This MCQ module is based on: Salient Features, Authority & Exercises
TOPIC 3 OF 29
Salient Features, Authority & Exercises
🎓 Class 11
Social Science
CBSE
Theory
Ch 1 — Constitution: Why and How?
⏱ ~25 min
🌐 Language: [gtranslate]
🧠 AI-Powered MCQ Assessment
▲
📝 Worksheet / Assessment
▲
This assessment will be based on: Salient Features, Authority & Exercises
Upload images, PDFs, or Word documents to include their content in assessment generation.
Chapter 1 · Constitution: Why and How? — Part 3: Authority, Features & Exercises
Why does the Indian Constitution still command authority more than seven decades after its adoption? Because it was crafted by credible leaders, built around just substantive provisions, and balanced through intelligent institutional design. This part closes the chapter with the salient features of the Indian Constitution, the conclusion, and full model answers to all NCERT exercises.
3.0 The Authority of a Constitution — Three Tests
We have outlined some of the functions a constitution performs. They explain why most societies have a constitution. But three further questions remain:
- What is a constitution?
- How effective is a constitution?
- Is a constitution just?
In most countries, the ‘Constitution’ is a compact document containing a number of articles about the state, its powers, and the norms it should follow. When we ask for the constitution of a country, we usually mean this document. But some countries — the United Kingdom, for example — do not have a single document called “the Constitution.” They have a series of documents and decisions that, taken together, perform the same job. So a constitution can be defined as the document or set of documents that together perform the constitutional functions we discussed in Part 1.
But many constitutions exist only on paper. The crucial question is: how effective is a constitution? What gives it real impact on people’s lives? Three factors are decisive: the mode of promulgation, the substantive provisions, and balanced institutional design.
3.1 Mode of Promulgation — Who Wrote It, and How
The first test is: how did the constitution come into being? Who crafted it, and how much authority did they have? In many countries, constitutions remain defunct because they were drafted by military leaders or unpopular regimes who lacked the ability to carry the people with them.
The most successful constitutions — in India, South Africa and the United States — were created in the aftermath of popular national movements. Although India’s Constitution was formally created by a Constituent Assembly between December 1946 and November 1949, it drew on a long history of the nationalist movement that had a remarkable ability to bring together different sections of Indian society. The Constitution drew enormous legitimacy from the fact that its framers enjoyed immense public credibility, were able to negotiate, and convinced people that the document was not an instrument for personal aggrandisement.
\1F5F3 Why India Did Not Hold a Referendum
Some countries put their constitution to a full referendum, where all citizens vote on whether to adopt it. The Indian Constitution was not subjected to such a referendum. But it carried enormous public authority because it had the consensus and backing of leaders who were themselves popular. The people, in turn, adopted it as their own by abiding by its provisions over the following decades.
3.2 The Substantive Provisions — Does Everyone Have a Reason to Go Along?
It is the hallmark of a successful constitution that it gives everyone in society some reason to go along with its provisions. A constitution that allowed permanent majorities to oppress minorities would give those minorities no reason to follow it. A constitution that systematically privileged some members at the expense of others, or that locked in the power of a small group, would soon lose its moral authority. If any group feels its identity is being stifled, it will cease to abide by the constitution.
No constitution by itself achieves perfect justice. But it must convince people that it provides the framework for pursuing basic justice. The more a constitution preserves the freedom and equality of all its members, the more likely it is to succeed.
\1F4D6 The Test for Substantive Provisions
Ask yourself: What would the basic rules of a society have to look like, such that they gave every group in that society a reason to go along with them? The Indian Constitution, broadly speaking, passes this test — through equality before law, fundamental rights, freedom of religion, reservations, free and fair elections and a free press.
