Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (APFC) 2016 recruitment test, advertisement 170. Transcribed from the Commission's own booklet (series A, B-CRHE-O-PAPA); answer as per the official UPSC final answer key. This question is in Part B. Answer last reviewed 24 August 2026.

Under the Constitution of India, which of the following statements are correct ? 1. The Constitution is supreme. 2. There is a clear division of powers between the Union and the State Governments. 3. Amendments to the Constitution have to follow the prescribed procedure. 4. The Union Parliament and the State Legislatures are sovereign. 5. The Preamble to the Constitution cannot be invoked to determine the ambit of Fundamental Rights. Select the correct answer using the codes given below :

(a)1, 2, 3, 4 and 5
(b)2, 3 and 4 only
(c)1, 4 and 5 only
(d)1, 2 and 3 only

Answer

Why

Correct — D, (d) 1, 2 and 3 only.

Take the five statements one at a time; the option set follows from the adjudication and not the other way round.

STATEMENT 1 — 'The Constitution is supreme.' CORRECT. India has a written Constitution which is the supreme law of the land. Every organ of the State — the legislature, the executive and the judiciary, at the Union and in the States — derives its authority from it and can act only within it. Article 13 makes the point operative: any law inconsistent with or in derogation of the Fundamental Rights is void to the extent of the inconsistency, and the courts have the power of judicial review to say so.

STATEMENT 2 — 'There is a clear division of powers between the Union and the State Governments.' CORRECT. Article 246 read with the Seventh Schedule divides legislative subjects into three lists: the Union List, on which Parliament alone legislates; the State List, on which the State Legislatures do; and the Concurrent List, on which both may, with Union law prevailing in case of repugnancy under Article 254. Residuary powers rest with Parliament under Article 248. That the division is enumerated in a Schedule rather than left to convention is exactly what 'clear' means here.

STATEMENT 3 — 'Amendments to the Constitution have to follow the prescribed procedure.' CORRECT. Article 368 lays down the procedure: a Bill in either House, a majority of the total membership of that House and a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting, and for the entries that touch the federal structure an additional ratification by the legislatures of not less than one-half of the States. A Constitution that can be altered only by a prescribed special procedure is a rigid one, in contrast to an ordinary statute.

STATEMENT 4 — 'The Union Parliament and the State Legislatures are sovereign.' INCORRECT, and this is the statement the question is built around. Neither is sovereign. Parliament cannot legislate on a State List entry except in the circumstances the Constitution itself provides; a State Legislature cannot touch the Union List at all; and both are bound by the Fundamental Rights and subject to judicial review. This is the standing contrast with the United Kingdom, where Parliament IS sovereign because there is no written constitution above it. In India the Constitution is supreme, and statements 1 and 4 cannot both be true.

STATEMENT 5 — 'The Preamble to the Constitution cannot be invoked to determine the ambit of Fundamental Rights.' INCORRECT. In Kesavananda Bharati (1973) the Supreme Court held that the Preamble is part of the Constitution and may be used in interpreting it, departing from the earlier view in Berubari Union (1960) that it stood outside the text. The Preamble's declared objects — justice, liberty, equality and fraternity — have since been used repeatedly to give content to the Fundamental Rights rather than being excluded from that task.

Only 1, 2 and 3 stand, which is option (d).

