The doctrine of harmonious construction was propounded by Supreme Court in which of the following cases? Q. The doctrine of harmonious construction was propounded by Supreme Court in which of the following cases? Answer: Kerala Education Bill (1957) Case Notes: In Kerala Education Bill (1957), the Supreme Court said that in case of a conflict between Fundamental Right and Directive Principles, the principle of harmonious construction should be applied.

The court observed that: ” though the directive principles can not override the fundamental rights, nevertheless, in determining the scope and ambit of fundamental rights the court could not entirely ignore the directive principle but should adopt the principle of harmonious construction and should attempt to give effect to both as much as possible “.

: The doctrine of harmonious construction was propounded by Supreme Court in which of the following cases?

In which case was doctrine of harmonious construction established *?

This article is written by Ashutosh Singh, a student at Amity law school, Kolkata. The article explains the doctrine of harmonious construction with the use of many case laws. This article has been published by Sneha Mahawar, A legal doctrine is a principle, a theory, or a position that is commonly applied and upheld by the courts.

Different judicial doctrines have developed over time in the Indian constitutional law based on different judicial interpretations by the judiciary. These legal concepts did not form or take place at once but they are a result of disagreements, unrest, debates, and legislative solutions, and require improvement.

These situations arise when the statutes and their provisions have more than one interpretation because of an ambiguity in the law. After the statute has been enacted, the legislature becomes functus officio (no longer has jurisdiction). The interpreters of the law are then unable to question or get back to the legislature to request the exact interpretation of the legislation while they were making it. The doctrine of harmonious construction is followed when there arises an inconsistency between two or more statutes or sections of a particular statute. The fundamental principle behind this doctrine is, a statute has a legal purpose and should be read in its totality and after that, the interpretation that is consistent with all the provisions of that statute should be used.

In a situation where harmonizing all clauses is unlikely the court’s decision on the provision then takes precedence. The doctrine of harmonious construction came into existence as a result of many varied court interpretations of different statutes in a variety of cases. From time to time, the judiciary decided matters that involved opposition between two distinct provisions.

This doctrine came cloaked as the rule of conciliation first in the case of C.P. and Berar Act (1939), where the involved court resolved the inconsistency between an entry of List I, and an entry of List II in the Indian Constitution and interpreted them harmoniously.

In the aforesaid case, the question was whether a tax imposed by a provincial legislature on the sale of oil by a person who manufactured it, based on the ground that it was actually an excise duty. Then, a sales tax could be imposed by a provincial legislature, and excise duty could be imposed only by the union legislature.

The Apex Court, in this case, remarked that it would be peculiar if the Union had exclusive power to tax retail sales when the province had executive power to make laws with respect to trade and commerce, its production and supply, and the distribution of goods within its boundaries.

• Hence, it was a sales tax and the Act was not ultra vires,
• The Court added that there was no overlapping or conflict of two entries, so as to apply a non-obstante clause.
• The doctrine’s conception can be tracked all the way back to the first amendment to the Constitution of India, 1951, in the landmark judgement of Sri Shankari Prasad Singh Deo v.

Union of India (1951), The disagreement between the Fundamental Rights (Part III) and the Directive Principles (Part IV) of the Constitution of India was the subject of the case. Constitutional law is mainly concerned with the creation of the three great organs and the distribution of governmental powers among them, that is the executive, the legislature and the judiciary.

The Apex Court, in this case, made use of the rule of harmonious construction and held that Fundamental Rights are granted against the State and they may be revoked only under certain circumstances and even modified by the Parliament to comply with the constitutional provisions. The Supreme Court gave preference to both and said that the Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy are two sides of the same coin, and it is beneficial that they must work together.

The Supreme Court further held that the Fundamental Rights enforce limitation over both the legislature and executive power. They are not sacrosanct and the Parliament can amend them to bring them in conformity with the Directive Principles. The Supreme Court articulated the doctrine of harmonious construction in the case, Re Kerala Education Bill Case (1957),

The court added that there was no inherent conflict between the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles of the State Policy and they together constitute an integrated scheme and a comprehensive administrative and social programme for a modern democratic state. The court called them supplementary and complementary to each other.

Therefore, effort should be put to construe them harmoniously, so that the courts avoid any conflict among the Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles. They basically run parallel to each other and neither one is subordinate to the other. The aim of the judiciary and the courts should be to view the law as a whole.

The interpretation of the law should be such that it prevents confusion or incompatibility between the different sections or parts of the statute being used. Whenever a discrepancy arises between two or more statutes or different clauses or sections of a statute, the doctrine of harmonious construction must be followed.

The doctrine is based on the straightforward principle that every statute has a legal purpose and should be read in totality. The interpretation should be such that it is unswerving and all of the statute’s provisions should be used. In the event that harmonizing two or more statutes or different clauses or sections of a statute is unlikely, the court’s decision on the provision would take precedence.

Which of the following is an external aid for interpretation of statutes Mcq?

1- 2015 – SECTION A (Multiple Choice Questions) (i) Fundamentally interpretation is of – (a) One kind i. literal. (b) Two kinds i. literal or grammatical and logical (c) Both (a) & (b) (d) None of the above (ii) Who said, “A Judge must not alter the material of which the Act is woven but he can and should iron out the creases.’ (a) Lord Denning.

1. B) Lord Marshal.
2. C) Salmond.
3. D) Austin.
4. Iii) Literal construction when should not be adopted- (a) When the language of the statute can bear and promoter a larger national purpose must be preferred.
5. B) When the language of statute is not clear (c) Non of the above (d) Both (a) & (b) (iv) Internal aids are :- (a) Preamble.

(b) Schemes. (c) Enacting part of the statute. (d) All of the above. (v) Enabling provision. (a) Can be mandatory (b) Can be directory (c) Can be partly mandatory and partly directory (d) None of the above (vi) What does the ‘golden rule’ of statutory interpretation state? (a) Words should be given their plain meaning (b) Acts should be interpreted in such a way that manifest absurdity or injustice is avoided.

(c) Treat others in the same way that you would like to be treated (d) None of the above (vii) The oxford English dictionary is an example of aid to statutory interpretation. (a) Intrinsic. (b) Extrinsic. (c) Essential. (d) Mandatory. (viii) The phrase, ‘Reddendo Singular Singulis’ means. (a) Giving each to each.