3.3 Balanced Institutional Design — Fragmenting Power
Constitutions are often subverted not by the people, but by small groups who want more power. Well-crafted constitutions fragment power intelligently so that no single group can capture the constitution. The most common technique is to ensure that no single institution acquires a monopoly of power. The Indian Constitution does this both horizontally — across the Legislature, Executive and Judiciary — and vertically, by setting up an independent Election Commission?, the office of the Comptroller & Auditor General?, the Union Public Service Commission and other autonomous bodies.
Horizontal fragmentation of power in the Indian Constitution — with independent statutory bodies as additional checks.
Three further questions can be asked when we want to know whether a constitution has authority:
- Were the people who enacted it credible?
- Did the constitution organise power intelligently, so that it cannot be easily subverted?
- Is the constitution the locus of the people’s hopes and aspirations — in other words, is it just?
3.4 The Right Balance — Rigid versus Flexible
A constitution must strike the right balance between certain values, norms and procedures as authoritative, while at the same time allowing enough flexibility to adapt to changing needs and circumstances. Too rigid a constitution will break under change; too flexible a constitution will give no security, predictability or identity to a people.
The Indian Constitution has been described as a living document. By striking a balance between the possibility of changing its provisions and the limits on such changes, it has survived as a document respected by the people. It has been amended over a hundred times, and yet its basic structure — democracy, secularism, judicial review, federalism, the rule of law — has been preserved.
3.5 Salient Features of the Indian Constitution
Drawing the threads together, here are the most important features that make the Indian Constitution what it is:
1. Longest Written Constitution
The Indian Constitution is the longest written constitution in the world. Its detailed provisions reflect the diversity and scale of India.
2. Sovereignty of the People
The Preamble begins with “We, the people? of India.” All authority flows from the people.
3. Sovereign, Socialist, Secular, Democratic Republic
India is described in the Preamble as a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic — with the words ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ added by the 42nd Amendment, 1976.
4. Parliamentary Democracy
The executive is responsible to the legislature. The Prime Minister and Council of Ministers must enjoy the confidence of the Lok Sabha.
5. Federal with a Strong Centre
Powers are divided between the Union and States, but the Centre is stronger — especially during emergencies. NCERT calls this a quasi-federal arrangement.
6. Universal Adult Franchise
Every citizen 18 and above can vote, irrespective of religion, caste, education, gender or income. Adopted at independence — an extraordinarily bold step for its time.
7. Fundamental Rights
Part III lists six Fundamental Rights enforceable by the Supreme Court (Article 32) and High Courts (Article 226).
8. Directive Principles of State Policy
Part IV lists non-justiciable but morally binding goals — reduction of inequality, free elementary education, decent wages and living standards.
9. Judicial Review & Independent Judiciary
Courts can strike down laws and executive actions inconsistent with the Constitution. Judges have security of tenure and salaries.
10. Integrated Judiciary
One Supreme Court at the top, with High Courts and subordinate courts forming a single hierarchy — unlike in countries with parallel federal and state court systems.
11. Secular State
The state has no official religion. All citizens are free to follow any religion, and the state must treat all religions equally.
12. Single Citizenship
Every Indian citizen is a citizen of India alone, not separately of a State — reinforcing national unity.
13. Mixed Economy & Welfare Goals
Public and private sectors coexist; Directive Principles enjoin the state to pursue social and economic justice.
14. Emergency Provisions
Articles 352, 356 and 360 allow the central government extraordinary powers to deal with war, breakdown of constitutional machinery, or financial emergency.
15. Rigidity-Flexibility Blend
Some provisions need a special majority and ratification by States to amend; others can be changed by ordinary majority — the right balance for a living constitution.
16. Fundamental Duties
Part IV-A (added by the 42nd Amendment in 1976) lists the duties citizens owe to the nation — respect for the Constitution, the National Flag and the Anthem, protection of the environment, and more.
THINK ABOUT IT — What Makes the Indian Constitution “Borrowed” or “Original”?
Bloom: L5 Evaluate
You have read that the framers borrowed from many constitutions. Critics sometimes call the Indian Constitution a “borrowed” document. Argue, in 100 words, whether you think the document is original. Use evidence from this chapter.
