Q. Consider the following statements:
1. The Constitutional Bench of the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) defined the Basic Structure as ‘provisions which cherishes Constitutional sovereignty and Individual liberty’.
2. Supreme Court in the Golaknath case (1967) held that an amendment under Article 368 can be defined as ‘law’ within the ambit of Article 13.
3. ‘Limited amending power of the Parliament’ is added to be a part of the Basic Structure in the Minerva Mills case (1980).
How many statements given above are correct?
Exp) Option b is the correct answer.
Statement 1 is incorrect. The Kesavananda Bharati case in 1973 held that the “basic structure of the Constitution could not be abrogated even by a constitutional amendment”. It, however, did not specify what would constitute ‘basic structure’, leaving it open for courts to interpret on a caseby-case basis. Supreme Court listed some Basic Structures of the Constitution as:
- Supremacy of the Constitution
- Unity and sovereignty of India
- Democratic and republican form of government
- Federal character of the Constitution
- Secular character of the Constitution
- Separation of power
- Individual freedom Article 13 (4) gave birth to the Basic Structure Doctrine which said that a basic structure of the constitution do exist which cannot be amended.
Statement 2 is correct. The Golak Nath ruling interpreted Articles 13 and 368 of the Constitution. While Article 13 prohibits Parliament from framing ‘laws’ that violate fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution, Article 368 empowers Parliament to amend the Constitution. It was held in this case that an amendment under Article 368 can be defined as ‘law’ within the ambit of Article 13.
Statement 3 is correct. In Minerva Mills vs Union of India case, the Court held that the Limited amending power of the Parliament is a part of the basic structure doctrine.
