The 86th Amendment Act, 2002, introduced Article 21A into the Indian Constitution. Article 21A guarantees the right to free and compulsory education for children between the ages of 6 and 14 years. This amendment made education a Fundamental Right.
Which Amendment of the Indian Constitution declared education as a Fundamental Right?
Asked in GS 32 2023 IS DEEO 1505 2024 · Topic: Constitutional Amendments (Constitutional Amendments related to Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy)
More Indian Polity and Governance questions
- Which of the following Amendments to the Constitution added Right to Education in Fundamental Rights ?
- 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 :
- 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?