\2705 Sample Pointers
Originality lies not in inventing every clause from scratch but in selection, combination and adaptation. The framers borrowed parliamentary form from Britain, judicial review from the U.S., Directive Principles from Ireland, and quasi-federalism from Canada. But the combination — with universal adult suffrage at independence, single citizenship, reservations, integrated judiciary, and a secular state with deep diversity — is unique. As Ambedkar said, the only new things in any constitution framed late in history are the variations made to suit a country’s needs.
3.6 Conclusion
It is a tribute to the wisdom and foresight of the framers that they presented the nation with a document enshrining fundamental values and the highest aspirations shared by the people. This is one reason why this most intricately crafted document has not only survived but has become a living reality, while so many other constitutions have perished with the paper they were first written on.
India’s Constitution is a unique document that, in turn, became an exemplar for many other constitutions — most notably South Africa’s in 1996. The long search of nearly three years was meant to strike the right balance — so that institutions created by the Constitution would not be haphazard or tentative arrangements, but able to accommodate the aspirations of the people of India for a long time to come.
\1F4D6 Chapter Summary
- A constitution performs five core functions: coordination & assurance, specification of decision-making powers, limitations on government, enabling positive aspirations, and expressing the fundamental identity of a people.
- The most successful constitutions are those born of popular national movements, with credible authors, just substantive provisions, and intelligent institutional design.
- The Indian Constituent Assembly first met on 9 December 1946, was reduced to 299 members after Partition, and adopted the Constitution on 26 November 1949; it came into force on 26 January 1950.
- The Drafting Committee of seven, chaired by Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, did the actual drafting work; Dr. Rajendra Prasad presided over the Assembly.
- The Objectives Resolution (Nehru, 13 December 1946) provided the moral compass for the Constitution and shaped the Preamble.
- The Indian Constitution is the longest written constitution; it sets up a parliamentary democracy in a quasi-federal Union with universal adult franchise, fundamental rights, judicial review, secular government, and a balance between rigidity and flexibility.
3.7 Key Terms — Quick Glossary
Constitution
The body of fundamental rules by which a state is constituted and governed; the supreme law of the land.
Constituent Assembly
The body that drafted the Indian Constitution; first met on 9 December 1946; adopted the Constitution on 26 November 1949.
Drafting Committee
Seven-member committee chaired by Dr. B. R. Ambedkar that drafted the text of the Constitution.
Cabinet Mission Plan
1946 plan of a British cabinet committee that proposed the framework for the Constituent Assembly.
Government of India Act, 1935
British statute that set up Provincial Legislative Assemblies, whose members later elected the Constituent Assembly.
Objectives Resolution
Resolution moved by Nehru on 13 December 1946 setting out the aims of the Constitution; adopted on 22 January 1947.
Preamble
The opening declaration of the Constitution beginning with “We, the people of India.”
Sovereign
Free of any external authority; supreme in internal matters.
Secular
A state that has no official religion and treats all religions with equal respect.
Fundamental Rights
Rights guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution that no government can violate.
Parliamentary Democracy
A system in which the executive is responsible to a directly elected legislature.
Judicial Review
The power of courts to strike down laws and executive actions inconsistent with the Constitution.
Universal Adult Franchise
The right of every adult citizen to vote, regardless of religion, caste, gender, education or wealth.
Living Document
A constitution that adapts through amendments and judicial interpretation while keeping its core values intact.
Public Reason
The practice of giving principled reasons to others for one’s position; the hallmark of the Constituent Assembly Debates.
3.8 NCERT Exercises — Full Model Answers
Q1. Which of these is not a function of the constitution?
Answer: (c) — A constitution lays down procedures for choosing leaders and limits the powers of those who come to office. It cannot guarantee that the people elected will be “good”; that depends on voters and political culture, not on the document itself.
Q2. Which of the following is a good reason to conclude that the authority of the constitution is higher than that of the parliament?
