Daily Current Affairs Quiz for UPSC Prelims 2027 — 22 May 2026

The Constitution of India is a living document that can be altered to suit changing needs. In this context, which one of the following is NOT a recognized method through which the provisions of the Constitution have been effectively modified or amended since its inception?

Why this answer

The method of passing a constitutional amendment through a joint sitting of both Houses of Parliament is not recognized because Article 368 explicitly requires constitutional amendments to be passed by a separate two-thirds majority in each House of Parliament, not through joint sittings. Joint sittings under Article 108 are reserved only for resolving deadlocks on ordinary legislation, which cannot formally amend the Constitution. In contrast, Acts of Parliament passed by simple majority have effectively modified the Constitution's operation by operationalizing various constitutional provisions without technically amending it—such as laws establishing new institutions or regulatory frameworks. Presidential orders issued under specific constitutional provisions, like emergency proclamations under Articles 352, 356, and 360, have also effectively altered the Constitution's practical application during national crises. Furthermore, Supreme Court judicial interpretation has been a profound mechanism of constitutional modification, with landmark cases like Kesavananda Bharati establishing the basic structure doctrine, and numerous decisions expanding the scope of fundamental rights and constitutional principles far beyond their original textual boundaries.

The static concept

Procedure for Amendment of the Constitution (Article 368) and other methods of constitutional change.

In the context of the Supreme Court's 2023 judgment in *Supriya Chakraborty v. Union of India* regarding the legal recognition of same-sex marriage, which of the following constitutional principles was most central to the majority's decision to defer the matter to the legislature?

Why this answer

The Supreme Court's approach to same-sex marriage petitions has consistently invoked the separation of powers doctrine—the principle that creating or amending laws to establish new social institutions is a legislative function, not a judicial one. The Court has recognized that marriage is a socially significant institution requiring broad-based societal consensus, which is best achieved through Parliament's legislative process rather than judicial pronouncement. While arguments grounded in reasonable restrictions based on public morality and in Article 21's textual scope reference genuine legal principles, they do not capture the Court's primary reasoning for deferral. The reasoning based on Parliament's exclusive jurisdiction over marriage under the Union List conflates jurisdictional authority with the separation of powers principle and is less precise; marriage is a concurrent subject under the Constitution, not exclusively parliamentary.

The static concept

Separation of Powers between Judiciary and Legislature; Interpretation and scope of Fundamental Rights (Articles 14, 15, 19, 21); Judicial Review and Restraint.

In the context of recent discussions on significant constitutional reforms, such as the 'One Nation, One Election' proposal, consider the following statements regarding the amendment procedure of the Constitution of India:

1. 1.A Constitutional Amendment Bill can be introduced in either House of Parliament, but not in a state legislature.
2. 2.The President of India can neither withhold assent nor return a duly passed Constitutional Amendment Bill for reconsideration.
3. 3.An amendment that seeks to alter the provisions related to the elections to the state legislatures requires ratification by the legislatures of not less than one-half of the states.
4. 4.The Supreme Court, in the Shankari Prasad case (1951), established the 'basic structure doctrine', limiting Parliament's power to amend the Constitution.

How many of the above statements are correct?

Why this answer

Statement 1 is correct: a Constitutional Amendment Bill under Article 368 can be introduced in either House of Parliament, but never in a state legislature. Statement 2 is correct: after the 24th Amendment (1971), the President is bound to give assent to a duly passed Constitutional Amendment Bill — he can neither withhold assent nor return it for reconsideration. Statement 3 is incorrect: 'elections to the state legislatures' fall under Articles 327/328 and are NOT among the entrenched provisions in the proviso to Article 368(2); they can be amended by special majority alone, without any state ratification. (The 'not less than one-half of the states' threshold is itself the correct ratification number — it applies to entrenched matters like the election of the President, distribution of legislative powers, Seventh Schedule, etc. — but elections to state legislatures isn't one of those entrenched matters.) Statement 4 is incorrect: the basic structure doctrine was laid down in Kesavananda Bharati (1973). Shankari Prasad (1951) actually upheld Parliament's plenary power to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights. Hence only Statements 1 and 2 are correct.

The static concept

Article 368 — Procedure for Amendment of the Constitution, including special majority, ratification by states, and the evolution of the Basic Structure Doctrine.

With reference to the power of the Parliament to amend the Constitution of India, consider the following statements:

1. 1.A Constitutional Amendment Bill can be introduced in the Parliament by a private member.
2. 2.Article 368 of the Constitution itself explicitly contains the 'basic structure' doctrine, limiting the amending power of the Parliament.
3. 3.The 105th Amendment Act, 2021, was enacted to clarify that states can maintain their own list of Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBCs).
4. 4.An amendment affecting the representation of states in Parliament must be ratified by the legislatures of all the states before it is presented for Presidential assent.

How many of the above statements are correct?

Why this answer

Evaluating each statement: (1) TRUE—While amendment bills are typically government-sponsored, the Constitution and Rules of Procedure do not prohibit private members from formally introducing amendment bills; however, they lack practical prospects without government backing. (2) FALSE—The 'basic structure' doctrine was established by the Supreme Court in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), not contained in Article 368 itself, which contains no mention of any doctrine limiting the amending power. (3) TRUE—The 105th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2021, clarified and affirmed the power of States to maintain their own lists of Socially and Educationally Backward Classes, separate from central lists. (4) FALSE—Article 368(2) requires ratification by the legislatures of only half the States for amendments affecting state representation, not all States. Thus, two statements (1 and 3) are correct.

The static concept

Article 368 - Power of Parliament to amend the Constitution and its procedure; Judicial Review and Basic Structure Doctrine.