argues that Constituent Assembly debates are relevant even today. We fully agree with this statement because Constituent Assembly debates are very useful even today.

Answer:

(a) Understanding of Secularism: Like many western countries, India is also a secular state. But the western concept of Secularism is different from the Indian concept. Western Secularism means mutual exclusion of state and religion in order to protect individual freedom. Mutual exclusion means that religion and state are separate from each other. Western Secularism means that state should not interfere in the religious matter nor religion should interfere in the affairs of the state. To protect religious freedom of individuals, the state has no right to help religious organisations. The state should keep distance from religious organisations.
But, Indian conditions were different and the framers of the Indian Constitution adopted alternative concept of Secularism. The Constitution of India has accordingly been described as “The ideal of secular, religiously neutral state”. The word ‘Secular’ does not mean irreligious attitude or opposition to religion. It merely denotes that as far as the State is concerned, it shall not discriminate between the citizens on grounds merely of differences in the religious beliefs of the people. Nor for that reason will the persons belonging to any particular religious faith be entitled to any special rights or privileges. Article 25 of our Constitution, therefore, says: “Subject to public order, morality and health, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right to fully profess, practice and propagate religion.” Moreover, the Indian Constitution grants various rights to all religious communities such as the right to establish and maintain their educational institutions. In India, freedom of religion means the freedom of religion of both individuals and communities.
In India, Secularism does not mean complete separation of religion and state. In order to promote equality, liberty and social justice, the state can interfere in the affairs of the religion. Moreover, the State can also help religious communities by giving aid to educational institutions run by them.
(b) Article 370 and 371: The Constitution of India establishes a federal system of government in the country. But, the federal system of government in India is different from the western concept of federalism. There is a Constitutional symmetry of American federalism while Indian federalism has been constitutionally asymmetric. In American federalism, all states enjoy equal status and no state is provided special status under the Constitution. But in India, all states are not equal. Article 370 gave special status to Jammu and Kashmir till August 2019, but on 5– 6 August 2019, Article 370 was abrogated from the Indian constitution while Article 371 provides special status to the North-Eastern State of Nagaland. The religious, social practices and customary law of Nagaland are protected by the article. But, such provisions are not available in the American Constitution.
(c) Affirmative Action: The Indian Constitution has included Directive Principles of State Policy. These principles are in the nature of directions, instructions or recommendations to the various governments and government agencies to be followed as fundamental in the governance of the country. It shall be the duty of the state to apply these principles in making laws. The Indian Constitution is full of affirmative action. Right to equality, Right to freedom, religious freedom, social justice and community values are the main tenets of the Indian Constitution. But the Western idea is different from the Indian concept. Western countries do not believe in applying moral values of the 19th century to the 21st century.
(d) Universal Adult Franchise: The idea of Universal Adult Franchise lays securely within the heart of nationalism. Pt. Motilal Nehru Report (1928) recommended Universal Adult Franchise, i.e., every citizen who has completed the age of 21 (At present 18 years) is entitled to vote for the House of Representatives or Parliament. The Indian Constitution has incorporated the principle of adult suffrage and has abolished the old system of communal electorates. But in Western democracies, right to Universal Adult Franchise was introduced in stages.

Answer:

(a) that state will have nothing to do with religion
(d) that state will recognise rights of religious groups
(e) that state will have limited powers to intervene in affairs of any religion

Answer:

1. (b) 2. (a) 3. (d) 4. ( c)

Answer:

