Daily Quiz: UPSC Prelims Marathon – October 18

All the above statements are correct.

Article 3 authorises the Parliament to: (a) form a new state by separation of territory from any state or by uniting two or more states or parts of states or by uniting any territory to a part of any state, (b) increase the area of any state, (c) diminish the area of any state, (d) alter the boundaries of any state, and (e) alter the name of any state.

However, Article 3 lays down two conditions in this regard: one, a bill contemplating the above changes can be introduced in the Parliament only with the prior recommendation of the President; and two, before recommending the bill, the President has to refer the same to the state legislature concerned for expressing its views within a specified period. Further, the power of Parliament to form new states includes the power to form a new state or union territory by uniting a part of any state or union territory to any other state or union territory3.

The President (or Parliament) is not bound by the views of the state legislature and may either accept or reject them, even if the views are received in time. Further, it is not necessary to make a fresh reference to the state legislature every time an amendment to the bill is moved and accepted in Parliament4. In case of a union territory, no reference need be made to the concerned legislature to ascertain its views and the Parliament can itself take any action as it deems fit.

Both the statements are correct

The Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the Indian Constitution can be suspended during the operation of a National Emergency except the rights guaranteed by Articles 20 and 21. Further, the six rights guaranteed by Article 19 can be suspended only when emergency is declared on the grounds of war or external aggression (i.e., external emergency) and not on the ground of armed rebellion (i.e., internal emergency).

• PENCIL (Platform for Effective Enforcement for No Child Labour) — an electronic platform for no child labour developed by the Labour Ministry is going to be launched by Home Minister Rajnath Singh September 26, 2017 in the National Conference on Child Labour
• PENCIL portal has five components — Child Tracking System, Complaint Corner, State Government, National Child Labour Project and Convergence.
• The genesis of the portal is in the felt need to create a robust implementing and monitoring mechanism for both enforcement of the legislative provisions and effective implementation of the NCLP especially in the backdrop that the subject of labour is in the concurrent list and enforcement to a large extent depends of respective state governments

Statement 1 is correct:

The Constitution can be amended in three ways:

(a) Amendment by simple majority of the Parliament,

(b) Amendment by special majority of the Parliament, and

(c) Amendment by special majority of the Parliament and the ratification of half of the state legislatures.

The majority of the provisions in the Constitution need to be amended by a special majority of the Parliament, that is, a majority (that is, more than 50 per cent) of the total membership of each House and a majority of two-thirds of the members of each House present and voting.

Note: The provisions which can be amended special majority includes: (i) Fundamental Rights; (ii) Directive Principles of State Policy; and (iii) All other provisions which are not covered by the first and third categories. So the 2^nd statement Incorrect.

Statement 2 is incorrect:

The following provisions can be amended by Special Majority of Parliament and Consent of States:

1. Election of the President and its manner.
2. Extent of the executive power of the Union and the states.
3. Supreme Court and high courts.
4. Distribution of legislative powers between the Union and the states.
5. Any of the lists in the Seventh Schedule.
6. Representation of states in Parliament.
7. Power of Parliament to amend the Constitution and its procedure (Article 368 itself).

In the Shankari Prasad case (1951), the constitutional validity of the First Amendment Act (1951), which curtailed the right to property, was challenged. The Supreme Court ruled that the power of the Parliament to amend the Constitution under Article 368 also includes the power to amend Fundamental Rights.

But in the Golak Nath case (1967), the Supreme Court reversed its earlier stand. In that case, the constitutional validity of the Seventeenth Amendment Act (1964), which inserted certain state acts in the Ninth Schedule, was challenged. The Supreme Court ruled that the Fundamental Rights are given a ‘transcendental and immutable’ position and hence, the Parliament cannot abridge or take away any of these rights.

However, in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), the Supreme Court overruled its judgement in the Golak Nath case (1967). It upheld the validity of the 24th Amendment Act (1971) and stated that Parliament is empowered to abridge or take away any of the Fundamental Rights. At the same time, it laid down a new doctrine of the ‘basic structure’ (or ‘basic features’) of the Constitution.

The Parliament reacted to this judicially innovated doctrine of ‘basic structure’ by enacting the 42nd Amendment Act (1976). This Act amended Article 368 and declared that there is no limitation on the constituent power of Parliament and no amendment can be questioned in any court on any ground including that of the contravention of any of the Fundamental Rights.

However, the Supreme Court in the Minerva Mills case (1980) invalidated this provision as it excluded judicial review which is a ‘basic feature’ of the Constitution. Applying the doctrine of ‘basic structure’ with respect to Article 368.

Inter-State Water Dispute Tribunals Set-up So Far SI.

1. Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal- 1969- Maharashtra, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh
2. Godavari Water Disputes Tribunal- 1969- Maharashtra, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Orissa
3. Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal- 1969- Rajasthan, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra
4. Ravi and Beas Water Disputes Tribunal- 1986- Punjab and Haryana
5. Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal- 1990- Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Puducherry
6. Second Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal- 2004- Maharashtra, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh
7. Vansadhara Water Disputes Tribunal-2010- Odisha and Andhra Pradesh
8. Mahadayi Water Disputes Tribunal- 2010- Goa, Karnataka and Maharashtra

The President is elected not directly by the people but by members of electoral college consisting of: 1. the elected members of both the Houses of Parliament;

2. the elected members of the legislative assemblies of the states; and
3. the elected members of the legislative assemblies of the Union Territories of Delhi and Puducherry.

Thus, the nominated members of both of Houses of Parliament, the nominated members of the state legislative assemblies, the members (both elected and nominated) of the state legislative councils (in case of the bicameral legislature) and the nominated members of the Legislative Assemblies of Delhi and Puducherry do not participate in the election of the President. Where an assembly is dissolved, the members cease to be qualified to vote in presidential election, even if fresh elections to the dissolved assembly are not held before the presidential election.