Q. Arrange the following cases in chronological order:
1.Minerva Mills case
2.Golak Nath case
3.Kesavananda Bharati case
Select the correct answer using the code given below:

[A] 1 2 3

[B] 2 3 1

[C] 2 1 3

[D] 3 2 1

Answer: B
Notes:

Explanation: Golaknath case (1967): The questions in this case were whether amendment is a law; and whether Fundamental Rights can be amended or not.

  • SC contented that Fundamental Rights are not amenable to the Parliamentary restriction as stated in Article 13, and that to amend the Fundamental rights a new Constituent Assembly would be required.
  • It is also stated that Article 368 gives the procedure to amend the Constitution but does not confer on Parliament the power to amend the Constitution.

Kesavananda Bharati case (1973): This judgement defined the basic structure of the Constitution.

  • The SC held that although no part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, was beyond the Parliament’s amending power, the “basic structure of the Constitution could not be abrogated even by a constitutional amendment.”

Minerva Mills case (1980): This case again strengthens the Basic Structure doctrine.

  • The judgement struck down 2 changes made to the Constitution by the 42nd Amendment Act 1976, declaring them to be violative of the basic structure.
  • The judgement makes it clear that the Constitution and not the Parliament is supreme.

Source: Laxmikanth

Blog
Academy
Community