Constitutions and Law

Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution under Article 368. Through various constitutional amendments (especially before the Kesavananda Bharati judgment), Parliament attempted to curb judicial review by adding clauses like Article 31C and the Ninth Schedule. The State Legislature, Council of State, and Legislative Council do not have constitutional amendment powers.

In the landmark Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) case, the Supreme Court ruled that while Parliament has wide amending power, no part of the Constitution is completely unamendable. However, Parliament cannot alter the 'basic structure' of the Constitution. This was a balanced approach between Parliament's amending authority and judicial review. High Courts follow Supreme Court precedent on constitutional matters.

All three cases are landmark judgments on constitutional amendment under Article 368. Shankari Prasad (1951) initially upheld Parliament's power to amend Fundamental Rights. Golak Nath (1967) reversed this, holding Fundamental Rights unamendable. Kesavananda Bharati (1973) established the 'basic structure' doctrine. Minerva Mills (1980) further clarified that Parliament's amending power is limited and cannot expand its own authority to damage basic features.

The Constituent Assembly held three readings of the Constitution, similar to legislative procedure. The first reading (November 1948) was for general discussion, the second reading (November 1949) involved clause-by-clause consideration, and the third reading (November 26, 1949) was for formal adoption. This three-stage process ensured thorough deliberation.

The Union Constitution Committee, headed by Jawaharlal Nehru, recommended that India adopt the parliamentary form of executive. This committee was one of the several committees formed to deliberate on different aspects of the constitution. The parliamentary system was chosen for its stability and accountability.

The Declaration of Independence was adopted by the Continental Congress on July 4, 1776, at Philadelphia in the Pennsylvania State House (now Independence Hall). Philadelphia was the meeting place of the Continental Congress throughout much of the Revolutionary War period. Washington D.C. did not exist as the capital at this time.

The Indian Constitution's amendment procedure (Article 368) was modeled on South Africa's Constitution. Both require special majority (and sometimes ratification by states) but are more flexible than the rigid US process or too flexible like the British system. It balances stability with adaptability.

The Supreme Court's Basic Structure doctrine holds that certain features of the Constitution cannot be amended under Article 368. These include sovereignty, territorial integrity, federal system, judicial review, and parliamentary system - the core pillars of Indian democracy.

Part IV of the Indian Constitution contains the Directive Principles of State Policy. These are guidelines for the government to establish a just society and are not enforceable by courts.

President's Rule (State Emergency) under Article 356 can be imposed when there's a breakdown of constitutional machinery in a state. This article allows the President to assume all functions of the state government if the state cannot operate in accordance with the Constitution. The other articles listed (352 for National Emergency, 360 for Financial Emergency, 370 for special status to J&K) are unrelated to state constitutional breakdown.

Correct answer is (2). 

Schedule 5 of the Indian Constitution contains special provisions for the administration and control of Scheduled Areas and Scheduled Tribes in various states. It provides for tribal advisory councils and gives special powers to the Governor in these areas.

Federal systems feature dual citizenship (citizen of both the nation and the state). India has a single citizenship (only Indian citizenship, no state citizenship), which is actually a unitary feature, not a federal one. All other options are genuine federal features.