Answer: (c) — Parliament exists only because the Constitution creates it. The Constitution defines how Parliament is composed and the limits of what it may do. Therefore the Constitution is the higher authority. Option (a) is true historically but not the strongest reason. Option (d) is wrong — Parliament can amend most parts of the Constitution under Article 368, subject to the basic structure doctrine.
Q3. State whether the following statements about a constitution are True or False.
(a) Partly True. Most constitutions are written, but not all — the United Kingdom’s constitution is unwritten, made up of statutes, conventions and judgments.
(b) False. Even non-democratic states have constitutions — monarchical and single-party systems use constitutions to allocate power, though they may not protect rights.
(c) False. Modern constitutions, especially India’s, embed ideals and values such as justice, liberty, equality and fraternity in their Preambles, Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles.
(d) True. The constitution gives citizens a shared political and moral identity. By agreeing to the basic norms, individuals form a political community.
(b) False. Even non-democratic states have constitutions — monarchical and single-party systems use constitutions to allocate power, though they may not protect rights.
(c) False. Modern constitutions, especially India’s, embed ideals and values such as justice, liberty, equality and fraternity in their Preambles, Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles.
(d) True. The constitution gives citizens a shared political and moral identity. By agreeing to the basic norms, individuals form a political community.
Q4. State whether the following inferences about the making of the Indian Constitution are Correct or Incorrect. Give reasons.
(a) Incorrect. Although the Assembly was not elected by universal adult suffrage (an unfair test in 1946, when no large country yet practised it), it was widely representative: members from all major religions, twenty-eight Scheduled Caste members, leaders from all regions, and the Congress accommodated almost every shade of opinion. The leaders enjoyed enormous public credibility.
(b) Incorrect. Major decisions were debated for nearly three years — centralised vs. decentralised government, Centre-State relations, the powers of the judiciary, property rights, language. Almost every issue at the foundation of a modern state was discussed with great sophistication. Only universal adult franchise was passed without debate — itself a remarkable consensus.
(c) Incorrect. Borrowing was not slavish imitation. Each provision was tested against Indian needs. The framers adapted the parliamentary form (UK), judicial review (US), Directive Principles (Ireland) and quasi-federalism (Canada), and combined them with original features such as universal adult franchise at independence, integrated judiciary, single citizenship, reservations and a secular state — producing a unique whole.
(b) Incorrect. Major decisions were debated for nearly three years — centralised vs. decentralised government, Centre-State relations, the powers of the judiciary, property rights, language. Almost every issue at the foundation of a modern state was discussed with great sophistication. Only universal adult franchise was passed without debate — itself a remarkable consensus.
(c) Incorrect. Borrowing was not slavish imitation. Each provision was tested against Indian needs. The framers adapted the parliamentary form (UK), judicial review (US), Directive Principles (Ireland) and quasi-federalism (Canada), and combined them with original features such as universal adult franchise at independence, integrated judiciary, single citizenship, reservations and a secular state — producing a unique whole.
Q5. Give two examples each to support the following conclusions about the Indian Constitution:
(a) Credible leaders — (i) Jawaharlal Nehru moved the Objectives Resolution and led the freedom struggle for decades. (ii) Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, a tireless campaigner for Scheduled Caste rights, chaired the Drafting Committee. Both commanded enormous public respect, drawn from the freedom movement.
(b) Distribution of power — (i) The Constitution divides power horizontally across Legislature, Executive and Judiciary, and creates an independent Election Commission, CAG and UPSC. (ii) Power is divided vertically between the Union and the States in three lists (Union, State, Concurrent), so that no single layer can monopolise authority.
(c) Hopes and aspirations — (i) The Preamble promises justice, liberty, equality and fraternity — a moral charter for the nation. (ii) The Directive Principles commit the state to reducing inequality, providing free elementary education, and ensuring decent wages.
