Minds Of Aspirants (Official)

Upsc Cse mains question How to write this essay ? The editorial shared above - is the answer for this particular essay

Problems in tourism sector Gs 1 Gs 3

Why reading newspaper is important for prelims, mains and interview? Source - The hindu + Business line + Indian express + Business standard+ Other papers + pib Read, Books Newspaper PYQ Important article for the day- Tourism ( 29th Jan - Editorial written by Mr.Shashi Tharoor

PYQ 2014 Gs 4

Acid victims Gs 4

What is E-governance ? Explain with examples. PRAGATI Excellent article explaining what is PRAGATI!

Comparison: Shankari Prasad (1951) vs Sajjan Singh (1965) (Constitutional Amendment & Fundamental Rights) ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 🔹 1. Context • Shankari Prasad (1951): Challenge to 1st Constitutional Amendment Act, 1951 • Sajjan Singh (1965): Challenge to 17th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1964 ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 🔹 2. Primary Issue • Shankari Prasad: Can Parliament amend Fundamental Rights? • Sajjan Singh: Can Parliament amend Fundamental Rights without any limitation? ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 🔹 3. Amendments Involved • Shankari Prasad: Articles 31A, 31B and Ninth Schedule • Sajjan Singh: Expansion of Ninth Schedule ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 🔹 4. Bench Strength • Shankari Prasad: 5 judges • Sajjan Singh: 5 judges ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 🔹 5. Verdict • Shankari Prasad: Unanimous • Sajjan Singh: Majority (3:2) ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 🔹 6. Core Holding • Both cases held: Parliament can amend Fundamental Rights under Article 368 ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 🔹 7. Interpretation of Article 13(2) • Shankari Prasad: Constitutional amendment is not “law” under Article 13(2) • Sajjan Singh: Reaffirmed that amendment ≠ “law” ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 🔹 8. Nature of Amending Power • Both cases: Amendment is an exercise of constituent power, not ordinary legislative power ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 🔹 9. View on Limitations • Shankari Prasad: No discussion on limits to amending power • Sajjan Singh: Implied limitations questioned (in dissent) ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 🔹 10. Judicial Attitude • Shankari Prasad: Clear Parliamentary supremacy • Sajjan Singh: Parliamentary supremacy, but judicial unease visible ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 🔹 11. Dissent • Shankari Prasad: ❌ None • Sajjan Singh: ✅ Justice J.R. Mudholkar ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 🔹 12. Basic Structure Idea • Shankari Prasad: ❌ Absent • Sajjan Singh: ✅ First hinted (in dissent) ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 🔹 13. Historical Role • Shankari Prasad: Established Parliament’s power to amend FRs • Sajjan Singh: Questioned the idea of absolute amending power ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 🔹 14. Later Fate • Both cases: Overruled in Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967) ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Important Constitutional Cases Case 2 Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965) Background • 17th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1964 • Added more land reform laws to the Ninth Schedule • Objective: protect agrarian reforms from challenges under Articles 14, 19, 31 • Petitioners argued: Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights, and such power would destroy constitutional supremacy ⸻ Issues Involved 1. Can Parliament amend Fundamental Rights under Article 368? 2. Is there any implied limitation on Parliament’s amending power? ⸻ Judgment Majority: 3–2 The Supreme Court upheld the 17th Amendment. ⸻ Key Holdings • Parliament can amend Fundamental Rights • Article 368 grants wide constituent power • No distinction between Fundamental Rights and other constitutional provisions ⸻ Reasoning • The term “amendment” in Article 368 includes all parts of the Constitution • Fundamental Rights are not immutable • Any limitation must be explicit, not implied ⸻ Significance • Reaffirmed Shankari Prasad • Continued Parliamentary supremacy • Strengthened land reform measures ⸻ Important Dissent • Justice J.R. Mudholkar questioned: Can Parliament alter the basic features of the Constitution? • Introduced the idea of “Basic Structure” (not accepted then) ⸻ Later Developments • Followed Shankari Prasad • Overruled in Golaknath (1967) • Dissent evolved into Basic Structure doctrine in Kesavananda Bharati (1973)

Important Constitutional cases Case 1 Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951) Background • The First Constitutional Amendment Act, 1951: • Curtailed Right to Property (Article 31) • Inserted Articles 31A and 31B • Introduced the Ninth Schedule to protect land reform laws from judicial review • Petitioners argued: Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights because Article 13(2) prohibits laws that take away Fundamental Rights. ⸻ Issues Involved 1. Does “law” in Article 13(2) include a constitutional amendment? 2. Can Parliament amend Fundamental Rights under Article 368? ⸻ Judgment (Unanimous, 5-judge bench) The Supreme Court upheld the First Amendment. ⸻ Key Holdings • Constitutional Amendment ≠ “law” under Article 13(2) • Article 13 applies to ordinary laws, not constitutional amendments • Parliament has the power to amend Fundamental Rights under Article 368 ⸻ Reasoning • A constitutional amendment is an exercise of constituent power, not legislative power • Article 368 is a self-contained provision for amendment • If framers wanted to limit amendments, they would have said so explicitly ⸻ Significance • Established Parliamentary supremacy in constitutional amendments • Enabled land reform and socio-economic legislation • Laid foundation for future constitutional conflicts ⸻ Later Developments • Upheld in Sajjan Singh (1965) • Overruled in Golaknath (1967) • Partially restored (with limits) in Kesavananda Bharati (1973) via Basic Structure doctrine

PYQ 2025 Gs 4

Social media Gs 4

Elimination of Malaria in 2030

Battery manufacturing Advanced chemistry cell production linked incentive scheme

PYQ 2018 Gs 1

Fishery sector Gs 3