Model Answer

Introduction

The Constitution of India serves as a “living instrument,” capable of evolving with the changing norms and values of society. Article 368(1) empowers Parliament to amend the Constitution, ensuring its relevance over time. This dynamic nature is particularly evident in the expanding horizons of the right to life and personal liberty.

The Constitution as a Dynamic Document:

Preamble and Fundamental Rights

The Preamble was amended in 1976 to include “Secular” and “Socialist,” reinforcing the Indian state’s commitment to these values. The Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India case (1978) expanded Article 21, establishing that the right to life encompasses various rights, thus broadening its interpretation (Supreme Court of India).

Judicial Review and Flexibility

The Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala case (1973) affirmed the judiciary’s power to review amendments that threaten the Constitution’s basic structure. Furthermore, the 101st Amendment introduced the Goods and Services Tax (GST), reflecting the Constitution’s ability to adapt to economic changes (Government of India).

Emergency Provisions and Advisory Jurisdiction

The 44th Amendment post-Emergency introduced safeguards against misuse of emergency powers. The President’s request for the Supreme Court’s opinion on the Bihar Assembly’s dissolution in 2004 exemplifies the dynamic relationship between the Executive and Judiciary.

Expanding Horizons of Rights:

Right to Privacy and Education

The Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) vs. Union of India case (2017) recognized the right to privacy as a fundamental right. The 86th Amendment (2002) established the right to education for children aged 6 to 14, showcasing a commitment to inclusivity.

Decriminalization of Homosexuality

The Navtej Singh Johar vs. Union of India case (2018) decriminalized homosexuality, demonstrating adaptation to changing societal norms regarding human rights.

Environmental and Economic Rights

The Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India (1988) recognized the right to a clean environment as part of the right to life. Additionally, the Right to Information Act (2005) empowers citizens, promoting transparency.

Right to Die with Dignity

In Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug vs. Union of India (2011), the court permitted passive euthanasia, marking a significant evolution in the understanding of personal liberties.

Conclusion

The Constitution of India exemplifies a dynamic, living document that evolves to meet the needs of a progressive society. Its expansive judicial interpretations, particularly regarding the right to life and personal liberty, ensure a dignified existence for every citizen.

Model Answer

Introduction

The I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007) is a landmark judgment by the Supreme Court of India that significantly reinforced the doctrine of the basic structure of the Constitution and underscored the importance of judicial review.

Body

In the Coelho case, the Supreme Court held that any law placed in the Ninth Schedule of the Indian Constitution, which was intended to protect certain laws from judicial scrutiny, is not immune from judicial review if it violates the basic structure of the Constitution. The Ninth Schedule was initially created by the First Amendment in 1951 to shield land reform laws from judicial challenges. However, its application expanded over time to include various other laws, effectively insulating them from judicial oversight.

The judgment asserted that even if a law is placed in the Ninth Schedule, it remains subject to judicial review if it infringes upon the Constitution’s basic structure. This ruling limited Parliament’s power to insulate laws from judicial scrutiny, reaffirming that no law can contravene fundamental constitutional principles (Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2007).

Judicial review serves as a critical mechanism for the courts to evaluate the constitutionality of legislative and executive actions, ensuring compliance with fundamental rights and the rule of law. The basic structure doctrine, established in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), identifies several essential features of the Constitution that cannot be altered or removed by constitutional amendments, with judicial review being one of them.

Conclusion

The Coelho case highlights the vital role of judicial review as a key element of the Constitution’s basic features. By asserting the supremacy of the basic structure doctrine over the Ninth Schedule, the Supreme Court reinforced the necessity of judicial review in safeguarding constitutional values and principles against potential legislative overreach.