(b) Giving decision. (c) Misrepresentation. (d) None of the above (ix) Rule of Ejusdem Generis also known as – (a) Lord Tenderen’s rule. (b) Maxwell rule. (c) Associated rule. (d) None of the above. (x) A verbis legis Non Est Recedendum means (a) You must vary the words of a statute.

1. B) You must not vary the words of a statute.
2. C) Both (a) & (b).
3. D) None of the above.
4. Xi) In which case the mischief rule was lucidly explained, (a) Hiram’s case.
5. B) Becks case.
6. C) Howard’s case.
7. D) Heyden’s case.
8. Xii) Noscitur A Socis means – (a) Word is known by its companions.
9. B) Word is known by its meaning (c) Word is social (d) All of the above (xiii) A proviso to a section in a statute is – (a) an independent section.

(b) not an independent section. (c) Can’t say. (d) None of the above. (xiv) ‘Ex Visceribus Actus’ that is – (a) Within the four corners of the Act (b) Within the provision (c) Out of the legal provision (d) All of the above (xv) The power of a court to hear a particular matter is referred as – (a) Jurisdiction (b) Consideration (c) Authorization (d) Insubordination ==================================================================

What are the types of harmony in design?

Fundamentals of Art and Design Harmony is the art prin­ciple which produces an impression of through the selection and arrangement of consistent objects and ideas. When all the objects in a group seem to have a strong “family resemblance,” that group illustrates the principle of harmonious selection and when these “friendly” articles are so arranged that the leading lines follow the shape of the object on which they are placed, Harmony has been secured in both selection and arrangement.

Harmony through repetition of lines in a composition. Harmony in lines which contrast with one another. Harmony in lines through transition, which soften or modify the other.

When a set of lines is drawn within a corner, following the lines of the corner, repetition occurs Fig.3.20 (A). This is the simplest kind of harmony. When a horizontal and a vertical come together as in a right angle or a corner, these lines are in opposition to each other and form aFig.3.20 (B).

1. A straight drawn across a corner, as in figure Fig.3.20 (C), is so sudden and a sharp contrast that it cuts off the corner harshly.
2. That type of is called contradiction.
3. Transi­tional in its best sense is an easy, graceful which leads from one or shape to another, giving harmony instead of contradic­tion.

If a curved were drawn across a corner, as in figure, the sharpness of the opposition of the horizontal and vertical lines would be modified, and that effect is transition So, in planning interiors or exterior design the interior designers, architects and the designers as creators of art, needs to plan carefully the lines depending on the needed effect. Harmonious lines and shapes

A combination of lines results in shapes. Applying the three types of -repetition, contrast and transition-to shapes that are seen in combination with one another, it will be seen that shapes corresponding to one another are in perfect harmony’ (figure E) The most harmonious shape that can be put into a rectangle is an­other rectangle of the same shape. A circle makes the closest harmony within another circle. Lines that oppose or contradict each other form contrasts in shapes and are the opposite of harmony (figure F). Some examples of these contradicting shapes are triangles and diamond shapes within squares, oblongs, and circles. Such combinations should be used only where extreme contrasts are desired (figure G). Transitional lines have a graceful, softening effect and have the power to bring together shapes which might in themselves be in harmony (figure H).

Application of Transitional lines in interiors and exteriors: The transitional lines in interiors can be used through lines in furnishings, window, arrangement of group of pictures on the wall, use of lamps and furniture. used in architecture of the house, like the lines in ceiling, sloping roof, stair case, window sills, arched doorways, arcs of semicircular nature and the niches creates interest in interiors through their harmonious lines and the plain surfaces.

1. An impression of gracefulness, serenity is achieved.
2. Similarly in exteriors, horizontal, vertical or arch lines of doors, windows add dignity, predominance, strength and graceful effect to the building (Fig 3.23).
3. Added to this the plantings, flowers, shrubs, the lawns and garden lamp stands- the repetition, in lines, shapes, sizes and colors, add harmony if planned well ahead.

Harmony in arrangements of Shapes:

In any arrangement where a number of shapes are used, there should always be an effect of organization, or, in other words, an orderly arrangement. If a sense of order is to result, harmony in shapes must be present. For ex: in interiors. Large objects or masses should be placed to follow the boundary lines of the enclosing shape, Only the smaller objects should vary from the general directions.For ex: Placement of an ash tray. To give variety, some of the small objects may be placed at slightly varied angles. For ex: A photo, framed picture, Flower arrangements, accessories, etc. Too many angles that sharply contradict the leading lines result in confusion instead of creating interest.

Which of the following act is covered under the directive principles of state policy?

Directive Principle of State Policy (DPSP) (Article 36-51) – Part-IV of Indian Constitution – UPSC Indian Polity Articles 36-51 under Part-IV of the Indian Constitution deal with Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP). They are borrowed from the Constitution of Ireland, which had copied it from the Spanish Constitution.

• Aspirants can find information on the structure and other important details related to the, in the linked article.
• Directive Principles of State Policy – Indian Polity Notes:-
• Table of Contents:

The Sapru Committee in 1945 suggested two categories of individual rights. One being justiciable and the other being non-justiciable rights. The justiciable rights, as we know, are the Fundamental rights, whereas the non-justiciable ones are the Directive Principles of State Policy.

• They are an ‘instrument of instructions’ which are enumerated in the
• They seek to establish economic and social democracy in the country.
• DPSPs are ideals which are not legally enforceable by the courts for their violation.

Questions from this section of Indian Polity have been asked in and Mains before. Important Exam related links:

In which of the following cases the Supreme Court of India first proposed the principle of fundamental features of the Constitution?

Kesavananda Bharati case. Explanation: One thing that has had a long lasting effect on the evolution of the Indian Constitution is the theory of the basic structure of the Constitution. The Judiciary advanced this theory in the famous case of Kesavananda Bharati.

In which case did the Supreme Court held that India Article 5 recognizes only one domicile ie domicile of India?

In Pradeep Jain v. Union of India the Supreme Court recognized that in India Article 5 recognizes the only domicile, viz., the domicile of India.

In which case Supreme Court held that Preamble is integral part of the Constitution Mcq?

