UPPSC 2022 Prelims GS Paper-I · Question 99 of 150

Correct — C, Keshvanand Bharti vs State of Kerala – 1973. The case is standardly spelled Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, and the judgment was delivered on 24 April 1973 by a bench of thirteen judges — the largest ever assembled by the Supreme Court of India — which divided seven to six. The majority held that Parliament's power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 is very wide but not unlimited: an amendment may not be used to damage or destroy the basic structure of the Constitution. That proposition is the basic structure doctrine, and it originates here. The petitioner was the head of the Edneer Mutt in Kasaragod, Kerala, challenging Kerala land reform legislation that affected the mutt's property; he lost on the facts, but the constitutional holding reshaped Indian public law. The Court has never given an exhaustive list of what the basic structure contains, deciding instead case by case, which is why the doctrine has since been used to test everything from the Ninth Schedule to the collegium. Note the year in the option itself — 1973 — which matches the judgment date and is the quickest confirmation available on the page.

• (a)Golaknath vs State of Punjab – 1967 — The nearest miss, and the case the doctrine grew out of, but not the case that propounded it. In Golaknath the Court held that Parliament could not amend Fundamental Rights at all — an absolute bar rather than a limit tied to basic structure. Kesavananda partly overruled that position six years later: it restored Parliament's power to amend Fundamental Rights, while subjecting every amendment to the new basic-structure test. Golaknath is the predecessor, not the source.
• (b)Yusuf vs State of Bombay – 1954 — Yusuf Abdul Aziz v. State of Bombay had nothing to do with the amending power. It was a Fundamental Rights case in which the Court upheld the adultery provision of the Indian Penal Code against a challenge under Articles 14 and 15, relying on the protective-discrimination clause for women. That provision was itself struck down by the Supreme Court much later, in 2018.
• (d)Chitralekha vs State of Mysore – 1964 — Chitralekha v. State of Mysore concerned reservation policy — specifically whether income and occupation could be used as criteria for identifying backward classes. It belongs to the line of cases on Article 15 and 16, not to the line on Article 368 and the limits of constitutional amendment.

The basic structure doctrine answers a question the text of the Constitution leaves open: is there anything Parliament cannot do by amendment? The line of cases runs in four steps. Shankari Prasad in 1951 and Sajjan Singh in 1965 held that the amending power under Article 368 was unlimited and could reach Fundamental Rights. Golaknath in 1967 reversed that and held Fundamental Rights beyond the reach of amendment altogether. Kesavananda Bharati in 1973 settled the middle position that has held ever since — Fundamental Rights can be amended, but no amendment may damage or destroy the basic structure. Parliament's reply came in the 42nd Amendment of 1976, which declared that no amendment could be questioned in any court; the Supreme Court struck those clauses down in Minerva Mills in 1980, applying the doctrine to the very amendment meant to abolish it.

Landmark-case questions are decided by holding the case, the year and the single proposition together, because the examiner will supply plausible alternatives from the same era. Here all four options are genuine Supreme Court decisions with correct years, so the year alone will not separate them; what separates them is subject matter. Kesavananda and Golaknath both concern the amending power, and the discriminator between them is the shape of the limit — Golaknath said Fundamental Rights could not be amended at all, Kesavananda said they could be amended but the basic structure could not be destroyed. Yusuf and Chitralekha come from the Fundamental Rights and reservation lines and can be set aside once the subject is identified. One point students should be precise about: the Constitution itself nowhere defines or lists the basic structure. It is a judicial construction, and UPSC has tested exactly that.

• Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala was decided on 24 April 1973 by a thirteen-judge Constitution Bench, the largest in the Supreme Court's history, by a majority of seven to six.
• The holding: Parliament may amend any part of the Constitution under Article 368, but no amendment may damage or destroy its basic structure.
• It partly overruled Golaknath (1967), which had held that Fundamental Rights could not be amended at all; Shankari Prasad (1951) and Sajjan Singh (1965) had earlier upheld an unlimited amending power.
• The petitioner was the head of the Edneer Mutt in Kasaragod, Kerala, challenging State land reform legislation affecting the mutt's property.
• The Constitution nowhere defines or enumerates the 'basic structure'; the Court has identified its elements case by case, and applied the doctrine in Indira Nehru Gandhi (1975) and Minerva Mills (1980), among others.

• Attributing the doctrine to Golaknath, which barred amendment of Fundamental Rights outright but never spoke of a basic structure
• Believing the Constitution itself defines or lists the basic structure — it does not; the doctrine is entirely judicial
• Assuming Kesavananda made Fundamental Rights unamendable; it did the opposite, restoring the power to amend them subject to the basic-structure limit

UPPSC asks this as direct case recall and as chronology — which case laid down the doctrine, and in what order the four amending-power cases were decided — and it has now asked both. UPSC prefers the conceptual edge: whether the Constitution defines the basic structure, or how judicial review relates to the doctrine.

• practice — not a real PYQ

  Which of the following statements about the basic structure doctrine is correct?

  • (a)The doctrine is expressly set out in Article 368 of the Constitution
  • (b)It holds that Fundamental Rights cannot be amended by Parliament under any circumstances
  • (c)It holds that Parliament may amend any provision of the Constitution but may not damage or destroy its basic structure
  • (d)It was laid down by the Supreme Court in Shankari Prasad v. Union of India

  Answer(c) It holds that Parliament may amend any provision of the Constitution but may not damage or destroy its basic structure — laid down in Kesavananda Bharati (1973); the absolute bar on amending Fundamental Rights belonged to Golaknath and was set aside.

• practice — not a real PYQ

  In which of the following cases did the Supreme Court apply the basic structure doctrine to strike down parts of the 42nd Constitutional Amendment?

  • (a)Golaknath v. State of Punjab
  • (b)Minerva Mills v. Union of India
  • (c)Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan
  • (d)Chitralekha v. State of Mysore

  Answer(b) Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980) — the Court struck down the clauses of the 42nd Amendment that had sought to place amendments beyond judicial review and to give unlimited amending power to Parliament.