Govt. Exams
Entrance Exams
Article 32 grants the right to move the Supreme Court of India directly for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
This is a exclusive remedy available before the Supreme Court.
High Courts have similar powers under Article 226 for enforcement of constitutional rights, but Article 32 specifically vests exclusive jurisdiction in the Supreme Court.
Article 75 provides for the appointment and composition of the Council of Ministers.
It states that the Prime Minister is appointed by the President, and other ministers are appointed by the President on advice of the PM.
The Council of Ministers holds office during the pleasure of the President and is collectively responsible to the Lok Sabha.
Dr. B.R.
Ambedkar called Article 32, which grants the right to move Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental rights, as 'the soul of the Constitution'.
This article is crucial for protecting fundamental rights through writs like habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari.
The terms 'Socialist' and 'Secular' were added to the Preamble through the 42nd Amendment Act of 1976 during the Emergency period. 'Sovereign', 'Democratic', 'Republican', and 'Federal' were part of the original Preamble drafted by Dr. B.R.
Ambedkar.
Article 37 of the Constitution explicitly states that DPSP are non-justiciable, meaning they cannot be enforced through courts.
However, they provide positive directions to the state for governance and policy formulation.
Unlike Fundamental Rights (Part III), DPSP cannot be challenged in courts, though courts can use them as interpretive aids.
Options A and B are correct characteristics of DPSP.
Article 32 empowers the Supreme Court to issue five types of writs: Habeas Corpus (for unlawful detention), Mandamus (to perform public duty), Prohibition (to prevent illegal action), Certiorari (to quash illegal order), and Quo Warranto (to challenge authority of office).
All five are constitutionally recognized remedies under Article 32.
The 42nd Amendment Act, 1976 (also known as the Mini-Constitution) added three words to the Preamble: 'Socialist' (between 'Sovereign' and 'Democratic'), 'Secular' (between 'Sovereign' and 'Democratic'), and 'Integrity' (at the end).
This amendment was passed during the Emergency period under Prime Minister Indira Gandhi.
# The 73rd Constitutional Amendment - Expert Solution
The 73rd Constitutional Amendment of 1992 was a landmark legislation that fundamentally restructured India's rural governance framework.
Step 1: Understanding the 73rd Amendment Context
The 73rd Constitutional Amendment was passed in 1992 and came into effect on April 24, 1993. It was designed to revitalize and strengthen the Panchayati Raj system—the three-tier system of local governance at village, block, and district levels across rural India.
Step 2: Key Provisions of the Amendment
The amendment introduced mandatory elections to Panchayati Raj institutions, reserved seats for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in proportion to their population, reserved one-third seats for women, devolved financial and administrative powers to local bodies, and established State Election Commissions to conduct Panchayat elections independently.
Step 3: Why Other Options Are Incorrect
- (B) Urban local government: The 74th Amendment (1992) addressed this, not the 73rd
- (C) Reservation for SCs in Parliament: This predates the 73rd Amendment significantly
- (D) State election commissions: While the amendment created them, this was a means, not the primary purpose
Final Answer: (A) Strengthening of Panchayati Raj system ✓
The 73rd Amendment primarily focused on democratic decentralization and empowering village-level governance structures across rural India.
Under Articles 13, 226, and 32, both the Supreme Court and High Courts possess the power of judicial review to declare laws unconstitutional if they violate constitutional provisions.
This is a cornerstone of the Indian constitutional framework and the basic structure doctrine.
Article 50 of the Constitution states that 'The State shall take steps to separate the judiciary from the executive in the public services of the State.' This is a non-justiciable directive principle emphasizing the independence of judiciary.
