Consider the following areas of conflict between the Parliament and the Judiciary in India: 1. Scope of Right to Private Property. 2. Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution. 3. Appointment of the Prime Minister. Which of the above have been actual points of contention?

The correct option is 1 and 2 only. Explanation The constitutional history of India is marked by a significant institutional tussle between the Parliament and the Judiciary. This conflict primarily revolved around the supremacy of the Constitution versus the amending power of the Parliament, particularly concerning the enforcement of Fundamental Rights against Directive Principles of State Policy. Statement-wise Analysis: - Statement 1 is Correct: The scope of the Right to Private Property was the earliest and most persistent point of contention. The Judiciary frequently struck down land reform legislations for violating the Right to Property (Article 31). In response, the Parliament enacted multiple amendments (such as the 1st, 25th, and 42nd Amendments) to bypass judicial scrutiny. This conflict eventually led to the abolition of the Right to Property as a Fundamental Right by the 44th Amendment Act, 1978. - Statement 2 is Correct: The Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution was the core legal issue in landmark cases such as Golaknath (1967), Kesavananda Bharati (1973), and Minerva Mills (1980). The Parliament asserted unlimited power to amend any part of the Constitution under Article 368, while the Judiciary curbed this power by establishing the Doctrine of Basic Structure, ruling that the essential features of the Constitution cannot be altered. - Statement 3 is Incorrect: The appointment of the Prime Minister is governed by Article 75 and well-established parliamentary conventions regarding the leader of the majority party. While the Judiciary has intervened in matters of floor tests and the dismissal of state governments (Article 356), the specific appointment of the Prime Minister has not been a subject of institutional conflict between the Parliament and the Judiciary. Key Takeaway: The evolution of the Basic Structure Doctrine was a direct result of the conflict between the Parliament's assertion of unlimited amending power and the Judiciary's mandate to protect Fundamental Rights, specifically the Right to Property.

Consider the following areas of… - NCERT Class 11 Political Science MCQ

NCERT Class 11 Political Science — Chapter 7: Judiciary

mcqmedium

Consider the following areas of conflict between the Parliament and the Judiciary in India:

Scope of Right to Private Property.
Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.
Appointment of the Prime Minister.

Which of the above have been actual points of contention?

NCERT textbook question

From NCERT Political Science: Indian Constitution at Work · Page 141

Options

A2 and 3 only
B1 and 3 only
C1, 2 and 3
D1 and 2 only

Did you get this right?

Solution

The correct option is 1 and 2 only.

Explanation

The constitutional history of India is marked by a significant institutional tussle between the Parliament and the Judiciary. This conflict primarily revolved around the supremacy of the Constitution versus the amending power of the Parliament, particularly concerning the enforcement of Fundamental Rights against Directive Principles of State Policy.

Statement-wise Analysis:

Statement 1 is Correct: The scope of the Right to Private Property was the earliest and most persistent point of contention. The Judiciary frequently struck down land reform legislations for violating the Right to Property (Article 31). In response, the Parliament enacted multiple amendments (such as the 1st, 25th, and 42nd Amendments) to bypass judicial scrutiny. This conflict eventually led to the abolition of the Right to Property as a Fundamental Right by the 44th Amendment Act, 1978.
Statement 2 is Correct: The Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution was the core legal issue in landmark cases such as Golaknath (1967), Kesavananda Bharati (1973), and Minerva Mills (1980). The Parliament asserted unlimited power to amend any part of the Constitution under Article 368, while the Judiciary curbed this power by establishing the Doctrine of Basic Structure, ruling that the essential features of the Constitution cannot be altered.
Statement 3 is Incorrect: The appointment of the Prime Minister is governed by Article 75 and well-established parliamentary conventions regarding the leader of the majority party. While the Judiciary has intervened in matters of floor tests and the dismissal of state governments (Article 356), the specific appointment of the Prime Minister has not been a subject of institutional conflict between the Parliament and the Judiciary.

Key Takeaway: The evolution of the Basic Structure Doctrine was a direct result of the conflict between the Parliament's assertion of unlimited amending power and the Judiciary's mandate to protect Fundamental Rights, specifically the Right to Property.

Your note

More from Chapter 7: Judiciary

Which of the following imposes the primary legal limitation on the powers and functioning of the Supreme Court of India?

easy

The Supreme Court may grant Special Leave to Appeal against the judgment of:

medium

Which statement reflects the difficulty of the process for removing a judge?

medium

The "Basic Structure" doctrine empowers the Judiciary to review:

medium

Consider the following statements regarding the Writ Jurisdiction of the courts in India: 1. Only the Supreme Court has the power to issue writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights. 2. An individual whose rights are violated must first approach the High Court before moving to the Supreme Court. 3. Writs allow the Court to give orders to the executive to act or not to act in a particular way. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

medium

Keep practising Chapter 7: Judiciary

Work through every question from this NCERT chapter.

Browse all NCERT Class 11 Political Science chapters