Constitutional Conundrum - Which Way to Go?
constitutional bar_exam beginner poll_styleHey all, I'm stuck between two options on a Constitutional Law question and need your help. I'm prepping for the AIBE and this one's been bothering me for a bit. Here it goes: The Supreme Court in the case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) held that the Parliament can amend any provision of the Constitution except those provisions which form the 'basic structure' of the Constitution. Now, let's consider the following two options:
Option A: The 'basic structure' includes all provisions in Part III (Fundaemental Rights) of the Constitution, which cannot be amended by the Parliament.
Option B: The 'basic structure' does not include all provisions in Part III (Fundamental Rights) of the Constitution, and Parliament can still amend some provisions in this part.
Which one is correct and why? Any help will be appreciated!
Arre bhai, I think we're overcomplicating things. Our Constitution gives us the right to dissent and freedom of speech, but we must balance it with public order and morality. The question is not which way to go, but how to navigate these competing interests without infringing on individual rights. Can't we find a middle path that respects both individual liberty and the rule of law?