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.
Do you agree with any of these positions? If yes, why? If not,
what is your own position?
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year old and therefore outdated book.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 should I obey this document?” If you
were the teacher, how would you answer Rajat?
Derive the expression for the average power consumed in a series RLC circuit connected to an AC source. Explain the conditions for resonance and its effects on power.
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 inthis way of making the constitution? In which way was the Indian
experience different from this?
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
Which of the following is a good reason to conclude that the
authority of the constitution is higher than that of the parliament?
a. The constitution was framed before the parliament came into
being.
b. The constitution makers were more eminent leaders than the
members of the parliament.
c. The constitution specifies how parliament is to be formed and
what are its powers.
d. The constitution cannot be amended by the parliament.
+91 94284 01196 (WhatsApp only)
C-15, Suvidhapark Society, Amitnagar circle, Karelibaug, Vadodara (390018)
© Copyright 2025. Doubtora. All Rights Reserved