Consider the following statements :i) Supreme Court held that the Preamble is not enforceable but can be amended. ii) In the Beru Beri case, Supreme Court opined that the Preamble is an integral part of the constitution. Which of the above statements is/are correct? Right on! Give the BNAT exam to get a 100% scholarship for BYJUS courses No worries! We‘ve got your back. Suggest Corrections 0 : Consider the following statements :i) Supreme Court held that the Preamble is not enforceable but can be amended. ii) In the Beru Beri case, Supreme Court opined that the Preamble is an integral part of the constitution. Which of the above statements is/are correct?

Is the rule of harmonious provision applicable to the subordinate provision also?

It should be resorted to making the provision meaningful in the context. It should be in consonance with the intention of Rule makers. Rule of Harmonious construction is applicable to subordinate legislature also.

Which of the following are part of the basic structure of the Indian Constitution Mcq?

Basic Structure MCQ – Objective Question Answer for Basic Structure Quiz – Download Now! The Basic Structure theory was devised for the first time in

1. The Sajjan Singh case
2. The Golaknath case
3. The Keshavananda Bharti case
4. The Shankari Prasad case

Option 1 : The Sajjan Singh case The correct answer is Option 1, Key Points

• The basic structure theory was first introduced by Justice Mudholkar in the Sajjan Singh case (1965) by referring to a 1963 decision of the Supreme Court of Pakistan,
• The concept of ‘Basic Structure’ came into existence in the landmark judgment in the Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala case (1973) 47 years ago.
• In the Kesavananda Bharati case, relief was sought against the Kerala government vis-à-vis two state land reform laws, which imposed restrictions on the management of the religious property.
• The case was challenged under Article 26, concerning the right to manage religiously owned property without government interference.
• The question underlying the case: Was the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution unlimited? In other words, could Parliament alter, amend, or abrogate any part of the Constitution even to the extent of taking away all fundamental rights?
• The Constitutional Bench in the Kesavananda Bharati case ruled by a 7-6 verdict that Parliament could amend any part of the Constitution so long as it did not alter or amend the basic structure or essential features of the Constitution.
• However, the court did not define the term ‘basic structure’, and only listed a few principles — federalism, secularism, democracy — as being its part.
• The ‘basic structure doctrine has since been interpreted to include
  • Supremacy of the Constitution,
  • Rule of law,
  • Independence of the judiciary,
  • The doctrine of separation of powers,
  • Sovereign democratic republic,
  • The parliamentary system of government,
  • Principle of free and fair elections,
  • The welfare state,

India’s #1 Learning Platform Start Complete Exam Preparation Daily Live MasterClasses Practice Question Bank Mock Tests & Quizzes Trusted by 3.4 Crore+ Students With respect to the judgments of the Supreme court of India related to the basic structure of the Indian constitution, Consider the following pairs:

Case	elements of Basic structure declared
1. Minerva Mills case	Harmony and balance between fundamental rights and directive principles
2. Kesavananda Bharati case	Supremacy of the Constitution
3. Indira Nehru Gandhi case	Freedom and dignity of the individual

Which of the pairs given above is/are correctly matched?

1. 2 only
2. 2 and 3 only
3. 3 only
4. 1 and 2 only

• The correct answer is 1 and 2 only,
• Key Points
• The doctrine of Basic Structure:

• The Supreme Court recognized the Basic structure concept for the first time in the historic Kesavananda Bharati case in 1973.
• The Supreme Court has declared that Article 368 did not enable Parliament to alter the basic structure or framework of the Constitution and parliament could not use its amending powers under A rticle 368 to ‘damage’, ’emasculate’, ‘destroy’, ‘abrogate’, ‘change’ or ‘alter’ the ‘basic structure’ or framework of the constitution.
• The Supreme court is yet to define or classify what constitutes the basic structure of the constitution.
• From the various judgements of the supreme court, some of the features have emerged as the basic structure of the Indian constitution.

Some important judgements of the Supreme court and the Elements of Basic structure declared by those judgements:

Name of the case	Element
Kesavananda Bharati case (1973)	Supremacy of the Constitution Separation of powers between the legislature, executive and the judiciary
Indira Nehru Gandhi case	India as a sovereign democratic republic Equality of status and opportunity of an individual, secularism and freedom of conscience and religion and rule of law.
Minerva mills case (1980)	Harmony and balance between fundamental rights and directive principles limited power of the parliament to amend and the constitution judicial review.
S.R. Bommai case (1994)	Federalism Secularism Democracy Unity and Integrity of the nation Social justice Judicial review
I.R. Coelho Case (2007)	Rule of law Separation of powers Judicial review Principle of equality
Namit Sharma Case (2013)	1. Freedom and dignity of the individual

Hence pair 1 and 2 are correctly matched and pair 3 is incorrectly matched. India’s #1 Learning Platform Start Complete Exam Preparation Daily Live MasterClasses Practice Question Bank Mock Tests & Quizzes Trusted by 3.4 Crore+ Students With reference to the Doctrine of Basic Structure, consider the following statements: 1.

1. 1 only
2. 2 only
3. Both 1 and 2
4. Neither 1 nor 2

1. The correct answer is 2 only.
2. Key Points
3. The Doctrine of Basic Structure:-

• ​ The basic structure of the constitution entails those distinctive features which form the core of the Constitution,
• They have critical importance in conceptualizing the foundation values and philosophy of the Constitution.
• It ensures that the constitution of a sovereign state has certain characteristics that cannot be erased by its legislature, promoting constitutional sovereignty and not parliamentary sovereignty. Hence, statement 1 is not correct,
• The Kesavananda Bharati case held that the “basic structure of the Constitution could not be abrogated even by a constitutional amendment”,
• Therefore it doesn’t fall within the scope of amending power of parliament. Hence, statement 2 is correct,
• The Supreme Court in the Minerva Mills case (1980) invalidated a provision of 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act as it excluded judicial review which is a ‘basic feature’ of the Constitution.
• Thus, though the Kesavananda Bharati case introduced the concept of Basic structure in the Indian Constitution, it was the Minerva Mills case that added judicial review to the basic structure.

India’s #1 Learning Platform Start Complete Exam Preparation Daily Live MasterClasses Practice Question Bank Mock Tests & Quizzes Trusted by 3.4 Crore+ Students Which of the following elements of the Basic Structure were declared by the Supreme Court in the Kesavananda Bharati case? 1.

