MPPSC 2025 Prelims Paper-I · Question 73 of 100

Correct — D, Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973). A 13-judge bench, the largest ever assembled by the Supreme Court of India, held by a 7:6 majority that Parliament's power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 is wide but not unlimited: it may amend any part, including Fundamental Rights, but it cannot damage or destroy the 'basic structure' of the Constitution. That is the first time the doctrine was laid down. The case overruled Golaknath (1967) and upheld the 24th Amendment, while making every future amendment testable against the basic structure. The petitioner was Swami Kesavananda Bharati, head of the Edneer Mutt in Kerala, who had challenged the Kerala land reform legislation affecting the Mutt's property.

• (a)Sankari Prasad V. Union of India — Sankari Prasad (1951) was the first challenge to the First Constitutional Amendment. The Supreme Court upheld it, holding that 'law' in Article 13 does not include a constitutional amendment — so Parliament could amend Fundamental Rights. It imposed no limit at all, let alone a basic-structure limit.
• (b)Champakam Dorairajan V. State of Madras — Champakam Dorairajan (1951) dealt with the clash between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles in the context of caste-based reservation in college admissions; the Court held Fundamental Rights prevail. It provoked the First Amendment, but it is not about Parliament's amending power or the basic structure.
• (c)Golaknath V. State of Punjab — Golaknath (1967) swung to the opposite extreme of the basic-structure position: an 11-judge bench held, 6:5, that Parliament cannot abridge or take away Fundamental Rights at all. That is a blanket bar, not a 'basic structure' test — and it was overruled by Kesavananda Bharati six years later.

The basic structure doctrine is judge-made law about the limits of the amending power. Article 368 gives Parliament the power to amend the Constitution; Kesavananda Bharati (1973) read into it an implied limitation — the amendment must not destroy the Constitution's essential identity. The Constitution itself nowhere defines what the basic structure is; the courts have built the list case by case (supremacy of the Constitution, rule of law, judicial review, separation of powers, federalism, secularism, free and fair elections, the balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles, and more).

The four options are the standard 'amendment-power ladder' in chronological order, and the question is really asking whether you know the sequence, not just one name. Sankari Prasad (1951) said Parliament may amend Fundamental Rights → Sajjan Singh (1965) agreed → Golaknath (1967) said it may not → Kesavananda Bharati (1973) restored the power but capped it with the basic structure → Minerva Mills (1980) reaffirmed that limited amending power and judicial review are themselves part of the basic structure. Champakam Dorairajan is the odd one out: it belongs to the Fundamental Rights vs Directive Principles story, not the amendment story.

• Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala was decided in 1973 by a 13-judge bench — the largest in the Supreme Court's history — by a 7:6 majority.
• It held Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, but cannot alter its basic structure; it overruled Golaknath (1967).
• The Constitution nowhere defines 'basic structure' — the content of the doctrine has been developed by the judiciary case by case.
• Sankari Prasad (1951) and Sajjan Singh (1965) had held that a constitutional amendment is not 'law' within the meaning of Article 13, so it could not be struck down for violating Fundamental Rights.
• Minerva Mills (1980) held that limited amending power and judicial review are themselves part of the basic structure, striking down parts of the 42nd Amendment.

• Picking Golaknath because it is also a famous amendment-power case — it barred amendment of Fundamental Rights outright and was overruled
• Believing the Constitution defines its own basic structure; it does not — the doctrine is entirely judicial
• Mixing Champakam Dorairajan (Fundamental Rights vs Directive Principles) into the amending-power sequence

MPPSC asks it as a direct case-name recall or as a case–principle match. UPSC prefers the conceptual form — statement questions on whether the Constitution defines the basic structure, on which amendment was enacted to overcome a judgment, or on what judicial review protects.

• practice — not a real PYQ

  The Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) was decided by a bench of how many judges of the Supreme Court?

  • (a)Seven
  • (b)Nine
  • (c)Eleven
  • (d)Thirteen

  Answer(d) Thirteen — the largest bench ever constituted by the Supreme Court of India, deciding 7:6.

• practice — not a real PYQ

  Which judgment held that limited amending power and judicial review are themselves part of the basic structure, striking down parts of the 42nd Amendment?

  • (a)Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967)
  • (b)Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980)
  • (c)Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965)
  • (d)Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)

  Answer(b) Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980).