According to Jayesh, the Indian Constitution is only a borrowed document. But this is not a correct statement. No doubt, the Indian Constitution has drawn extensively from the major constitutions of the world. The framers of the Indian Constitution have drawn freely from the British Constitution. We have adopted British Parliamentary system and the Rule of law has also been taken from England. The framers of the Indian Constitution have also drawn from the American Constitution, Irish Constitution, Canadian Constitution, South African Constitution, Govt. of India Act 1935, etc. But Indian Constitution is not just a borrowed document. The framers of the Constitutions were interested in making a fine and workable Constitution which should work efficiently and should prove to be a living means for the development of India. Prof. M.P. Sharma has very rightly said, “It was not the purpose of our Constitution makers to produce an original or unique Constitution. What they wanted was a good and workable one.”
We fully agree with the statement of Saba that there is no such thing as Indian and Western in the case of values and ideas. Liberty, Equality and Fraternity are universal principles. We also agree with Neha that we fought the British Colonial system and not with the British system of government or with British people. Moreover, there are many things in the Indian Constitution which are not borrowed from anywhere. The Indian Constitution is a unique Constitution in many ways and is the longest Constitution in the world. In fact, the Indian Constitution is a happy blend of many constitutions.

Answer:

Many times critics criticised the making of the Indian Constitution as unrepresentative because the Constituent Assembly of India was not elected on the basis of adult franchise. Nor were the members directly elected. The members were elected by the Provincial Legislatures who themselves were elected on a narrow franchise. Only 14% of the population had the right to vote. The total strength of the Constituent Assembly was 389. Out of this, 292 were from British Provinces, 4 from Chief Commissioner’s Provinces and 93 were representatives of the Indian States. These 93 representatives were also not the representatives of the people. Thus, critics point out that the making of the Indian Constitution was unrepresentative. But it is not true. No doubt, the members were not directly elected on the basis of adult franchise. Even then, the Constituent Assembly was the galaxy of stalwarts like Dr. Rajendra Prasad, Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, K.T.
Shah, etc. Almost all communities and major shades of opinion were represented in the Assembly. Moreover, the element of democratic procedure was not lost sight of.
The work on the Constitution was conducted in a democratic manner. To the Draft Constitution, no less than 7,632 amendments were tabled by the members. Of these, 2,473 were actually moved, discussed and disposed of. This establishes clearly the fact that the Assembly allowed free and full discussion in its proceedings. “There was great tolerance of criticism and no decision without long drawn out debates, no attempt to hustle through, no endeavour at imposition. It way a full-fledged democratic procedure of which Indians can be proud.”
Thus, we can conclude that neither the Constituent Assembly nor the Indian Constitution is unrepresentative. The Constitution has not been imposed upon us. It originates from the people of India and is promulgated in the name of the people.

Answer:

The Indian Constitution has many limitations. It is not a perfect Constitution because the framers of the Constitution were influenced by the political, economic and social conditions of India. One of the limitations of the Constitution of India is that it does not adequately attend to gender justice. Women are not given equal rights compared to men regarding family property and children. Equal pay for equal work for both men and women is not mentioned in the chapter of Fundamental Rights. It is mentioned in the Directive Principles of State Policy that the State will secure equal pay for equal work for both men and women. If I am given a chance to write the Constitution of India, I would add the following provisions in the Indian Constitution:

1. I would add equal pay for equal work for both men and women in the chapter of Fundamental Rights.
2. I would make women equal to men in the family property.
3. One-third seats in the Parliament and State Legislatives should be reserved for women.
4. In every sphere, women should be treated equal to men, and this provision should be a part of the Constitution.

Answer:

The Directive Principles embodied in Part IV are in the nature of directions, instructions or recommendations to the various governments, and government agencies (including village panchayats) to be followed as fundamental in the governance of the country. “It shall be the duty of the State to apply these principles in making laws.” These principles guide the path which will lead the people of India to achieve the noble ideals which the Preamble of the Constitution proclaims: “Justice, social, economic and political; Liberty, Equality and Fraternity.” But, certain basic socio-economic rights are included in the Directive Principles and in the chapter of Fundamental Rights. In a poor developing country like India, socio-economic rights are included in Directive Principles and in Fundamental Rights due to following reasons:
1. Directive Principles though declared ‘fundamental in the governance of the country’ are not justiciable. In other words, the state cannot be used in any court of law in case they are ‘violated’ or not implemented. The Right to Constitutional Remedies, as enshrined in Art. 32 of the Constitution, covers Part III and not Part IV of the Constitution. They, thus, lack legal force. They confer no legal rights and create no legal remedies. The Fundamental Rights, on the other hand, are enforceable by the courts. They are cognizable. The judiciary has been empowered to issue orders, directions and writs for the enforcement of the Fundamental Rights. But no such legal status has been conferred on the Principles. The Constitution clearly lays down that the Directive Principles “shall not be enforceable by any court”. Hence, socio-economic rights were not included in the chapter of Fundamental Rights because India is a poor developing country. If these rights had been included in the chapter of Fundamental Rights, it was not possible for the government to implement these socio-economic rights. Shortage of funds is a main reason for not including socio-economic rights in Fundamental Rights.
2. It is not practicable to provide economic rights to all the citizens.