• 3. Judicial review
• Select the correct answer using the code given below

1. 1 only
2. 2 and 3 only
3. 1 and 2 only
4. 1, 2 and 3

The correct answer is 1 and 2 only, Key Points

• Elements of the Basic Structure declared by the Supreme Court in the Kesavananda Bharati case are
  • Supremacy of the Constitution.
  • Separation of powers between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary.
• Judicial review has been added to “the basic structure of the constitution” by the Indira Nehru Gandhi case (1975).

Additional Information Elements of the Basic Structure:

• The present position is that the Parliament under Article 368 can amend any part of the Constitution including the Fundamental Rights but without affecting the “Basic Structure” of the Constitution.
• However, the Supreme Court is yet to define or clarify what constitutes the “Basic Structure” of the Constitution.
• From the various judgements, the following have emerged as ‘basic features of the Constitution or elements/components/ingredients of the ‘Basic Structure’ of the constitution:
  • Supremacy of the Constitution
  • Sovereign, democratic and republican nature of the Indian polity
  • Secular character of the Constitution
  • Separation of powers between the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary
  • Federal character of the Constitution
  • Unity and integrity of the nation
  • Welfare state (socio-economic justice)
  • Judicial review
  • Freedom and dignity of the individual
  • Parliamentary system
  • Rule of law
  • Harmony and balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles
  • Principle of equality
  • Free and fair elections
  • Independence of Judiciary
  • Limited power of Parliament to amend the Constitution
  • Effective access to justice
  • Principles (or essence) underlying fundamental rights.
  • Powers of the Supreme Court under Articles 32, 136, 141 and 1426
  • Powers of the High Courts under Articles 226 and 2277

India’s #1 Learning Platform Start Complete Exam Preparation Daily Live MasterClasses Practice Question Bank Mock Tests & Quizzes Trusted by 3.4 Crore+ Students

1. Consider the following cases:
2. 1. Shankari Prasad case
3. 2. Sajjan Singh case
4. 3. Kesavananda Bharati case
5. 4. Minerva Mills case
6. Arrange the above mentioned cases in chronological order:

1. 1-2-3-4
2. 3-1-2-4
3. 1-3-4-2
4. 2-1-3-4

• Explanation:
• Supplementary notes:
• Cases associated with Fundamental Rights

• The elementary question in controversy has been whether Fundamental Rights are amendable so as to take away the basic rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
• Another controversy deals with the extent, scope and authority of Parliament to amend Constitution.
• The answer has been given by the Supreme Court from time to time, sometimes under immense pressure and can be understood in the light of the following cases:

Shankari Prasad V. Union of India (AIR 1951 SC 458)

• The validity of the First Amendment Act to the Constitution was challenged on the ground that it purported to abridge the fundamental Rights under Part 3 of the Constitution of India.
• Supreme Court held that the power to amend the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights is contained in Article 368. An amendment is not a law within the meaning of Article 13(2).
• Article 13(2) states that – “The State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the rights conferred by this part and any law made in contravention to this clause shall, to the extent of the contravention, be void”. An amendment is valid even if it abridges any fundamental Right. Sajjan Singh V.

State of Rajasthan (AIR 1965 SC 845)

• The validity of the 17th Amendment Act, 1964 was challenged on the ground that one of the acts inserted by the amendment in the 9th Schedule affected the petitioner on the basis that the amendment fell within the purview of Article 368 and the requirements in the proviso to Article 368 had not been complied with.
• Supreme Court approved the judgment in Shankari Prasad case and held that on Article 13 (2) the case was rightly decided. Amendment includes amendment to all provisions of the Constitution.

Golaknath V. State of Punjab (AIR 1967 SC 1643)

• The Supreme Court prospectively overruled its decision in Shankari Prasad and Sajjan Singh cases and held that Parliament had no power to amend part 3 of the Constitution so as to abridge or take away any of the Fundamental Rights.
• It also added that Article 368 merely lays down the procedure for the purpose of amendment.
• Further, The Court said that an amendment is a law under Article 13(2) of the Constitution of India and if it violates any fundamental right, it may be declared void.

Minerva Mills V. Union of India (AIR 1980 SC 1789)

• Supreme Court struck down clauses (4) and (5) of Article 368 inserted by the 42nd amendment. Justification for the deletion of the said clauses was based on the destruction of Basic Structure.
• The Court was satisfied that 368 (4) and (5) clearly destroyed the Basic Structure as it gave the Parliament absolute power to amend Constitution.
• Limitation on the amending power of the Parliament is a part of the Basic Structure explained in Kesavanandas case.

India’s #1 Learning Platform Start Complete Exam Preparation Daily Live MasterClasses Practice Question Bank Mock Tests & Quizzes Trusted by 3.4 Crore+ Students Which one of the following cases prompted the Parliament to enact 24 th Constitutional Amendment Act?

1. Golaknath case
2. Minerva Mills case
3. Kesavananda Bharati case
4. Shankari Prasad case

Option 1 : Golaknath case The correct answer is Golaknath case, Key Points

• Parliament enacted 24th Constitutional Amendment Act in the year 1971 which enabled Parliament to dilute Fundamental Rights through amendments.
• This was enacted after a judgement has been passed by SC in Golaknath case in the year 1967 relating to parliaments power to amend the constitution.
  • SC said that Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights,
• This amendment gave absolute power to the Parliament of India to amend the constitution.
• It made Article 13 inapplicable to any amendment under Article 368,
• Article 13(4) and 368(3) were inserted through 24th Amendment. Article 13 (4) says “Nothing in this article shall apply to any amendment of this Constitution made under article 368.”

​ Additional Information

• Minerva Mills case, 1980
  • Extension to all DPSPs were declared unconstitutional.
• Kesavananda Bharati case, 1973
  • Parliament can amend any part of the constitution but cannot disrupt the basic structure of the constitution.
  • 31C(2) was declared unconstitutional.
  • SC held that Parliament cannot take the power of Judicial Review.
• Shankari Prasad Case, 1951
  • 1st Constitutional Amendment Act was challenged in the court in Shankari Prasad vs. Union of India case.
  • The Supreme Court held that the Parliament has the power to amend any part of the constitution including fundamental rights under Article 368,

India’s #1 Learning Platform Start Complete Exam Preparation Daily Live MasterClasses Practice Question Bank Mock Tests & Quizzes Trusted by 3.4 Crore+ Students In which case did the supreme court hold that Parliament can amend any part of the constitution including Fundamental Rights under article 368?

