KSLU Solved Question Papers
Political Science (Organisation and Institutions)
Previous Year Question Paper with Solution
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) · Sem 2
2025 Jun (100 marks) Examination
munotes.in
Mumbai
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) Sem 2 Political Science (Organisation and Institutions) 2025 Jun (100 marks) Question Paper with Solutions
First published on munotes.in on 21 October 2026.
Published by munotes.in, Mumbai.
Model answers written and edited by the munotes.in editorial desk.
Passages from this volume may be quoted, in print, online or by an AI system, with credit: name munotes.in and link to this volume's page. The volume may not be reproduced as a whole. Full terms at munotes.in/content-license.
munotes.in is an independent study resource for students of Karnataka State Law University. It is not affiliated with Karnataka State Law University, and is not endorsed by it.
The University does not publish an official answer key for this paper. The answers in this volume are model answers, written to show how a full-mark answer is built. They are a study aid, not an authority on what an examiner marked.
The question paper reproduced here is the paper as set by Karnataka State Law University at the 2025 Jun (100 marks) examination.
Contents
The questions below are the paper as Karnataka State Law University set it at the 2025 Jun (100 marks) examination, in the order it was set.
MarksPage
The Paper as Set
The questions in this volume are the questions asked at the 2025 Jun (100 marks) examination, reproduced as Karnataka State Law University set them, in the order it set them. Long reading passages are shortened to their first and last lines and our summary; the original paper prints them in full. Only the answers are ours. See the original question paper.
Duration 3 hours · Total marks 100 · 13 questions answered
How to use this volume
Solve the paper first, under exam conditions and against the clock. Then read the answers here and mark your own. Reading a solution before attempting the question feels productive and teaches very little, because recognising an answer is not the same as being able to write one.
Q1Define Constitution. Explain briefly the types of Constitution.[16]
Answer
For full marks, cover: several definitions of a constitution and the two senses of the word (objective fact and written instrument; real and formal); the types, each explained with merits and demerits where the writers give them: evolved and enacted, written and unwritten (the British and French types), rigid and flexible (Bryce), by source, historical and a priori (Maine), ideal (Jameson), unitary and federal; India's place, with the cases on how rigid its Constitution is (Sankari Prasad, Sajjan Singh, Golak Nath, Kesavananda); and a conclusion.
Definitions
The word "constitution" was first used for certain laws issued by the English Crown, such as the Constitutions of Clarendon under Henry II. By the late eighteenth century it came to mean, in Garner's words, "the body of fundamental law, either written or customary, which has to do with the organization of the state."
- Sir James Mackintosh: "the body of those written or unwritten fundamental laws which regulate the most important rights of the higher magistrates and the most essential privileges of the subjects."
- George Cornewall Lewis: "the arrangement and distribution of the sovereign power in the community, or the form of the government."
- Judge Cooley: "the body of rules and maxims in accordance with which the powers of sovereignty are habitually exercised."
- Borgeaud: "the fundamental law according to which the government of a state is organized and agreeably to which the relations of individuals or moral persons to the community are determined."
- Justice Miller (United States): "a written instrument by which the fundamental powers of government are established, limited, and defined."
Two senses of the word
Garner explains that a constitution may be an objective fact, the actual make-up of the state. It may also be an instrument of evidence, a document describing its organisation. Ideally the two agree, but they often drift apart. He also distinguishes the real constitution, "which in fact is administered and which the people obey", from the formal constitution, "the lawyers' constitution", stripped of conventions.
Types of constitution
1. Evolved (cumulative) and enacted (conventional). An evolved constitution rests on "accumulated usages, common law principles, decisions of courts". It has "no conscious starting point". An enacted constitution is formally made by an assembly or a ruler at a fixed time and embodied in a written instrument.
2. Written and unwritten. A written constitution is "a work of conscious art", embodied in one or a few documents, as in the United States and India. An unwritten constitution consists "largely of a mass of customs, usages, and judicial decisions, together with a smaller body of statutory enactments", as in Britain.
The British type. Bryce describes it as a "mass of precedents carried in men's minds or recorded in writing, dicta of lawyers or statesmen, customs, usages, understandings and beliefs, a number of statutes mixed up with customs". Freeman wrote: "There was never any moment when Englishmen drew out their political system in the shape of a formal document."
The French type. The early French constitutions were written instruments, "conceived and struck off at once". The French broke with the past and stated every principle afresh, like an architect who must have "a free and clear space".
Merits of a written constitution. Garner lists "certainty, definiteness, and stability". Rights cannot easily be bent by courts, and change is slow, free from "temporary popular passion."