(b) Distribution of power — (i) The Constitution divides power horizontally across Legislature, Executive and Judiciary, and creates an independent Election Commission, CAG and UPSC. (ii) Power is divided vertically between the Union and the States in three lists (Union, State, Concurrent), so that no single layer can monopolise authority.
(c) Hopes and aspirations — (i) The Preamble promises justice, liberty, equality and fraternity — a moral charter for the nation. (ii) The Directive Principles commit the state to reducing inequality, providing free elementary education, and ensuring decent wages.
Q6. Why is it necessary for a country to have a clear demarcation of powers and responsibilities in the constitution? What would happen in the absence of such a demarcation?
A clear demarcation of powers tells everyone who can do what. It reduces conflict between organs of government, prevents one institution from grabbing the powers of another, and gives citizens a way to know which authority to approach. Without it: (i) institutions would clash — for example, the executive could pass laws on its own and the legislature could try cases. (ii) Citizens would not know whom to hold accountable for which decision. (iii) Small groups could capture key offices and centralise power. (iv) The very idea of fundamental rights would be undermined, since any organ could overrule any other. The result would be chaos at best, and tyranny at worst — precisely the situation the Indian Constitution avoids by horizontal separation of powers and the Centre-State distribution of legislative power.
Q7. Why is it necessary for a constitution to place limitations on the rulers? Can there be a constitution that gives no power at all to the citizens?
Even properly elected rulers can pass laws that violate basic freedoms or oppress particular groups. Without limitations, government can ban religions, prohibit speech, arbitrarily arrest people or discriminate by caste. Limitations on the rulers — in the form of fundamental rights and procedural safeguards — ensure that government cannot trespass on the dignity and freedom of citizens, no matter how popular it is.
A constitution can theoretically exist that gives no power to citizens — absolute monarchies and totalitarian states have such documents. But these are not constitutions in the modern democratic sense, where the document derives its legitimacy from the people. The Indian Constitution rejects that path: it begins with “We, the people” and grants every citizen rights and a vote. Without giving citizens power, a constitution cannot give every section a reason to abide by it — and so cannot succeed in the long run.
A constitution can theoretically exist that gives no power to citizens — absolute monarchies and totalitarian states have such documents. But these are not constitutions in the modern democratic sense, where the document derives its legitimacy from the people. The Indian Constitution rejects that path: it begins with “We, the people” and grants every citizen rights and a vote. Without giving citizens power, a constitution cannot give every section a reason to abide by it — and so cannot succeed in the long run.
Q8. The Japanese Constitution was made when the US occupation army was still in control of Japan after its defeat in the Second World War. The Japanese constitution could not have had any provision that the US government did not like. Do you see any problem in this way of making the constitution? In which way was the Indian experience different from this?
Yes, this way of making a constitution has serious problems. (i) The document does not represent the free choice of the people; an external occupying power decides which provisions are acceptable. (ii) The constitution lacks credibility — people may see it as imposed rather than their own. (iii) There is a risk that the occupying power’s interests are protected at the expense of the host country’s aspirations. (iv) The mode of promulgation, as we saw, is critical to a constitution’s long-term effectiveness; an imposed origin weakens that.
The Indian experience was very different. (i) The Constituent Assembly was elected by Provincial Legislative Assemblies of Indians, not nominated by Britain. (ii) The British did not control the content; Indian leaders debated every clause through 166 days of meetings. (iii) The framers drew on the long nationalist movement, giving the Constitution legitimacy rooted in the freedom struggle. (iv) Although members were not elected by universal franchise, they enjoyed enormous public credibility, and the Constitution was adopted in the name of “We, the people of India.”
The Indian experience was very different. (i) The Constituent Assembly was elected by Provincial Legislative Assemblies of Indians, not nominated by Britain. (ii) The British did not control the content; Indian leaders debated every clause through 166 days of meetings. (iii) The framers drew on the long nationalist movement, giving the Constitution legitimacy rooted in the freedom struggle. (iv) Although members were not elected by universal franchise, they enjoyed enormous public credibility, and the Constitution was adopted in the name of “We, the people of India.”