Why the others are wrong

(a)1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 — This accepts all five and so accepts both of the false ones. It also accepts a contradiction: statement 1 says the Constitution is supreme and statement 4 says the legislatures are sovereign, and those two cannot hold together. Sovereignty means legally unlimited law-making power, and a legislature whose Acts can be struck down for inconsistency with a higher text does not have it. Wherever a list contains two statements that cannot both be true, the all-of-the-above option is eliminated before any research is done.
(b)2, 3 and 4 only — This makes two errors in opposite directions. It admits statement 4, which is false for the reason above, and it rejects statement 1, which is the most straightforwardly true statement in the list — the supremacy of a written Constitution enforced through judicial review is the foundation the other statements rest on. The pairing is a recognisable design: an option that swaps in the false statement and swaps out the strongest true one, so that a candidate who is unsure about the doctrinal statements and confident about the procedural ones can still be drawn to it.
(c)1, 4 and 5 only — This keeps only the true statement 1 and adds BOTH false statements, while dropping the two that are plainly correct — the division of legislative powers under Article 246 and the Seventh Schedule, and the amendment procedure under Article 368. Accepting statement 5 would mean the Preamble is irrelevant to the interpretation of the Fundamental Rights, which is the opposite of the position settled in Kesavananda Bharati. It is worth noticing that statement 4 appears in this option and in options (a) and (b): recognising that one statement as false leaves only option (d) standing, so the whole item can be decided on it alone.

Concept

The five statements between them cover the features that make the Indian Constitution what it is, and the question's hinge is the difference between CONSTITUTIONAL SUPREMACY and PARLIAMENTARY SOVEREIGNTY.

Under parliamentary sovereignty, which is the British position, the legislature can make or unmake any law and no court may set its Act aside. There is no written constitution standing above it. Under constitutional supremacy, which is the Indian and American position, a written constitution is the highest law; legislative power is conferred by it, limited by it, and enforced against by courts exercising judicial review. India borrowed parliamentary GOVERNMENT from Britain — a cabinet responsible to the legislature — without borrowing parliamentary SOVEREIGNTY, and the confusion between the two is what statement 4 exploits.

The limits on Indian legislatures are of three kinds. TERRITORIAL AND SUBJECT-MATTER limits come from Article 246 and the Seventh Schedule. SUBSTANTIVE limits come from Part III, since Article 13 voids any law inconsistent with the Fundamental Rights. And PROCEDURAL limits come from Article 368, which even applies to the power of amendment itself — and to which the courts have added the basic structure doctrine, so that an amendment passed in perfect procedural form may still fall if it destroys an essential feature.

On the Preamble, the position moved. In Berubari Union (1960) the Court treated the Preamble as not part of the Constitution though a key to the makers' minds. In Kesavananda Bharati (1973) it held the Preamble to be part of the Constitution and available in interpretation. That the Preamble was itself amended by the 42nd Amendment in 1976, which inserted the words socialist, secular and integrity, is consistent only with its being part of the text, since Article 368 operates on the Constitution and not on things outside it.

Polity is a modest strand on this paper — about seven questions — but it is asked at a level that rewards understanding over recall, and this is the clearest example. There is nothing here to look up: all five statements are propositions about how the constitutional system works, and each has to be judged on its own.

The item is also a good illustration of how a five-statement list should be attacked. Do not try to match the list against the options; adjudicate each statement first, write down the set that survives, and then find it among the options. Working the other way — asking 'could it be 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 ?' — invites the candidate to argue backwards into accepting a statement they would otherwise reject.

Two shortcuts are available here and both are worth noticing, because they generalise. First, statements 1 and 4 are mutually inconsistent, so any option containing both is out immediately, which removes options (a) and (c). Second, statement 4 is present in three of the four options, so it is the pivot of the whole set: settle it and the item is settled. Examiners construct lists in this way more often than candidates expect, and a quick tally of which statement appears in which option costs seconds.

Key facts

The Indian Constitution is supreme: all organs derive authority from it, and Article 13 voids any law inconsistent with the Fundamental Rights.
Article 246 with the Seventh Schedule divides subjects into the Union List, the State List and the Concurrent List; Article 254 gives Union law primacy where Concurrent laws conflict; Article 248 leaves residuary power with Parliament.
Article 368 prescribes the amendment procedure: a majority of the total membership of the House and two-thirds of those present and voting, plus ratification by at least half the State legislatures for entries touching the federal structure.
Neither Parliament nor a State Legislature is sovereign — each is limited by the distribution of legislative powers, by Part III, and by judicial review. Parliamentary sovereignty is the British position, where there is no written constitution above the legislature.
Kesavananda Bharati (1973) held that the Preamble is part of the Constitution and may be used in interpreting it, departing from Berubari Union (1960).
The Preamble was itself amended by the 42nd Amendment, 1976, which inserted the words socialist, secular and integrity.
The basic structure doctrine adds a substantive limit to the amending power beyond the procedural one in Article 368.