Demerits of a written constitution. It may be too hard to change. Garner warns that this "has often prevented the introduction of needed changes", and increases "the temptation to violate" an outgrown constitution.
Merits of an unwritten constitution. It is elastic. Bryce says such constitutions "can be stretched or bent so as to meet emergencies without breaking their framework", like "a tree whose outer branches have been pulled aside to let a vehicle pass."
Demerits of an unwritten constitution. It is unstable, "like the river of Heraclitus". Garner says it suits a politically trained people. For less trained people Judge Jameson preferred a written constitution as "a formidable barrier against usurpation."
Garner adds that the difference is one of degree. Written constitutions become "fringed with decisions, and enlarged by custom"; unwritten ones contain great statutes such as Magna Carta.
3. Rigid and flexible. Bryce proposed this as the better test. A flexible constitution has no higher authority than ordinary law and is changed in the same way (Britain). A rigid constitution stands above ordinary law and is changed by a special procedure (the United States, under Article V).
4. By source. Garner names three:
- charters granted by kings, such as the French charter of 1814;
- constitutions framed by ordinary legislatures;
- constitutions framed by constituent assemblies.
Judge Cooley denied that royal grants were true constitutions while the king could set them aside.
5. Historical and a priori. Sir Henry Maine contrasted historical constitutions, built from experience, with a priori ones "founded on speculative assumptions remote from experience". He compared a state with an alien constitution to "a British traveler whom a hospitable Chinese entertainer has constrained to eat a dinner with chopsticks."
6. Ideal constitutions. Jameson used this name for constitutions "framed in the closets according to abstract ideas of moral perfection", such as those of Plato, Sir Thomas More and Locke.
7. Unitary and federal. A unitary constitution keeps all power at the centre; a federal one divides it between the centre and the units.
| Basis | Types | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Origin | Evolved / enacted | Britain / USA |
| Form | Unwritten / written | Britain / India |
| Method of change | Flexible / rigid | Britain / USA |
| Source | Royal grant / legislature / constituent assembly | France 1814 / India 1949 |
| Basis | Types | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Design | Historical / a priori | Britain / France 1791 |
| Distribution of power | Unitary / federal | Britain / USA |
How every type grows
Whatever its type, no constitution stands still. Garner repeats the saying that constitutions "grow, instead of being made". Written constitutions grow in three ways: "by usage, by judicial interpretation, and by formal amendment". Usage adds conventions, as the American constitution gathered rules about the President's election. Interpretation adds meaning, so that "a very large part of the constitution of the United States consists of judicial addenda". Formal amendment is the third way. Garner adds that the amending machinery should be like "a safety valve", neither too easy nor too hard. So the line between written and unwritten, and between rigid and flexible, blurs with time.
Where India stands, and the cases
India's Constitution is written, enacted by a Constituent Assembly and federal with a strong centre. By method of change it is partly rigid. Most amendments need a special majority under article 368, and some also need ratification by half the States. A few need only an ordinary law.
How far Parliament could change it was fought out in the courts.
- In Sri Sankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India, AIR 1951 SC 458, zamindars challenged the First Amendment, which protected land reform laws. The Court held that "law" in article 13 does not include constitutional amendments, so fundamental rights could be amended.
- In Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1965 SC 845, the Court followed that view. But Mudholkar J asked whether changing "a basic feature of the Constitution" was an amendment at all.
- In I. C. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab, AIR 1967 SC 1643, six judges to five held that an amendment is "law" and that Parliament could not abridge fundamental rights.
- In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461, thirteen judges settled the matter. Parliament can amend any part, but the amending power "does not include power to alter the basic structure or framework of the Constitution."
These cases show that India's Constitution is rigid in a special sense: its core cannot be destroyed even by the amending body.
Conclusion. A constitution is the fundamental law, written or customary, that organises the state and fixes the rights of citizens against government. It may be classed by origin, form, method of change, source, design and the distribution of power. Each type has its merits: the written type gives certainty, the unwritten type elasticity. Bryce's rigid and flexible test is the most useful, since written and unwritten differ only in degree. India's Constitution is written, enacted and federal, and the line of cases from Sankari Prasad to Kesavananda has made its basic structure unamendable.
The rest of the answers
The first answer is free. The rest come with the KSLU B.A. LL.B. Semester 2 solved papers.
You have read the question paper and its first answer in full. Buy the solved papers once and you can read every answer of every solved paper in this semester.
Solved papers: ₹499 Already bought it? Sign in
The question paper itself stays free.
Found an error in this volume? Report it and we will check it against the paper.