Q9. Rajat asked his teacher this question: “The constitution is a fifty year old and therefore outdated book. No one took my consent for implementing it. It is written in such tough language that I cannot understand it. Tell me why should I obey this document?” If you were the teacher, how would you answer Rajat?
Dear Rajat, your three concerns are common but each one has a clear answer.
1. “It is old, therefore outdated.” Age does not make a document outdated. The Constitution has been amended over a hundred times to keep up with changing needs — new amendments have added panchayats, women’s reservation, the right to education, and more. Courts also re-interpret it to meet new questions. It is described as a living document: its core values are stable, its details adapt with time.
2. “No one took my consent.” The Constitution was made by leaders who commanded the trust of the people of India. Every adult citizen since then has effectively given consent by participating in elections and accepting court judgments. The Preamble — “We, the people of India” — speaks in your name as much as in anyone else’s. If you wish to change a provision, the same Constitution gives you the political tools to do so, through your vote and through public debate.
3. “The language is tough.” Yes, parts of the text are technical — that is true of every legal document. But the Preamble, the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles can be understood by anyone willing to read them. Many simplified versions exist for students. Do not let language be a barrier to ownership. The Constitution belongs to you, your friends, and every other citizen of India.
For all these reasons, the Constitution is not just a book to obey. It is the framework that protects your rights, gives you a vote, and lets you take the country forward. Reject it, and you have no protection from injustice. Embrace it, and you have a shared promise of dignity for every Indian.
1. “It is old, therefore outdated.” Age does not make a document outdated. The Constitution has been amended over a hundred times to keep up with changing needs — new amendments have added panchayats, women’s reservation, the right to education, and more. Courts also re-interpret it to meet new questions. It is described as a living document: its core values are stable, its details adapt with time.
2. “No one took my consent.” The Constitution was made by leaders who commanded the trust of the people of India. Every adult citizen since then has effectively given consent by participating in elections and accepting court judgments. The Preamble — “We, the people of India” — speaks in your name as much as in anyone else’s. If you wish to change a provision, the same Constitution gives you the political tools to do so, through your vote and through public debate.
3. “The language is tough.” Yes, parts of the text are technical — that is true of every legal document. But the Preamble, the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles can be understood by anyone willing to read them. Many simplified versions exist for students. Do not let language be a barrier to ownership. The Constitution belongs to you, your friends, and every other citizen of India.
For all these reasons, the Constitution is not just a book to obey. It is the framework that protects your rights, gives you a vote, and lets you take the country forward. Reject it, and you have no protection from injustice. Embrace it, and you have a shared promise of dignity for every Indian.
Q10. In a discussion on the experience of the working of our Constitution, three speakers took three different positions. Do you agree with any of these? If not, what is your own position?
Each speaker has a partial truth. Harbans is right that the Constitution has given India a stable democratic framework: regular elections, peaceful transfers of power, an independent judiciary, a vibrant press, and protection of fundamental rights. Few countries decolonised in 1947 have such a record.
Neha is right to point out that liberty, equality and fraternity are not yet fully realised — many people still face discrimination, poverty and violence. But it is too quick to call the Constitution a failure. The Constitution itself created the institutions and rights that allow her, and us, to demand that those promises be kept.
Nazima’s position is the most accurate. The document is sound; it has empowered citizens to seek justice through courts, elections and public action. Where the promises remain unfulfilled, the failure lies with us — in our political choices, our public attitudes, our willingness to tolerate inequality and corruption. My own position sits closest to Nazima’s, with a touch of Harbans: the Constitution has worked as a framework, and continues to give us the tools to keep widening freedom and equality. The duty of every citizen is to use those tools more honestly — to live up to the Constitution rather than blame it.
Neha is right to point out that liberty, equality and fraternity are not yet fully realised — many people still face discrimination, poverty and violence. But it is too quick to call the Constitution a failure. The Constitution itself created the institutions and rights that allow her, and us, to demand that those promises be kept.
