MAINS DAILY QUESTIONS & MODEL ANSWERS
Q1. What is meant by the term “basic structure doctrine”? Describe its development and importance in preserving India’s constitution.
GS II – Indian Constitution-related issues
Introduction:
- In the 1973 Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala case, a 13-judge constitution bench decided that the parliament could not change the fundamental structure of the constitution through Article 368. The landmark decision became recognised as the “basic structure” theory. This judicial concept states that certain fundamental aspects of the constitution cannot be changed or eliminated by legislative changes. The fundamental structure theory has undergone changes over time, and it currently serves as the foundation for judicial assessment of constitutional amendments.
There have been three primary phases in the development of the basic structure doctrine:
First stage: From the verdict of Sankari Prasad to the I.C. Golaknath’s verdict:
- Shankari Prasad case: The constitutionality of the First Amendment Act of 1951, which limited the right to property, was contested in the Shankari Prasad case. The court maintained the first amendment’s legality and ruled that the parliament is empowered to alter the constitution under Article 368, with no restriction on the ability to change basic rights.
- Sajjan Singh case: Using the same reasoning as in the Shankari Prasad case, the majority of judges in this case concluded that the parliament can change any part of the constitution under Article 368, including the fundamental rights.
- Golaknath case: Nevertheless, the Supreme Court took a fresh stance in Golak Nath v. State of Punjab, ruling that the legislature could not restrict fundamental rights protected by the Constitution. The court determined that Article 368 simply includes the mechanism for amending the constitution and does not contain the substantive ability to alter.
Stage two: Following the Golakhnath Scenario and the Keshavananda case ruling:
- Following the Golakh Nath ruling, the battle between the legislative and the judiciary took on a new form.
- Against Golakh Nath’s ruling, the then-government passed a number of constitutional modifications. The Constitutional Amendment Acts of 24th, 25th, and 29th granted Parliament the authority to modify or even do away with any basic right.
- In the Keshavanada Bharti case, the Supreme Court ruled that while parliament might change any provision of the constitution, it could not do so in a way that would change or eliminate the document’s “basic structure.”
- In their ruling, the judges outlined the several facets of the constitution’s “basic structure.” It comprised the separation of powers between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government, the primacy of the constitution, and the republican and democratic forms of government.
Stage three: following the Keshavanada Bharti case:
- Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain case: The emergency phase marked the beginning of this doctrine’s primary development. Any challenge to the election of the President, Vice-President, Speaker, or Prime Minister was forbidden by the 39th Amendment. The court classed the independent conduct of elections as a “basic structure” in the Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain case.
- The Minerva Mill decision saw the Supreme Court offer significant explanations regarding how the basic structural concept should be interpreted. In order to maintain harmony and balance between the fundamental rights and directive principles and judicial scrutiny, two significant considerations were added to the parliament’s restricted authority to modify the constitution.
Basic structure’s importance in defending the constitution:
- Assures constitutionalism: Constitutionalism is the theory of limited government. It is the complete opposite of arbitrary authority. The fundamental framework has aided in maintaining the Constitution’s conformity to constitutionalism.
- Bringing about social change: The theory makes it easier to amend the constitution, opening the door for significant, democratic social change.
- beneficial to the growth of democracy: True democracies are based on the sovereignty of the people, not the government. The Indian democracy has been prevented from turning into an authoritarian state because to the basic structural theory.
- Maintaining checks and balances: A fundamental component of the system is the theory of separation of powers. As a result, the duties of the Supreme Court and Parliament for preserving the interlocking structure of the Indian Constitution have been balanced.
- The concept of basic structure originated in the 1970s and has evolved over time as a result of several rulings by the Supreme Court. It suggests that no one is above the Constitution and that it is supreme, serving as a vehicle to invigorate the tenets of the “Rule of Law.”
Q2. Discuss the detrimental effects on crop yield that come from using nitrogenous fertilisers excessively, particularly urea. What are the potential remedies to rectify this imbalance in fertiliser application?
GS III – Indian Agriculture
Introduction:
- Chemicals called fertilisers are given to crops in order to boost their capacity for yielding and production. But the overuse of nitrogenous fertilisers, particularly urea, has had a negative impact on crop productivity and soil health. To prevent farmers from using excessive amounts of urea in their fertilisers, the government implemented a nutrient-based subsidy (NBS) programme. The data, however, shows that the nutritional imbalance has gotten worse, with urea consumption increasing by more than 33% between 2009 and 2010.
Adverse effects on agricultural output of excessive usage of urea and nitrogenous fertilisers:
- Acidification of the soil: When nitrogen (N) fertilisers are applied, the release of H ions during hydrolysis can make the soil more acidic. This can result in the formation of barren soils that are not responsive to crop yields.
- Damage to plants: Rapid urea breakdown caused by strong bacterial activity raises the soil’s ammonia content. Consequently, the deficiency of essential nutrients and the harmful effects of ammonia and carbon dioxide resulting from the breakdown of urea injure plants.
- Lower crop yield: During the Green Revolution, agricultural scientists developed semi-dwarf crop varieties that were resistant to grain bending after it had ripened. These could withstand the use of fertiliser and yield more grain at greater dosages. The agricultural production response to fertiliser use has, however, more than halved over time. Farmers’ disproportionate application of N has been the root cause.
- Impacts seed germination: The growth of seedlings, early plant development in soil, and seed germination can all be negatively impacted by urea fertilisers. The urea itself and other contaminants in urea fertilisers have been blamed for these effects.
- Nitrogen leaching and residual nitrogen in the soil: Following crop harvest, nitrogen builds up in the soil profile. This happens when the soil cannot absorb all of the N fertiliser that has been applied to crops. This may affect crops that are cultivated on the land in the future. Additionally, this raises the possibility of N leaching at shallow water tables.
Potential fixes to address the imbalance in fertiliser application:
- Cutting back on urea consumption: If adding additional urea is counterproductive and results in a decrease in crop output, efforts should be taken to cut back on its usage. There are two methods for reducing the intake of urea. The first is price increases, and the second is the ability for farmers to harvest the same or higher grain yields with fewer bags, which increases nitrogen use efficiency, or NUE.
- Application of Nano Urea: The main goal of Nano Urea is also to increase NUE. Its particles’ minuscule size is supposed to facilitate simpler passage via leaves’ stomatal pores. According to IFFCO, a 500 ml bottle of Nano Urea can successfully swap out at least one 45 kg bag of ordinary 46% N urea.
- Justifying the fertiliser subsidy: To make sure that farmers receive what they most need for farming, a well-targeted subsidy payment is necessary. Reducing the overuse of fertilisers could be facilitated by placing a limit on their availability.
- Applying urea coated in neem: This improves soil health, lowers expenses associated with chemical plant protection, and lessens insect infestations. Research suggests that it also leads to higher yields of soybean, maize, sugarcane, and paddy.
- Determining the NPK ratio based on cropping strategy and soil conditions: Generally speaking, 4:2:1 is said to be the ideal ratio for India. The ratio was developed from field tests carried out in the 1950s, before the Green Revolution. The standard for fertiliser use in a state or nation, however, is determined by the cropping pattern, yield levels, crop variety, and soil-specific factors—all of which have changed significantly over time. When determining the ideal fertiliser ratio, this should be taken into account.
- Adopting new agricultural technological practices, such as switching to chemical-free farming, which uses natural products like manure, bio-fertilizers, biopesticides, slow-release fertilisers, nano fertilisers, and so on, can lessen the negative effects of synthetic chemicals on crops and the environment. The adoption of organic farming and low-budget natural farming should be further pursued.
