In which of the following cases did the Supreme Court of India pronounce the theory of the ‘Basic Structure’ of the Constitution?

Question

Question

This question was previously asked in

SSC CGL 2022 Tier-I Official Paper (Held On : 03 Dec 2022 Shift 4)

Answer 1

The correct answer is Kesavananda Bharati Case, 1973.

Key Points

Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru and Ors v State of Kerala Case, 1973:
- Kesavananda Bharati challenged the Kerala land reforms legislation in 1970.
- The land reforms case imposed restrictions on the management of religious property.
- Under Article 26 the case was challenged.
The verdict:
- Any provision of the Indian Constitution can be amended by the Parliament in order to accomplish its socio-economic obligations that were guaranteed to the citizens as mentioned in the Preamble, provided that such an amendment did not change the basic structure of the constitution.
- The preamble is a part of the constitution and can be amended by the Parliament under Article 368.

Additional Information

Golaknath Case, 1967
- Golaknath Vs. the State Of Punjab was a 1967 Indian Supreme Court case, in which the Court ruled that Parliament could not curtail any of the Fundamental Rights in the Constitution.
- The judgment reversed the Supreme Court's earlier decision which had upheld Parliament's power to amend all parts of the Constitution, including Part III related to Fundamental Rights.
- The judgment left Parliament with no power to curtail Fundamental Rights.
- The majority did not agree with the view that Article 368 of the Constitution contained "power and procedure" to amend, but instead believed that the text of Article 368 only explained the procedure to amend the constitution, the power being derived from entry 97 of the List I of the VII Schedule to the Constitution.
Minerva Mills Case, 1980
- In the Minerva Mill case (1980), the Supreme court provided key clarifications on the interpretation of the basic structure doctrine.
- By the 42nd Amendment, Article 31C was amended to give precedence to all the Directive Principles over Article 14, 19, and 31. The Minerva Mill case declared this change as unconstitutional.