Nazima’s position is the most accurate. The document is sound; it has empowered citizens to seek justice through courts, elections and public action. Where the promises remain unfulfilled, the failure lies with us — in our political choices, our public attitudes, our willingness to tolerate inequality and corruption. My own position sits closest to Nazima’s, with a touch of Harbans: the Constitution has worked as a framework, and continues to give us the tools to keep widening freedom and equality. The duty of every citizen is to use those tools more honestly — to live up to the Constitution rather than blame it.
3.9 Reinforcement — Quick Self-Check
\1F4CB
Competency-Based Questions — Part 3
Case Study: A new law passed by Parliament restricts public protests “during the entire monsoon session of Parliament.” A citizens’ group challenges this law in the Supreme Court, arguing it violates the right to peaceful assembly. The court has to decide whether the law can stand.
Q1. Which feature of the Indian Constitution allows the Supreme Court to strike down such a law if it is found unconstitutional?
L2 UnderstandAnswer: (B) — Judicial review, borrowed from the U.S. Constitution and refined in India, gives the higher courts the power to strike down laws and executive actions that conflict with the Constitution.
Q2. Which constitutional principle ensures that even Parliament — the body that makes laws — cannot pass a law inconsistent with Fundamental Rights?
L3 ApplyAnswer: (C) — In India, the Constitution is supreme; Parliament is itself created by the Constitution and must function within its limits. This is one of the central reasons why the Constitution’s authority is higher than Parliament’s.
Q3. In about 70 words, explain how the Indian Constitution achieves the right balance between rigidity and flexibility, with one example.
L5 EvaluateModel Answer: Some provisions of the Constitution can be changed by Parliament with a simple majority (e.g. names of states). Others need a special two-thirds majority (e.g. Fundamental Rights). A few even need ratification by half the State Legislatures (e.g. amendments affecting the federal structure). This three-tier system makes the document flexible enough to evolve, yet rigid enough to protect its core. The basic structure doctrine adds a further floor: even amendments cannot destroy the basic features.
HOT Q. Imagine you are designing a constitution for a small new country of one million people. List the three most important features you would borrow from the Indian Constitution and explain why.
L6 CreateHint: Strong candidates — (1) Universal adult franchise from day one, since voting is the simplest test of equal citizenship. (2) A justiciable list of Fundamental Rights enforceable in court, to limit the new government. (3) An independent Election Commission and judiciary, to fragment power so no group can capture the system. Other defensible picks: secularism, judicial review, single citizenship.
\2696 Assertion–Reason Questions — Part 3
Options:
(A) Both A and R are true, and R is the correct explanation of A.
(B) Both A and R are true, but R is NOT the correct explanation of A.
(C) A is true, but R is false.
(D) A is false, but R is true.
(A) Both A and R are true, and R is the correct explanation of A.
(B) Both A and R are true, but R is NOT the correct explanation of A.
(C) A is true, but R is false.
(D) A is false, but R is true.
Assertion (A): The Indian Constitution can be described as a ‘living document’.
Reason (R): It strikes a balance between the possibility of changing its provisions and the limits on such changes.
Answer: (A) — Both true, and R precisely explains why the Constitution survives as a living document — flexible enough to adapt, rigid enough to protect its core.
Assertion (A): Sovereignty in India rests with the people.
Reason (R): The Constitution begins with the words “We, the people of India.”
Answer: (A) — Both true. The opening words of the Preamble formally declare that the Constitution is enacted in the name of the people, who are therefore the ultimate source of all authority.
Assertion (A): A constitution that allows permanent majorities to oppress minorities is unlikely to remain effective.
Reason (R): An effective constitution must give every section of society some reason to go along with its provisions.
Answer: (A) — Both statements are true and R is the precise reason behind A. If a group sees that the constitution permanently disadvantages it, it has no reason to remain bound by it.
AI Tutor
Class 11 Political Science — Indian Constitution at Work
Ready