UPPSC 2020 Prelims GS Paper-I · Question 120 of 150

Correct — B, the Kesavananda Bharati case in 1973. In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), a 13-judge bench of the Supreme Court — the largest ever — held by a 7:6 majority that while Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution under Article 368, it cannot alter or destroy the Constitution's 'basic structure' (its essential features such as supremacy of the Constitution, rule of law, separation of powers, judicial review, federalism and secularism). This ruling first enunciated the Basic Structure doctrine, making (b) correct.

• (a)The Golaknath Case in 1967 — Wrong — Golaknath (1967) held that Parliament could not amend Fundamental Rights, but it did NOT propound the basic-structure doctrine; that came later in Kesavananda, which also overruled Golaknath's position.
• (c)The Shankari Prasad Case in 1951 — Wrong — Shankari Prasad (1951) upheld Parliament's power to amend Fundamental Rights and imposed no basic-structure limit.
• (d)The Sajjan Singh Case in 1965 — Wrong — Sajjan Singh (1965) reaffirmed Shankari Prasad, again upholding the amending power without any basic-structure restraint.

The Basic Structure doctrine is a judge-made limit on Parliament's constituent power under Article 368. Its evolution runs Shankari Prasad (1951) and Sajjan Singh (1965), which allowed amendment of Fundamental Rights; Golaknath (1967), which barred it; and finally Kesavananda Bharati (1973), which harmonised the two by ruling that Parliament may amend any provision but cannot damage the Constitution's essential framework. Later cases (Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain 1975, Minerva Mills 1980, Waman Rao 1981) developed the doctrine further.

Prelims tests the exact case that 'first laid down' the doctrine. Distractors are the other amendment-power cases in the chain — Golaknath, Shankari Prasad, Sajjan Singh — which dealt with the amendability of Fundamental Rights but never coined the basic-structure limit. The anchor to remember is Kesavananda Bharati, 1973, 13 judges.

• Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973); 13-judge bench, 7:6 majority
• Held: Parliament can amend the Constitution but cannot alter its 'basic structure'
• Overruled Golaknath (1967) on the amendability of Fundamental Rights
• Basic features cited include judicial review, rule of law, federalism, secularism and separation of powers

• Picking Golaknath (1967) — it restricted FR amendment but did not create the basic-structure doctrine
• Confusing the amendment-power cases (Shankari Prasad, Sajjan Singh) with the basic-structure ruling

UPPSC/UPSC ask which case propounded the doctrine, or arrange the amendment-power cases in chronological order.

• practice — not a real PYQ

  Which case struck down part of the 42nd Amendment and reaffirmed the Basic Structure doctrine, holding that limited amending power is itself a basic feature?

  • (a)Golaknath case (1967)
  • (b)Minerva Mills case (1980)
  • (c)Berubari Union case (1960)
  • (d)A.K. Gopalan case (1950)

  Answer(b) Minerva Mills case (1980) — it reinforced the basic-structure limit on Article 368.

• practice — not a real PYQ

  In the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), the Supreme Court held that Parliament, under Article 368,

  • (a)cannot amend any part of the Constitution
  • (b)can amend any provision but cannot alter the basic structure
  • (c)can amend even the basic structure with a two-thirds majority
  • (d)cannot amend Fundamental Rights at all

  Answer(b) can amend any provision but cannot alter the basic structure.