Basic Structure Doctrine

Q.1.Consider the following statements:

1.In the Shankari Prasad case (1951), the Supreme Court held that Parliament can amend Fundamental Rights under Article 368 of the Constitution of India.

2.In the Golak Nath case (1967), the Supreme Court held that Parliament does not have the power to abridge or take away Fundamental Rights.

3.In both cases, the Supreme Court held that constitutional amendments are not “law” under Article 13.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

(a) 1 only

(b) 1 and 2 only

(d) 1, 2 and 3

Ans: (b)

Exp:

In Shankari Prasad (1951), the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the First Constitutional Amendment Act (1951) and ruled that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 also includes the power to amend Fundamental Rights. Hence,statement 1 is correct.
However, the Supreme Court reversed this position in I.C. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab. In this case, the constitutional validity of the Seventeenth Constitutional Amendment Act, 1964, which inserted several state land reform laws into the Ninth Schedule, was challenged. Hence, statement 2 is correct.
The Court held that Fundamental Rights occupy a “transcendental and immutable” position in the constitutional framework. Therefore, Parliament does not have the power to abridge or take away Fundamental Rights.
The interpretation of Article 13 differed in the two cases:
Shankari Prasad (1951): Constitutional amendments are not “law” under Article 13.
Golak Nath (1967): Constitutional amendments are “law” under Article 13 and therefore cannot violate Fundamental Rights. Hence, statement 3 is not correct.

Therefore, option (b) is the correct answer.

Q.2.Which one of the following cases outlined the basic structure doctrine of the Indian Constitution? U.P.P.C.S. (Pre) 2015

(a) Gopalan v/s Madras State

(b) Golaknath v/s Punjab State

(d) None of these

Ans: (c)

Exp:

The Basic Structure Doctrine of the Indian Constitution was established by the Supreme Court in the landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973).

Background

The case challenged the constitutional validity of the 24th, 25th and 29th Constitutional Amendments, which expanded Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution under Article 368.
The key question before the Supreme Court was:
Does Parliament have unlimited power to amend the Constitution?

Judgment

A 13-judge bench of the Supreme Court (the largest bench in Indian judicial history) delivered the judgment in 1973.
The Court held that:
Parliament has wide powers to amend the Constitution under Article 368.
However, it cannot alter or destroy the “Basic Structure” of the Constitution.

Therefore, option (c) is the correct answer.

Q.3.The basic structure theory of the Constitution of India implies that :

(a) Certain features of the Constitution are so essential to it that they cannot be abrogated.

(b) Fundamental rights cannot be abridged or taken away.

(d) The Preamble of the Constitution cannot be amended for it is not a part of the Constitution and at the same

time represents its real spirit.

Ans: (a)

Exp:

The Basic Structure Doctrine was evolved by the Supreme Court in the landmark case Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala.
The Supreme Court held that:
Parliament has wide powers to amend the Constitution under Article 368.
However, Parliament cannot destroy or alter the “basic structure” or essential features of the Constitution.
Thus, the doctrine implies that certain fundamental features of the Constitution are inviolable and cannot be abrogated even by a constitutional amendment.
Examples of such features include:
Supremacy of the Constitution
Rule of law
Judicial review
Federalism
Secularism
Separation of powers
Parliamentary form of government
Therefore, option (a) is the correct answer.

Q.4. Consider the following statements: (UPSC,2020)

1. The Constitution of India defines its ‘basic structure’ in terms of federalism, secularism, fundamental rights and democracy.

2. The Constitution of India provides for ‘judicial review’ to safeguard the citizens’ liberties and to preserve the ideals on which the Constitution is based.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

(a) 1 only

(b) 2 only

(d) Neither 1 nor 2

Ans: (d)

Exp:

The Constitution of India does not explicitly define the “Basic Structure.”
The Basic Structure Doctrine was evolved by the Supreme Court in the landmark case Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala. Hence, statement 1 is not correct.
The Court held that Parliament can amend the Constitution under Article 368, but it cannot alter or destroy the basic structure of the Constitution.
Features such as federalism, secularism, democracy, judicial review, and fundamental rights have been recognized as elements of the basic structure through judicial interpretation, not by the Constitution itself.
Although judicial review exists in India, the Constitution does not explicitly state that judicial review is provided specifically to safeguard citizens’ liberties and preserve constitutional ideals.
Hence, statement 2 is not correct.
Judicial review is inferred from various constitutional provisions, such as:
Article 13 – Laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights are void.
Article 32 – Right to constitutional remedies.
Article 226 – Powers of High Courts to issue writs.

Therefore, option (d) is the correct answer.

Q.5.Which of the following Articles of the Constitution of India have been declared by the Supreme Court as the

‘Inviolable basic structure’ of the Constitution: U.P.P.C.S. (Pre) 1999

Select the correct answer from the code given below:

1. Article 32

2. Article 226

3. Article 227

4. Article 245

Code :

(a) 1, 2 and 3

(b) 1, 3 and 4

(d) 1, 2, 3 and 4

Ans: (a)

Exp:

The Basic Structure Doctrine was established by the Supreme Court in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, which held that Parliament cannot amend or destroy the basic structure of the Constitution under Article 368.

Role of the Relevant Articles

Article 32 (Right to Constitutional Remedies) & Article 226 (Writ Jurisdiction of High Courts): The Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India held that the power of judicial review under Articles 32 and 226 forms part of the basic structure of the Constitution. Hence, statements 1 & 2 are correct.
Article 227: Gives High Courts supervisory jurisdiction over all subordinate courts and tribunals within their territory.
The Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) held that the powers of High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 form part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution. Hence, statement 3 is correct.
Article 245 (Legislative Powers of Parliament and State Legislatures) : It has not been declared as part of the inviolable basic structure. Hence, statement 4 is not correct.
Therefore,option (a) is the correct answer.