1. St. Stephens College vs. Delhi University (1992)
2. Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973)
3. Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India case (1978)
4. Unnikrishnan vs the State of Andhra Pradesh (1993)

Option 2 : Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973) The Correct Answer is Option 2 i.e Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973),

Cases	Judgment/outcome
Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India case (1978)	Introduced the American principle of “Due Process of Law”.
St. Stephens College vs. Delhi University (1992)	Supreme Court held that minority educational institutions enjoy the right to reserve not more than 50% of its seats in favor of its own community
Unnikrishnan vs the State of Andhra Pradesh (1993)	The Supreme court held that children under the age of 14 have the fundamental right to free education
Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973)	The Supreme court held that Parliament can amend any part of the constitution including fundamental rights under article 368. However this power is not unlimited, it is limited to the extent of not destroying the basic structure of the constitution. The basic structure of the constitution was introduced in this case.

India’s #1 Learning Platform Start Complete Exam Preparation Daily Live MasterClasses Practice Question Bank Mock Tests & Quizzes Trusted by 3.4 Crore+ Students Which of the following element is not added to the “Basic Structure of the Constitution” by Keshvanand Bharti case?

1. Freedom and dignity of the individual
2. Separation of powers between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary
3. Judicial review
4. Supremacy of the Constitution

Option 3 : Judicial review The correct answer is Judicial review Confusion Points

• Judicial review has been added to “the basic structure of the constitution” by Indira Nehru Gandhi case (1975).
• Indira Nehru Gandhi case (1975) is popularly known as the Election Case.

Key Points

• Since the Keshvanand Bharti case(1973) basic structure’ doctrine has since been interpreted to include the supremacy of the Constitution, the rule of law, Independence of the judiciary, the doctrine of separation of powers, federalism, secularism, sovereign democratic republic, the parliamentary system of government, the principle of free and fair elections, welfare state
• According to this doctrine, Parliament with its amending power can’t amend the basic features of the Constitution.
• The present position is that the Parliament under Article 368 can amend any part of the Constitution including the Fundamental Rights but without affecting the ‘basic structure’ of the Constitution,
• However, the Supreme Court is yet to define or clarify as to what constitutes the ‘basic structure’ of the Constitution.

Additional Information

• From the various judgments, the following have emerged as ‘basic features’ of the Constitution or elements/components/ingredients of the ‘basic structure’ of the constitution:
  • The supremacy of the Constitution.
  • Separation of powers between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary.
  • Republic and democratic form of government.
  • Secular character of the Constitution.
  • Federal character of the Constitution.
  • Sovereignty and unity of India.
  • Freedom and dignity of the individual.
  • Parliamentary System.
  • Mandate to build a welfare state.
  • India is a sovereign democratic republic.
  • Equality of status and opportunity of an individual.
  • Secularism and freedom of conscience and religion.
  • Government of laws and not of men (i.e., Rule of Law)
  • Judicial review.
  • Free and fair elections which are implied in democracy.
  • Limited power of Parliament to amend the constitution.
  • Harmony and balance between fundamental rights and directive principles.
  • Effective access to justice.
  • Welfare State (Socioeconomic justice).
  • Powers of the Supreme Court under Articles 32, 136, 141 and 142
  • Principle of equality
  • Independence of judiciary.
  • Powers of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227.
  • Limited power of Parliament to amend the Constitution.

India’s #1 Learning Platform Start Complete Exam Preparation Daily Live MasterClasses Practice Question Bank Mock Tests & Quizzes Trusted by 3.4 Crore+ Students Consider the following statements: 1. The Constitution of India defines its ‘basic structure’ in terms of federalism, secularism, fundamental rights and democracy.2.

1. 1 only
2. 2 only
3. Both 1 and 2
4. Neither 1 nor 2

Option 4 : Neither 1 nor 2 The Correct Answer is Neither 1 nor 2. Key Points

• The Supreme Court has defined the Basic structures.
• The concept of ‘basic structure’ came into existence in the landmark judgment in the Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala case in 1973. Hence Statement 1 is Not Correct.
• Judicial Review refers to supervising the exercise of power by the judiciary of other government coordinating bodies with a view to ensuring that they remain within the limits set by the Constitution on their powers.
• The judicial review doctrine is based on the principle of rule of law and separation of powers. Judicial review is the process for testing and balancing the separation of powers.
• The Concept of Judicial Review is the basic principle of the Constitution in India. Although there is no explicit provision in the Indian Constitution for judicial review, it is an integral part of our Constitution. Hence, statement 2 is incorrect.

Important Points

• In the Kesavananda Bharati case verdict, the court did not define the term ‘basic structure’.
• It only listed a few principles — federalism, secularism, democracy — as being its part.
• The ‘basic structure’ doctrine has since been interpreted to include
  • The supremacy of the Constitution,
  • The rule of law,
  • Independence of the judiciary,
  • Doctrine of separation of powers,
  • Sovereign democratic republic,
  • The parliamentary system of government,
  • The principle of free and fair elections,
  • Welfare state, etc.

India’s #1 Learning Platform Start Complete Exam Preparation Daily Live MasterClasses Practice Question Bank Mock Tests & Quizzes Trusted by 3.4 Crore+ Students Which among the following does not forms a part of basic structure?

1. Free and fair elections
2. The rule of law
3. Election of President
4. Independence of the judiciary

Option 3 : Election of President

• The correct answer is the Election of President.
• Key Points
• The ‘ basic structure’ doctrine include:

• the supremacy of the Constitution,
• the rule of law,
• Independence of the judiciary,
• the doctrine of separation of powers,
• a sovereign, democratic, republic,
• the parliamentary system of government,
• the principle of free and fair elections,
• the welfare state, etc.

