- I (U.S.A.): One method of proposing amendments is by a convention called by Congress upon application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the states (List II option 4). - II (India): States in India do not have the power to initiate bills for constitutional amendments, although certain amendments require ratification by state legislatures (List II option 5). - III (Switzerland): The Swiss Constitution can be amended through popular initiatives, requiring a certain number of citizens' signatures (List II option 3, representing citizen initiative). - IV (Australia): The federal government has limited control over the independent constitutions of the Australian states (List II option 2).
Match List – I with List – II and select the correct answer from the codes given below the lists : List – I (Federa‐ List – II (Amending procedure) tion) (1) Amendments affecting the (I) U. S. A. units require ratification by half of their existing number (2) The federal government has no (II) India control over the Constitution of the units (III) (3) 50,000 citizens can request a Switzerland constitutional amendment (4) The legislature of 2/3rd of the (IV) Australia units can apply for amendment (5) The units have no power to initiate constitutional amendments Codes :
Asked in OPSC CS Prelims 2016 · Topic: Constitutional Amendments (Federalism and Constitutional Amendments: Role of states and implications for the federal structure)
More Indian Polity and Governance questions
- A change in distribution of powers between the Centre and the States can be done by
- Which one of the following cases prompted the Parliament to enact 24th Constitutional Amendment Act ?
- Which of the following statements are correct in respect of the genesis of the 'Doctrine of Basic Structure of Constitution'?
- Shankari Prasad Vs Union of India Case (1951): The Supreme Court held that Parliament has the power to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, under Article 368. The Basic Structure doctrine was not propounded in this case. This statement is incorrect. 2. Sajjan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan Case (1965): The Supreme Court reiterated its stand from the Shankari Prasad case, upholding Parliament's power to amend Fundamental Rights. It held that Parliament could amend any part of the Constitution. This statement is correct. 3. Golaknath Vs the State of Punjab Case (1967): The Supreme Court reversed its earlier decisions. It held that Fundamental Rights were not amenable to the amending procedure under Article 368. It stated that Article 368 merely lays down the procedure for amendment, not the power, and Parliament does not have absolute power to amend any part, particularly not the Fundamental Rights. This statement is correct. 4. Waman Rao Vs Union of India Case (1981): In this case, the Supreme Court clarified and reaffirmed the Basic Structure doctrine. It held that the Basic Structure doctrine would apply to constitutional amendments enacted after April 24, 1973 (the date of the Kesavananda Bharati judgment). It did not set aside the doctrine. This statement is incorrect. 63. Consider the following and arrange these in chronological order: I. Golak Nath Case II. Keshawananda Bharti Case III. 24th Constitution Amendment Act IV. 42nd Constitution Amendment Act Select the correct answer from the codes given below.
- Arrange the following chronologically: 1. 44th Amendment Act 2. Minerva Mills Case 3. Amendment to Preamble 4. Kesavananda Bharati Case Select the correct answer using the code given below:
- In which of the following cases did the Supreme Court hold that an amendment of the Constitution under Article 368 was 'law' within the meaning of Article 13?
- Match List-A with List-B and identify the correct answer from the codes given below : List-A (Case) A. Indira Gandhi V. i. 42nd Raj Narain Amendment B. Minerva Mills ii. 52nd V. Union of India Amendment C. Kihoto Hollohan iii. 39th V. Zachillu Amendment D. P. Sambamurthy iv. 32nd V. State of A.P. Amendment Codes : A B C D (1) i iii iv ii (2) ii iii i iv (3) iv ii iii i (4) iii i ii iv (5) Question not attempted
- In which of the following cases did the Supreme Court state that the Parliament has the authority to amend any part of the Constitution, including any fundamental rights and if the Constitution makers intended to exclude the fundamental right from the scope of amending power, they would have made a clear provision in that behalf? - Question not attempted