Solution of Chapter 1. Constitution: Why and How? (Indian Constitution at Work Book)

Which of these is not a function of the constitution?

Which of the following is a good reason to conclude that the authority of the constitution is higher than that of the parliament?

State whether the following statements about a constitution are True or False.

A. Constitutions are written documents about formation and power of the government.

B. Constitutions exist and are required only in democratic countries.

C. Constitution is a legal document that does not deal with ideals and values.

D. A constitution gives its citizens a new identity.

State whether the following inferences about the making of the Indian Constitution are Correct or Incorrect. Give reasons to support your answer.

A. The Constituent Assembly did not represent the Indian people since it was not elected by all citizens.

B. Constitution making did not involve any major decision since there was a general consensus among the leaders at that time about its basic framework.

C. There was little originality in the Constitution, for much of it was borrowed from other countries.

Give two examples each to support the following conclusions about the Indian Constitution:

A. The Constitution was made by credible leaders who commanded peoples’ respect.

B. The Constitution has distributed power in such a way as to make it difficult to subvert it.

C. The Constitution is the locus of people’s hopes and aspirations.

Why is it necessary for a country to have a clear demarcation of powers and responsibilities in the constitution? What would happen in the absence of such a demarcation?

Why is it necessary for a constitution to place limitations on the rulers? Can there be a constitution that gives no power at all to the citizens?

The Japanese Constitution was made when the US occupation army was still in control of Japan after its defeat in the Second World War. The Japanese constitution could not have had any provision that the US government did not like. Do you see any problem in this way of making the constitution? In which way was the Indian experience different from this?

Rajat asked his teacher this question: “The constitution is a fifty-year-old and therefore outdated book. No one took my consent for implementing it. It is written in such tough language that I cannot understand it. Tell me why I should obey this document?” If you were the teacher, how would you answer Rajat?

In a discussion on the experience of the working of our Constitution, three speakers took three different positions:

A. Harbans: The Indian Constitution has succeeded in giving us a framework of democratic government.

B. Neha: The Constitution made solemn promises of ensuring liberty, equality and fraternity. Since this has not happened, the Constitution has failed.

C. Nazima: The Constitution has not failed us. We have failed the Constitution.