UPSC wants random 15000 folks to write mains every year.
If you are in the random 15000 make sure to convert else you may not get a chance.
Instead of such a prelims paper, UPSC can take the aadhar number of all applicants, randomly select 15000 aadhar numbers to write mains every year like the H1-B lottery. That would probably be more fair than this sham paper asking about elephants pregnancy gestation period.
Or prepare random stuff like the pregnancy period of chimpanzee, distance from Hathras to Hubbali or Balrampur to Bangalore and see the coaching classes claim that it came from their material since Hathras was mentioned.
The question
constitution defines
what is wrong with first statement .
Is being grammar nazi ... and taking strict meaning of word *defines* as some sort of a proper definition to be given????
Q23. Consider the following statements
- The constitution of India defines its basic structure in terms of federalism, secularism, fundamental rights and democracy
- The constitution of India provides for the ‘judicial review’ to safeguard the citizen’s liberties and to preserve the ideals on which the constitution is based....
what i mean to say is - Define has various synonyms ... and it is usually taken synonyms to as GIVEN. Also .. Court recognized and identified and keep this doctrine evolving. Even court later in few judgement s gave meaning to what is could be like .. and that too even vague. Also, The court just found doctrine not defined or .. they recognized as they discovered.
My take is - By general reading First statement is correct enough because ... If you just focus on word *defines* ... then only it is wrong .... Otherwise it is a perfectly correct and fluid statement written by someone setting paper !!
That's why - I took it as right. what are your views on it.
My argument in support :
According to the Constitution, Parliament and the state legislatures in India have the power to make laws within their respective jurisdictions. This power is not absolute in nature. The Constitution vests in the judiciary, the power to adjudicate upon the constitutional validity of all laws. If a law made by Parliament or the state legislatures violates any provision of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has the power to declare such a law invalid or ultra vires. This check notwithstanding, the founding fathers wanted the Constitution to be an adaptable document rather than a rigid framework for governance. Hence Parliament was invested with the power to amend the Constitution. Article 368 of the Constitution gives the impression that Parliament's amending powers are absolute and encompass all parts of the document. But the Supreme Court has acted as a brake to the legislative enthusiasm of Parliament ever since independence. With the intention of preserving the original ideals envisioned by the constitution-makers, the apex court pronounced that Parliament could not distort, damage or alter the basic features of the Constitution under the pretext of amending it. The phrase 'basic structure' itself cannot be found in the Constitution. The Supreme Court recognised this concept for the first time in the historic Kesavananda Bharati case in 1973. Ever since the Supreme Court has been the interpreter of the Constitution and the arbiter of all amendments made by Parliament !!
Not to blame you but if you analyse so much for such a question you are no way gonna complete the paper. For most such questions UPSC answers are the simple way out.
The judiciary defined the Basic structure so 1 is wrong.
2 is right because judicial review is part of the constitution (w.r.t procedure established by law and laws ultra vires to basic structure).
Peace.