​ Important Points

• The Supreme Court in the Shankari Prasad case (1951) and Sajjan Singh case (1965) ruled that the term “law” in Article 13 must be taken to mean rules or regulations made in exercise of ordinary legislative power and not amendments to the Constitution made in exercise of constituent power under Article 368.
• However, in the Golaknath case (1967), the Supreme Court held that Parliament could not amend Fundamental Rights, and this power would be only with a Constituent Assembly.
• The Court held that an amendment under Article 368 is “law” within the meaning of Article 13 of the Constitution and therefore if an amendment “takes away or abridges” a Fundamental Right conferred by Part III, it is void.
• To get over the judgments of the Supreme Court in the Golaknath case (1967), RC Cooper case (1970), and Madhavrao Scindia case (1970), Prime Minister Indira Gandhi had enacted major amendments to the Constitution (the 24th, 25th, 26th and 29th).
• The Constitutional Bench in the Kesavananda Bharati case ruled that Parliament could amend any part of the Constitution so long as it did not alter or amend the basic structure or essential features of the Constitution.

India’s #1 Learning Platform Start Complete Exam Preparation Daily Live MasterClasses Practice Question Bank Mock Tests & Quizzes Trusted by 3.4 Crore+ Students Consider the following features of a Constitution:

1. Dual Government
2. Written constitution
3. Independent Judiciary
4. The legislature may be bicameral or unicameral

Which of the above is a unitary feature of the Constitution?

1. 3 and 4 only
2. 1 and 4 only
3. 4 only
4. 1, 2 and 3 only

The correct answer is 4 only. Key Points

• FEDERAL FEATURES OF THE CONSTITUTION: The federal features of the Constitution of India are explained below:
  • ​Dual Polity
    • The Constitution establishes a dual polity consisting the Union at the Centre and the states at the periphery.
  • Written Constitution

    The Constitution is not only a written document but also the lengthiest Constitution of the world.

  • Division of Powers

    The Constitution divided the powers between the Centre and the states in terms of the Union List, State List and Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule.

  • The supremacy of the Constitution

    The Constitution is the supreme (or the highest) law of the land.

  • Rigid Constitution

    The Constitution is rigid to the extent that those provisions which are concerned with the federal structure (i.e., Centre-state relations and judicial organisation) can be amended only by the joint action of the Central and state governments.

  • Independent Judiciary

    The Constitution establishes an independent judiciary headed by the Supreme Court.

  • Bicameralism

    The Constitution provides for a bicameral legislature consisting of an Upper House (Rajya Sabha) and a Lower House (Lok Sabha).

• UNITARY FEATURES OF THE CONSTITUTION Besides the above federal features, the Indian Constitution also possesses the following unitary or non-federal features:
  • Strong Centre
  • Single Constitution
  • The flexibility of the Constitution
  • Emergency Provisions
  • No Equality of State Representation
  • Single Citizenship
  • Integrated Judiciary
  • All-India Services
  • Appointment of Governor

India’s #1 Learning Platform Start Complete Exam Preparation Daily Live MasterClasses Practice Question Bank Mock Tests & Quizzes Trusted by 3.4 Crore+ Students Which among the following is NOT a basic feature of the Constitution of India?

1. Fundamental rights
2. Independence of judiciary
3. Federalism
4. The unquestioned right of the Parliament to amend any part of the Constitution

Option 4 : The unquestioned right of the Parliament to amend any part of the Constitution The Correct Answer is option 4 i.e. The unquestioned right of the Parliament to amend any part of the Constitution,

• The power of the Parliament to amend any part of the Constitution is not prone from the Judicial Review of the Supreme Court. Hence, Option 4 is NOT correct.
• The Indian constitution is a combination of rigidity and flexibility.
  • The Indian constitution provides for a parliamentary system of government, i.e., the real executive power lies with the council of ministers and the President is only a nominal head (Article 74).
  • The Indian constitution described India as a ‘ Union of States ‘ (Article 1).
  • The Indian constitution provides an elaborate list of Fundamental Rights to the citizens of India under article ( 12-35).
  • The constitution also provides a list of duties of the citizens known as the Fundamental Duties (Article 51A).

India’s #1 Learning Platform Start Complete Exam Preparation Daily Live MasterClasses Practice Question Bank Mock Tests & Quizzes Trusted by 3.4 Crore+ Students Which of the following cases propounded the concept of ‘Basic structure’ of the Indian Constitution?

1. Indra Sauhney Case
2. Shankari Prasad’s Case
3. Rudal Shah’s Case
4. None of the above

Option 4 : None of the above The correct answer is None of the above. Key Points

• The basic structure of the Indian Constitution:
  • There is no mention of the term “Basic Structure” anywhere in the Indian Constitution.
  • The idea that the Parliament cannot introduce laws that would amend the basic structure of the constitution evolved gradually over time and in many cases.
  • The idea is to preserve the nature of Indian democracy and protect the rights and liberties of people.
  • This doctrine helps to protect and preserve the spirit of the constitution document.
  • It was the Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala case that brought this very idea of “Basic Structure”,
  • It held that the “basic structure of the Constitution could not be abrogated even by a constitutional amendment”.
  • The judgment listed some basic structures of the constitution as:-
    • Supremacy of the Constitution
    • Unity and sovereignty of India
    • A democratic and republican form of government
    • Federal character of the Constitution
    • Secular character of the Constitution
    • Separation of power
    • Individual freedom

Additional Information

• Indra Sawhney Case:
  • A landmark in the issue of reservation was the judgment pronounced in Indra Sawhney v Union Of India & Ors by the Supreme Court.
  • In the year 1979, the then Prime Minister Shri Morarji Desai appointed the second Backward Classes Commission under Article 340 of the Constitution.
  • The Commission was headed by B.P. Mandal and its mandate were to investigate the status of socially and educationally backward classes in India.
  • When the Commission finally submitted its report in 1980, it recommended a reservation of 27% in government jobs for these castes.
  • The collapse of the Janata Party government complicated matters and the recommendations of the report could not be implemented.
  • There wasn’t much progress in this respect for several years until Janata Dal regained power in 1989 and decided to implement the recommendations of the report and reserved 27% of the seats for socially backward classes.
  • This was followed by reservation and anti-reservation protests in large parts of the country some of which led to riots.
• Shankari Prasad’s Case:
  • In this case, the SC contended that the Parliament’s power of amending the Constitution under Article 368 included the power to amend the Fundamental Rights guaranteed in Part III as well.
  • The First Constitution Amendment Act, 1951 was challenged in the Shankari Prasad vs. Union of India case.
  • The amendment was challenged on the ground that it violated the Part-III of the constitution and therefore, should be considered invalid.
  • The Supreme Court held that the Parliament, under Article 368, has the power to amend any part of the constitution including fundamental rights.
  • The Court gave the same ruling in the Sajjan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan case in 1965.
• Rudal Shah’s Case:
  • Rudal Sah’s case was a public interest litigation (PIL) case filed in the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution (whereby one can directly approach the Supreme Court when fundamental rights have been infringed upon).
  • The petition sought the release of Rudul Sah from illegal detention, and also ancillary relief such as rehabilitation and compensation.