Study next

Constitutional supremacy against parliamentary sovereignty, and why India took parliamentary government from Britain without taking parliamentary sovereignty.The Seventh Schedule in detail: the three lists, repugnancy under Article 254, residuary power, and the situations in which Parliament may legislate on a State subject.Article 368 and the amendment procedure, including which provisions need State ratification.The basic structure doctrine from Kesavananda Bharati onwards, and the features the courts have treated as essential.The Preamble: its status after Berubari and Kesavananda, its amendment in 1976, and its use in interpreting Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles.

Common traps

Reading 'Parliament is supreme' as an Indian truth. It is a British one; in India the Constitution is supreme and Parliament is limited by it.
Accepting statements 1 and 4 together. They contradict each other, so any option holding both is wrong before any further reasoning.
Believing the Preamble is outside the Constitution and so cannot aid interpretation. Kesavananda Bharati settled the opposite, and the 42nd Amendment amended the Preamble itself.
Matching the option list before adjudicating the statements, which lets the printed combinations argue you into accepting a statement you would otherwise reject.

Polity items on EPFO papers are usually statement lists of three to five propositions with numeric codes, and they are built around one doctrinal statement that a candidate half-remembers from the British system or from a headline. Expect sovereignty, the status of the Preamble, the scope of judicial review, the relationship between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles, and the limits of the amending power. The method is always the same: adjudicate every statement independently, note which statements are mutually inconsistent, and tally which statement appears in the most options — that one is usually the pivot the examiner has built the item on. Cite the Article where you can, because the Article number is what separates a remembered impression from a settled fact.

Related PYQs

EPFO_APFC_2016_Q42

Which one of the following formed the basic premise for developing the Indian Constitution ?

(a) The Government of India Act, 1935
(b) The U.S. Constitution
(c) The British Constitution
(d) The UN Charter

Answer(a) The Government of India Act, 1935

Which enactment formed the basic premise for the Indian Constitution — the federal scheme and the division of legislative subjects tested in statement 2 here came largely from that Act.

EPFO_APFC_2016_Q54

The Parliament can make any law for whole or any part of India for implementing international treaties

(a) With the consent of all the States
(b) With the consent of majority of the States
(c) With the consent of the States concerned
(d) Without the consent of any State

Answer(d) Without the consent of any State

Parliament's power to legislate for the whole or any part of India to implement international treaties, which is one of the situations in which the ordinary division of powers of statement 2 gives way.

Practice

practice — not a real PYQ
Which of the following statements about the Preamble to the Constitution of India is correct ?
- (a)It is not part of the Constitution and can never be amended
- (b)It is part of the Constitution and has been amended once
- (c)It is part of the Constitution but is not justiciable and cannot aid interpretation
- (d)It can be amended only by a resolution of the State legislatures
Answer(b) It is part of the Constitution and has been amended once — Kesavananda Bharati (1973) held the Preamble to be part of the Constitution, and the 42nd Amendment, 1976 amended it by inserting the words socialist, secular and integrity. It is not by itself a source of enforceable rights, but it may be and is used in interpreting the Constitution.
practice — not a real PYQ
Residuary powers of legislation under the Constitution of India rest with
- (a)the State Legislatures
- (b)Parliament
- (c)Parliament and the State Legislatures concurrently
- (d)the President, by order
Answer(b) Parliament — Article 248 confers on Parliament the exclusive power to make any law with respect to a matter not enumerated in the Concurrent List or the State List. India follows the Canadian model here rather than the American one, where residuary powers rest with the states.

Why