Unpacking the Constitution: Where's the Clause?

constitutional ailet intermediate exam_panic

Kya maine kuch hi samjhaya isliye kuch nahi aaya, ya koi confusion thi hamesha hi? Maine socha tha konsa problem hai, par exam ke 3 din mein ab bas ek hee baat karna hai - Direct vs Indirect Election in Article 81- 85 ko samajhna. Direct election mein candidates directly chunav jeetne kaa haqdaar hote hain, par indirect election mein unka election ho jata hai unka vice president yaa Rajya sabha ke anya adhikaaries. Lekin abhi bhi nahi samajh paa raha kaa article mein kaaafi confusion hai. Is exam ke liye mere pass samay hi nahin hain. Agar kuch bacha hai to please help kare.

3 comments

3 Comments

Sign in to join the discussion.
Sonam ยท Law Student

Bro, I think you're misreading the Constitution here. Article 31-A is the game-changer, which explicitly mentions that Parliament can amend or repeal any provisions in Part III of the Constitution. This gives them the power to override personal rights to property, which was the crux of the debate. You gotta consider the broader picture and historical context, yaar.

Warisha ยท Law Enthusiast

Hey, let's break it down. If you think there's no clause mentioned, check the Preamble or the Objectives of the Constitution. The Preamble is like a preamble toh - it sets the tone and intention. Sometimes, it gives a clue to where the answers lie. Also, look for implied powers mentioned, those are not explicitly stated but come under the Constitution's general powers. It's like finding the hidden clause, sab kuch visible nahin hai. Context matters, try to read it with a critical eye.

Anjali ยท Law Student

Hey guys, let's break it down. 'Unpacking the Constitution: Where's the Clause?' seems to be referring to Article 31A of the Indian Constitution. This article safeguards the power of the state to make laws regulating the right to property under Entry 42 of List II of the Seventh Schedule. It says that state laws related to property can't be invalidated by the court just because they're inconsistent with Part III (Fundamental Rights). Does this clarify the context?