Question 1

In which landmark case did the Supreme Court establish the 'Basic Structure' doctrine of the Indian Constitution?

Accepted Answer

Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala. Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala (1973) was decided by a 13-judge constitutional bench, the largest ever in Supreme Court history. The court ruled by a 7:6 majority that while Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution, it cannot destroy its 'Basic Structure'. This doctrine protects core constitutional values like judicial review, federalism, secularism, and fundamental rights from being abrogated even by constitutional amendments.

Question 2

How many judges sat on the constitutional bench in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973)?

Accepted Answer

13. Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala (1973) was heard by a 13-judge constitutional bench, the largest bench ever constituted in the Supreme Court of India. The case was argued for 68 days and the judgment ran into thousands of pages. This mammoth bench was assembled because the case involved overruling the earlier Golaknath judgment (1967) and settling the question of Parliament's amending power once and for all.

Question 3

What was the voting ratio in the Kesavananda Bharati case that established the Basic Structure doctrine?

Accepted Answer

7:6. The Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala (1973) judgment was decided by a narrow 7:6 majority, making it one of the most closely contested constitutional decisions in Indian history. The majority upheld Parliament's power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 but imposed the fundamental limitation of the Basic Structure doctrine. This slender majority reflected the deeply divided opinions among judges about the extent of parliamentary sovereignty versus constitutional supremacy.

Question 4

In Golaknath v State of Punjab (1967), what did the Supreme Court rule regarding Parliament's power?

Accepted Answer

Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights at all. Golaknath v State of Punjab (1967) was decided by an 11-judge bench that overruled earlier judgments and held that Parliament has no power to abridge or take away Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution. Chief Justice Subba Rao, writing for the 6:5 majority, held that Fundamental Rights are given a 'transcendental position' in the Constitution. This judgment was prospectively overruled by the 13-judge bench in Kesavananda Bharati (1973).

Question 5

In Shankari Prasad v Union of India (1951), what did the Supreme Court hold about constitutional amendments?

Accepted Answer

Parliament can amend Fundamental Rights through Article 368. Shankari Prasad v Union of India (1951) was the first major case testing Parliament's power to amend the Constitution after the First Constitutional Amendment. The Supreme Court unanimously held that the word 'law' in Article 13 does not include a constitutional amendment made under Article 368, meaning Parliament can validly amend Fundamental Rights. This judgment gave Parliament broad amending powers that were later curtailed by Golaknath (1967) and then settled by Kesavananda Bharati (1973).

Landmark Supreme Court Cases — Set 1