Answer:

A Constitution needs to be amended from time to time because circumstances change and require suitable changes in the Constitution.

Answer:

(a) TRUE

Answer:

(a) TRUE

Answer:

(a) TRUE

Answer:

(b) FALSE

Answer:

1. Voters are not involved in the amendment of the Indian Constitution.
2. President of India is involved in the amendment of the Indian Constitution. When a Constitutional amendment bill is passed by the Parliament, it is sent to the President. The Constitutional amendment bill becomes an Act when it is signed by the President.
3. State legislatures are involved in the amendment of the Indian Constitution. If an amendment bill is concerned with the article and the subjects given in the Article 368, it must be approved by fifty per cent of the State legislatures.
4. Without the involvement of Parliament, no amendment is possible in the Indian Constitution. There are certain articles of the Constitution which can be amended by simple majority of the Parliament. There are certain articles which can be amended by the Parliament by 2/3rd majority of the members present and voting.
5. Governors have no role to play in the amendment of the Constitution except those amendment bills which are to be approved by the State legislature. Those amendment bills are also signed by the Governor.
6. Judiciary (Supreme Court) specifies the basic structure. If any amendment violates the basic structure of the Constitution, the Supreme Court can declare that amendment null and void.

Answer:

(1) and (4)

Answer:

Legislature cannot be entrusted to protect the rights of the citizens.

Answer:

Due to the following reasons, special majority is required for amending the Constitution:

1. Special majority is required to make a distinction between an ordinary law and a Constitutional law.
2. Special majority is needed so that the Constitution does not become a plaything in the hands of political parties. No political party can easily get it changed. The majority party cannot use the Constitution for furthering its own interests.
3. A rigid Constitution is needed for a federation. India has adopted a federal form of government. Hence, special majority is required for amending the Constitution.
4. Rigid Constitution is needed to prevent the absolutism of the government.

Answer:

The Constitution of India has placed the responsibility of interpreting the Constitution on the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is the final authority to explain the meaning and intent of the Constitution. Many amendments to the Constitution have been made due to different interpretations given by the Judiciary. In 1967, in Golak Nath’s Case, the Supreme Court declared that the Parliament has no power to amend the provision of Fundamental Rights. In the Bank Nationalisation Case, the Supreme Court held that the Banking Companies Act 1969 violated equality before law. Article 19 concerning Right to acquire, hold and dispose of property and Article 31 regarding compulsory acquisition of property are invalid and unconstitutional. The 24th, 25th and 29th Constitution Amendment Acts were challenged in the Supreme Court by Swami Kesavananda Bharati, a religious head in Kerala, and others on a variety of grounds. The Supreme Court delivered the judgement on 24 April 1973. It reversed the Golak Nath Case ruling and upheld Parliament’s right to amend the Constitution including the Fundamental Rights but not the basic structure or framework of the Constitution. This judgement has imposed specific limits to the Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution. No amendment can violate the basic structure of the Constitution. In many decisions, the Supreme Court had held that reservations in jobs and educational institutions cannot exceed fifty per cent of the total seats. On 9 May 1980, the Supreme Court in Minerva Mills Case struck down Section 55 of the 42nd Amendment Act 1976 which gave unlimited power to the Parliament.