India’s #1 Learning Platform Start Complete Exam Preparation Daily Live MasterClasses Practice Question Bank Mock Tests & Quizzes Trusted by 3.4 Crore+ Students

1. Arrange the following cases related to the basic structure of the Constitution in chronological order.
2. I. Minerva Mills Case
3. II. Golak Nath Case
4. III. Indira Gandhi vs Raj Narain
5. IV. Kesavanand Bharati Case

1. II → III → I → IV
2. II → IV → III → I
3. I → III → II → IV
4. II → III → IV → I

Option 2 : II → IV → III → I

• The correct answer is ​ II → IV → III → I.
• Key Points
• Supreme Court’s judgement in the Golaknath case (1967).

Fundamental Rights cannot be amended for the implementation of the Directive Principles.

Supreme Court judgement in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973).

• ​ Article 368 in Part XX of the Constitution deals with the powers of Parliament to amend the Constitution and its procedure.
• Parliament may, in the exercise of its constituent power, amend by way of addition, variation or repeal any provision of the Constitution in accordance with the procedure laid down for the purpose.
• However, the Parliament cannot amend those provisions which form the ‘basic structure’ of the Constitution.

Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)

• ​ The court declared the impugned clause 4 of Article 329A unconstitutional.
• It was stated by Article 392A that the election of the Prime Minister and the Speaker cannot be challenged in any court n the country.
• It can be rather challenged before a committee formed by the Parliament itself.

Supreme Court judgement in the Minerva Mills case (1980),

• DPSP were once again made subordinate to the FRs,
• But the FRs conferred by Article 14 and Article 19 were accepted as subordinate to the DPSP specified in Article 39 (b) and (c).

India’s #1 Learning Platform Start Complete Exam Preparation Daily Live MasterClasses Practice Question Bank Mock Tests & Quizzes Trusted by 3.4 Crore+ Students Features of Fundamental Rights in the Indian Constitution partly derives its inspiration from the Bill of Rights, enshrined in the Constitution of _.

1. Canada
2. United States of America
3. Ireland
4. Australia

Option 2 : United States of America The correct answer is U.S.A. Key Points

• Features of Fundamental Rights in the Indian Constitution partly derives their inspiration from the Bill of Rights, enshrined in the Constitution of the United States of America.
• It is enshrined in Part III of the Constitution from Articles 12 to 35.

Important Points

• Fundamental rights are the guaranteed rights includes 6 rights which are as follows :
  • Right to Equality
  • Right to freedom
  • Right against exploitation
  • Right to freedom of Religion
  • Cultural and Educational Rights
  • Right to constitutional Remedies

India’s #1 Learning Platform Start Complete Exam Preparation Daily Live MasterClasses Practice Question Bank Mock Tests & Quizzes Trusted by 3.4 Crore+ Students : Basic Structure MCQ – Objective Question Answer for Basic Structure Quiz – Download Now!

Which of the following cases has recognized the concept of rule of law in India?

Indian Case Laws – As mentioned earlier, rule of law is not expressly provided under the Indian Constitution but it has been assertively pronounced as the essential part of the Constitution by the Supreme Court through several judgements. Some of them are as under: A.K Gopalan Vs State Also known as the Habeas Corpus case, the order of detention passed during emergency was challenged in this case on the grounds that such order is violative of the principles of rule of law which is the basic feature of the Indian Constitution.

1. The issue that was before the Supreme Court to decide was whether there is any rule of law in India apart from Article 21 of the Constitution.
2. The majority bench in the case decided the matter in the negative while Justice khanna gave a dissenting Judgement.
3. He observed that the Rule of Law is accepted in all civilised society and is considered as a symbol of society being free.

He further observed that Rule of Law is the only means of archiving the balance between individual liberty and public order. Hence he was of the opinion that even if there was no such Article like Article 21 in the Indian Constitution the state has no power to deprive a person of his life and liberty without the authority of law.A.K Kraipak V Union of India Supreme Court on the question whether the principle of natural justice can be followed in administrative function held that every instrumentalities of the state is bound by the doctrine of rule of law and is charged with the duty of discharging their functions in a just, fair and reasonable manner, which forms the basic principle of Rule of Law without which the concept of Rule of Law has no validity.

1. The rule of law is applicable to the entire field of the administration as every organ of the state is regulated by the rule of law.
2. Indra Nehru Gandhi V Raj Narayan In this case the 39 th amendment to the Constitution was challenged which has placed the election of President, Prime Minister, Vice-President and the Speaker of Lok Sabha unjustifiable in the courts of law.

Holding the amendment as unconstitutional chief justice Ray found the amendment as violative of the basic structure of the Constitution i.e., Rule of Law. Rule of Law being anti thesis to arbitrariness does not empower the parliament to pass a retrospective law validating an invalid election.

• Such exercise of power is opposed to the basic principles of Rule of Law.
• Bachan Singh v.
• State of Punjab Singh This a landmark judgement on death penalty.
• The question whether death penalty can be imposed under section 302 of IPC was discussed in this case.
• While the majority of the judges held that the death penalty can be imposed under rarerest of the rare situation, justice Bhagwati dissented with the majority opinion and said said that imposition of the death penalty under Section 302 of IPC is ultra vires and void as it violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

Justice Bhagwati has emphasized that rule of law denies any room for arbitrariness and unreasonableness. To ensure this, he has suggested that the power of the parliament to make law should not be unfettered and the excesses of executive and legislative power should be brought under the check by the independent judiciary so that the rights of the citizen can be protected.

