Change set

Pick exam & year, then Go.

Question map
Not attempted Correct Incorrect ★ Bookmarked
Loading…
Q34 (IAS/2023) Polity & Governance › Fundamental Rights, DPSP & Fundamental Duties › Fundamental Rights framework Official Key

In India, which one of the following Constitutional Amendments was widely believed to be enacted to overcome the judicial interpretations of the Fundamental Rights?

Result
Your answer: —  ·  Correct: A
Explanation

The Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951 was enacted specifically to overcome judicial roadblocks created by early court judgments regarding Fundamental Rights.

  • Context: Rulings in cases like Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (freedom of speech) and State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh (land reforms) had struck down government laws.
  • Key Changes:
    • Added Articles 31A and 31B to protect agrarian reforms and land acquisition laws from being challenged for violating Fundamental Rights.
    • Created the Ninth Schedule, placing specific laws beyond the scope of judicial review.
    • Expanded Article 19(2) to include "public order," "friendly relations with foreign states," and "incitement to an offence" as reasonable restrictions on free speech.

While the 42nd Amendment also addressed judicial review, the 1st Amendment is the historic precedent designed explicitly to reconcile the initial judicial interpretations of Fundamental Rights with state policy.

How others answered
Each bar shows the % of students who chose that option. Green bar = correct answer, blue outline = your choice.
Community Performance
Out of everyone who attempted this question.
48%
got it right
PROVENANCE & STUDY PATTERN
Guest preview
Don’t just practise – reverse-engineer the question. This panel shows where this PYQ came from (books / web), how the examiner broke it into hidden statements, and which nearby micro-concepts you were supposed to learn from it. Treat it like an autopsy of the question: what might have triggered it, which exact lines in the book matter, and what linked ideas you should carry forward to future questions.
Q. In India, which one of the following Constitutional Amendments was widely believed to be enacted to overcome the judicial interpretations…
At a glance
Origin: Mixed / unclear origin Fairness: Moderate fairness Books / CA: 7.5/10 · 0/10
You're seeing a guest preview. The Verdict and first statement analysis are open. Login with Google to unlock all tabs.

This is a classic 'Sitter' sourced directly from standard texts (Laxmikanth/NCERT). It tests the 'Why' behind the amendment rather than just the 'What'. The question relies on the historical narrative of the Parliament-Judiciary tussle over Property Rights and Reservations that began immediately after 1950.

How this question is built

This question can be broken into the following sub-statements. Tap a statement sentence to jump into its detailed analysis.

Statement 1
In India, was the 1st Constitutional Amendment widely believed to have been enacted to overcome judicial interpretations of the Fundamental Rights?
Origin: Direct from books Fairness: Straightforward Book-answerable
From standard books
Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 90: Landmark Judgements and Their Impact > SHANKARI PRASAD CASE (1951) > p. 625
Presence: 4/5
“Supreme Court Judgment: It held that the parliament's amending power under Article 368 also includes the power to amend the fundamental rights guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution. Further, it said that a constitutional amendment act enacted to abridge or take away the fundamental rights is not void under Article 13(2). Therefore, the court upheld the validity of the 1st Amendment Act (1951), which curtailed the right to property by inserting Articles 31A and 31B. Impac t of the Judgement: In this judgement, the Suprem e Court made a distinction between the legislative law (ordinary law) and the con stituent law (constitutional amendme nt law).”
Why this source?
  • Names the 1st Amendment (1951) and notes it curtailed the right to property by inserting Articles 31A and 31B.
  • Records the Supreme Court's validation of the 1st Amendment, implying the amendment functioned as a legislative response affecting judicially-adjudicated rights.
Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 8: FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES > Exceptions to Funda· mental Rights. > p. 96
Presence: 5/5
“Until the case of Golak Nath,<sup>21</sup> the Supreme Court had held that no part of our Constitution was unamendable and that Parliament might, by passing a Constitution Amendment Act, in compliance with the requirements of Article 368, amend any provision of the Constitution, including the Fundamental Rights and Article 368 itself.<sup>22</sup> According to this earlier view, thus, the courts could act as the guardian of fundamental rights only so long as they were not amended by the Parliament of India by the required majority of votes. In fact, some of the amendments of the Constitution so far made were effected with a view to superseding judicial pronouncements which had invalidated social or economic legislation on the ground of contravention of fundamental rights.”
Why this source?
  • States that some constitutional amendments were effected specifically to supersede judicial pronouncements that had invalidated social or economic legislation on grounds of Fundamental Rights.
  • Directly links the motive for certain amendments to overcoming judicial rulings about Fundamental Rights.
Indian Constitution at Work, Political Science Class XI (NCERT 2025 ed.) > Chapter 9: CONSTITUTION AS A LIVING DOCUMENT > Differing Interpretations > p. 208
Presence: 5/5
“A number of amendments are a product of different interpretations of the Constitution given by the judiciary and the government of the day. When these clashed, the Parliament had to insert an amendment underlining one particular interpretation as the authentic one. It is part of the democratic politics that various institutions would interpret the Constitution and particularly the scope of their own powers in a different manner. Many times, the Parliament did not agree with the judicial interpretation and therefore, sought to amend the Constitution to overcome the ruling of the judiciary. In the period between 1970 and 1975 this situation arose frequently.”
Why this source?
  • Explains that Parliament has inserted amendments when it disagreed with judicial interpretation, seeking to make a particular interpretation authoritative.
  • Frames constitutional amendment as the means used by Parliament to overcome rulings of the judiciary.
How to study

This tab shows concrete study steps: what to underline in books, how to map current affairs, and how to prepare for similar questions.

Login with Google to unlock study guidance.

Micro-concepts

Discover the small, exam-centric ideas hidden in this question and where they appear in your books and notes.

Login with Google to unlock micro-concepts.

The Vault

Access hidden traps, elimination shortcuts, and Mains connections that give you an edge on every question.

Login with Google to unlock The Vault.

✓ Thank you! We'll review this.

SIMILAR QUESTIONS

5 Cross-Linked PYQs

UPSC repeats concepts across years. Login to see how this question connects to 5 others.

Login with Google