पुढील उतारा वाचून त्यावर आधारित प्रश्नांची उत्तरे द्या :
घटनेची मूलभूत संरचना व ७३ वी-७४ वी घटनादुरुस्ती
संकल्पनात्मक पातळीवर मूलभूत संरचनेची कल्पना अत्यंत पवित्र नाही. परंतु परिस्थितीची तशी मागणी असेल तर बदल करता येणे शक्य आहे असे म्हणता येईल. एक उदाहरण पुरेसे आहे : घटनाकारांना अपेक्षित असलेले संघराज्य दोन पातळ्यांवर स्थित शासनांमधील सत्ता वाटपाच्या योजनेवर आधारित होते. एक केंद्र पातळीवर व दुसरे राज्य पातळीवर. 73 व्या आणि 74 व्या घटनादुरुस्ती कायद्यांनी संघ आणि राज्य याशिवाय 'तिसरी पातळी' तयार करून घटनेच्या मूलभूत चौकटीत बदल केले आणि एका अर्थी घटनेच्या मूलभूत संरचनेचे उल्लंघन केले असे म्हणता येईल. शासनाच्या द्विस्तरीय संरचनेला 'बिघडविण्यात' आले असे वरपांगी वाटत असले तरी ह्या बदलामुळे अस्तित्वात असलेल्या संघराज्य संरचनेपेक्षा अधिक विकेंद्रीत स्वरूपाचे संघराज्य अस्तित्वात आले असे म्हणता येईल. घटने मध्ये अनुस्यूत असलेल्या 'लोकशाही विकेंद्रीकरणाच्या' संकल्पनेला आकार दिल्यामुळे या घटना दुरुस्तीमध्ये घटनेच्या सजीव स्वरूपाचे प्रतिबिंब दिसून येते. त्याच बरोबर 'समाजवाद' व 'धर्मनिरपेक्षता' या संज्ञांचा अंतर्भाव घटनेच्या मूलभूत संरचनेला धक्का देणारा ठरत नाही, कारण या गोष्टीसाठी साधारण सहमती होती. खरेतर पुढे जाऊन 1991 मध्ये आलेल्या नवीन आर्थिक धोरणामुळे समाजवाद या संकल्पनेचे महत्त्व लोपले आहे असे म्हणता येईल. अर्थातच, घटनेच्या संरचनेतील मूलभूत अथवा पायाभूत समजली गेलेली मूल्ये पूर्णपणे अबाध्य वा पवित्र समजण्याची गरज नाही हे स्पष्ट आहे. बदलत्या काळातील गतिमान अशा नव्या सामाजिक, राजकीय व आर्थिक परिस्थिती बरोबर जुळवून घेण्यासाठी अत्यंत आवश्यक वाटल्यास ह्या मूल्यांना बदलणे शक्य आहे हे समजून घेतले पाहिजे. मूलभूत संरचनेचा सिद्धांत संसद व सर्वोच्च न्यायालय यांच्या मध्ये विवादाची भूमी तयार करतो. त्याच बरोबर या सिद्धांताने कायदे निर्मितीचे संसदेचे कार्य व सर्वोच्च न्यायालयाच्या भारतीय घटनात्मक लोकशाही प्रक्रियेची सलगता टिकविण्याची जबाबदारी यांच्या मध्ये एक नाजुक समतोल देखील निर्माण केला आहे.
1991 साली भारत सरकारने स्वीकारलेल्या नवीन आर्थिक धोरणामुळे पुढीलपैकी कोणत्या मूल्याचे महत्त्व कमी झाले?
(a) समाजवाद
(b) धर्मनिरपेक्षता
(c) लोकशाही विकेंद्रीकरण
(d) संघराज्य
पर्याय निवडा :
EN
Read the following passage and answer the questions:
Basic Structure of Constitution & 73rd-74th Amendments Conceptually, the idea of basic structure is not sacrosanct, but is not amenable to change if circumstances so require. An example will suffice here. The federalism that the founding fathers preferred was articulated as a scheme of distribution of power between two layers of government-one at the Union Level and other at the Provincial Levels. The Seventy-Third and Seventy-Fourth Amendment Acts, in fact, altered the basic structure of the constitution by introducing 'a third tier' besides the Union and States and was therefore 'violative' of the basic structure. The introduction of a third tier is a striking distortion in the prevalent two-tier structure of governance because this change is in the direction of greater federalism than what exists. However, these amendments were appreciated for having translated the notion of 'democratic decentralization' into practice and are thus reflective of the organic nature of the Constitution. Similarly, the introduction of the terms, like 'Socialism' and 'Secularism' (though the former considerably cost its salience with the adoption of the 1991 New Economic Policy) did not disrupt the basic structure simply because these changes evidently commanded 'general assent'. What is thus critical is the fact that the values of the Constitutional structure that are considered 'basic' or 'fundamental' are not entirely sacrosanct, but are amenable to change if it is absolutely necessary to keep pace with the Social, Political and Economic milieu. Although the basic structure doctrine creates a contentious space, it none the less has struck 'a balance, if an uneasy one,.... between the responsibilities of Parliament and the Supreme Court for protection of integrity of the seamless web [of Constitutional Democracy in India].' Which value lost its salience with the adoption of the 1991 New Economic Policy? (a) Socialism
(b) Secularism
(c) Democratic decentralization
(d) Federalism Choose option :
Basic Structure of Constitution & 73rd-74th Amendments Conceptually, the idea of basic structure is not sacrosanct, but is not amenable to change if circumstances so require. An example will suffice here. The federalism that the founding fathers preferred was articulated as a scheme of distribution of power between two layers of government-one at the Union Level and other at the Provincial Levels. The Seventy-Third and Seventy-Fourth Amendment Acts, in fact, altered the basic structure of the constitution by introducing 'a third tier' besides the Union and States and was therefore 'violative' of the basic structure. The introduction of a third tier is a striking distortion in the prevalent two-tier structure of governance because this change is in the direction of greater federalism than what exists. However, these amendments were appreciated for having translated the notion of 'democratic decentralization' into practice and are thus reflective of the organic nature of the Constitution. Similarly, the introduction of the terms, like 'Socialism' and 'Secularism' (though the former considerably cost its salience with the adoption of the 1991 New Economic Policy) did not disrupt the basic structure simply because these changes evidently commanded 'general assent'. What is thus critical is the fact that the values of the Constitutional structure that are considered 'basic' or 'fundamental' are not entirely sacrosanct, but are amenable to change if it is absolutely necessary to keep pace with the Social, Political and Economic milieu. Although the basic structure doctrine creates a contentious space, it none the less has struck 'a balance, if an uneasy one,.... between the responsibilities of Parliament and the Supreme Court for protection of integrity of the seamless web [of Constitutional Democracy in India].' Which value lost its salience with the adoption of the 1991 New Economic Policy? (a) Socialism
(b) Secularism
(c) Democratic decentralization
(d) Federalism Choose option :