Sambamurthy v. state of Andhra Pradesh In this case the Supreme Court upheld the principles of rule of law as the basic structure of the Indian Constitution. Clause 5 of Article 371-D was challenged before this court which provided the government with the power to modify or annul the administrative tribunal’s order.

Chief Justice Bhagwati in this case held clause 5 of Article 371-D as unconstitutional on the basis of doctrine of basic structure. He held that clause 5 is contrary to the principle of rule of law which is the basic structure of the Constitution and is thus unconstitutional.

1. Yusuf Khan v. Manohar Joshi
2. The SC laid down that the constitution places a duty over the state to maintain and preserve law and order and to see that no act violence overpasses the mandate provided by the rule of law.
3. Hence, it is quite evident that the concept of rule of law is gaining importance and attention and judicial efforts are made to make it stronger.

Which of the following case law is based on doctrine of implied prohibition?

Asok Kumar Malik v. The State Of West Bengal & Ors.

In which case law the doctrine of the basic structure was established?

‘Doctrine of Basic Structure’ was propounded by the Indian Judiciary on 24th April 1973 in Keshavananda Bharati case to put a limitation on the amending powers of the Parliament so that the ‘basic structure of the basic law of the land’ cannot be amended in exercise of its ‘constituent power’ under the Constitution.

In which year was the Supreme Court of India established a 1949 B 1950 C 1951 D 1947?

Supreme Court of India came into existence on 26th January, 1950 and is located on Tilak Marg, New Delhi.

In which case does the Supreme Court have implemented the right to wholesome environment as part of the right to life enshrined in Article 21?

Pooja P. Vardhan* The constitution of India is not an inert but a living document which evolves and grows with time. The specific provisions on environment protection in the constitution are also result of this evolving nature and growth potential of the fundamental law of the land.

• The preamble to our constitution ensures socialist pattern of the society and dignity of the individual.
• Decent standard of living and pollution free environment is inherent in this.
• The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 defines environment as “environment includes water, air and land and the interrelationship which exists among and between air, water and land and human beings, other living creatures, plants, micro-organism and property”.

The chapter on fundamental duties of the Indian Constitution clearly imposes duty on every citizen to protect environment. Article 51-A (g), says that “It shall be duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life and to have compassion for living creatures.” The Directive principles under the Indian constitution directed towards ideals of building welfare state.

Healthy environment is also one of the elements of welfare state. Article 47 provides that the State shall regard the raising of the level of nutrition and the standard of living of its people and the improvement of public health as among its primary duties. The improvement of public health also includes the protection and improvement of environment without which public health cannot be assured.

Article 48 deals with organization of agriculture and animal husbandry. It directs the State to take steps to organize agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines. In particular, it should take steps for preserving and improving the breeds and prohibiting the slaughter of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle.

Article 48 -A of the constitution says that “the state shall endeavor to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of the country”. The Constitution of India under part III guarantees fundamental rights which are essential for the development of every individual and to which a person is inherently entitled by virtue of being human alone.

Right to environment is also a right without which development of individual and realisation of his or her full potential shall not be possible. Articles 21, 14 and 19 of this part have been used for environmental protection. According to Article 21 of the constitution, “no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law”.

• Article 21 has received liberal interpretation from time to time after the decision of the Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi vs.
• Union of India, (AIR 1978 SC 597).
• Article 21 guarantees fundamental right to life.
• Right to environment, free of danger of disease and infection is inherent in it.
• Right to healthy environment is important attribute of right to live with human dignity.

The right to live in a healthy environment as part of Article 21 of the Constitution was first recognized in the case of Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra vs. State, AIR 1988 SC 2187 (Popularly known as Dehradun Quarrying Case). It is the first case of this kind in India, involving issues relating to environment and ecological balance in which Supreme Court directed to stop the excavation (illegal mining) under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.

In M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 1086 the Supreme Court treated the right to live in pollution free environment as a part of fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. Excessive noise creates pollution in the society. The constitution of India under Article 19 (1) (a) read with Article 21 of the constitution guarantees right to decent environment and right to live peacefully.

In PA Jacob vs. The Superintendent of Police Kottayam, AIR 1993 Ker 1, the Kerala High Court held that freedom of speech under article 19 (1)(a) does not include freedom to use loud speakers or sound amplifiers. Thus, noise pollution caused by the loud speakers can be controlled under article 19 (1) (a) of the constitution.

Article 19 (1) (g) of the Indian constitution confers fundamental right on every citizen to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business. This is subject to reasonable restrictions. A citizen cannot carry on business activity, if it is health hazards to the society or general public.

Thus safeguards for environment protection are inherent in this. The Supreme Court, while deciding the matter relating to carrying on trade of liquor in Cooverjee B. Bharucha Vs Excise commissioner, Ajmer (1954, SC 220) observed that, if there is clash between environmental protection and right to freedom of trade and occupation, the courts have to balance environmental interests with the fundamental rights to carry on any occupations.

Public Interest Litigation under Article 32 and 226 of the constitution of India resulted in a wave of environmental litigation. The leading environmental cases decided by the Supreme Court includes case of closure of limestone quarries in the Dehradun region (Dehradun Quarrying case, AIR 1985 SC 652), the installation of safeguard at a chlorine plant in Delhi (M.C.

Mehta V. Union of India, AIR 1988 SC 1037) etc. In Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum vs. Union of India (1996) 5 SCC 647, the Court observed that “the Precautionary Principle” and “the Polluter Pays Principle” are essential features of “Sustainable Development.” At local and village level also, Panchayats have been empowered under the constitution to take measures such as soil conservation, water management, forestry and protection of the environment and promotion of ecological aspect.

1. Environment protection is part of our cultural values and traditions.
2. In Atharvaveda, it has been said that “Man’s paradise is on earth; this living world is the beloved place of all; It has the blessings of nature’s bounties; live in a lovely spirit”.
3. Earth is our paradise and it is our duty to protect our paradise.

The constitution of India embodies the framework of protection and preservation of nature without which life cannot be enjoyed. The knowledge of constitutional provisions regarding environment protection is need of the day to bring greater public participation, environmental awareness, environmental education and sensitize the people to preserve ecology and environment.