Answer:

In India, the power to amend the Constitution is vested with the elected representatives, i.e., the Parliament and state legislatures. The Supreme Court is vested with the power of Judicial review. Many times, amendments passed by the Parliament have been struck down by the Supreme Court. The power of Judicial Review is, in fact, against democratic principles. While amending the Constitution, elected representatives are expected to act in accordance with the people, of the people. There is no justification of such a law being declared ultra vires by the courts. In democracy, sovereignty resides with the people and not with the judiciary. Judges of the Supreme Court are not elected by the people. On what ground they can claim to be the guardians of the will of the people. When the amendment passed by the Parliament is declared unconstitutional, it naturally undermines its prestige. Moreover, while determining the constitutionality of an amendment, what the court says depends largely upon who the judges are, their temperaments as well as their social, economic and political views. Thus, the judiciary should not have the power to decide the validity of amendments.

Answer:

(a) TRUE

Answer:

(a) TRUE

Answer:

(b) FALSE

Answer:

(a) TRUE

Answer:

(c) The rights given and protected by the Constitution.

Answer:

1. Right to equality is violated because overweight male cabin crew are allowed to get promotion in the national airlines, whereas their women colleagues who gain weight are penalised. It is gender based discrimination which is against Right to Equality.
2. By making a documentary film that criticises the policies of the government, the director has used his Right to Freedom.
3. Right to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India is violated.
4. Andhra Society is using ‘Cultural and Educational Rights’ guaranteed under Article 29 of the Constitution.

Answer:

(c) Linguistic and religious minorities can open schools for their children and keep it reserved for them.

Answer:

Not paying minimum wages is a violation of Fundamental Rights because not paying minimum wages amounts to begar or forced labour, which is a violation of Right against Exploitation.

Answer:

An activist has rightly pointed out that the poor do not need Fundamental Rights. They need Directive Principles to be made legally binding. Actually, an activist needs economic Fundamental Rights which are not mentioned in Part III of the Constitution. If Directive Principles are made legally binding then economic democracy will be established. No doubt, economic democracy is essential to enjoy political rights, i.e., political democracy. For a poor person, right to work is more important than right to freedom. He needs right to adequate livelihood, equal pay for equal work, right against economic exploitation, etc.

Answer:

In this instance, three rights are violated. In the first instance, Right to Freedom is violated. No citizen can be forced to adopt a particular job. It is the right of the citizen to practise any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business. Moreover, children have the Right to Education. Hence, their Right to Education is also violated. Thirdly, Right to Equality is also violated.

Answer:

(a) In this case, different rights are involved, i.e., Right to Life, Right to Equality, Right against Exploitation and Right to Constitutional Remedies. Everybody is equal before law and has equal protection of law. The fact that a large number of ration-card holders do not know about the quantity of foodgrains they can purchase from Fair Price shops makes it clear that they have no equal protection of law. Fair Price shop owners are exploiting the poor ration card-holders. Thus, Right against Exploitation is violated. More than five crore tonnes of foodgrains were stored in the godowns of the Food Corporation of India. But large number of people were starving because they did not know how much foodgrains they could purchase from the Fair Price shops. This involved violation of Right to Life.
(b) All these rights form a part of the Right to life.

Answer:

I agree with the statement of Somnath Lahiri to a great extent. The Constitution of India imposes direct restrictions on these rights. It also empowers the government to impose reasonable restrictions on the enjoyment of Fundamental rights. Thus, the Constitution empowers the government to put reasonable restrictions on Fundamental Rights in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the state, in the interest of the general public etc. Somnath Lahiri has rightly said that those rights which are demand by the people should be included in the fundamental rights.

Answer:

Right to Constitutional Remedies is the most important right. This right is often described as the most Fundamental of all the Fundamental Rights as all other rights given in the Constitution would become meaningless without this right. Our other rights are not only implemented by this right but safeguarded also. That is why many constitutional experts describe this right as the heart and soul of Fundamental Rights.