Revision summary
The Supreme Court began with writs, federal disputes, and appeals. Champakam showed rights jurisdiction that triggered constitutional amendment. Golaknath, Kesavananda, and Minerva Mills created basic-structure constitutional review. Article 21 and PIL expanded the Court into a wide public-law forum. A constitutional court here means custody of identity, not only private appellate justice.
Model answer
Introduction
The Supreme Court began as a federal apex and a guardian of fundamental rights. It evolved into a constitutional court that names the Constitution’s identity, expands liberty, and sometimes governs by guideline. Golaknath, Kesavananda, and Minerva Mills are the doctrinal stairs.
Body
Original jurisdiction
- Articles 32, 131, 132–136, and 143 gave writs, federal disputes, appeals, and advisory opinions.
- Early years were a common-law apex plus property and speech cases, still close to a Privy Council successor in style.
- Champakam Dorairajan (1951) showed rights jurisdiction that could stop social policy and force the First Amendment.
From parliamentary sovereignty to basic structure
- Golaknath (1967) treated fundamental rights as beyond amendment, a maximal rights court against Parliament.
- Kesavananda Bharati (1973) recast the Court as the organ that defines basic structure: amendment is possible, identity is not.
- Minerva Mills (1980) used that jurisdiction to restore harmony of Parts III and IV after the 42nd Amendment.
- This is the birth of a true constitutional court: not only error-correction, but custody of the Constitution against the amending state.
Expansion of rights and public law
- Maneka Gandhi (1978) and later Article 21 cases turned procedure into fairness and then into a field of socio-economic claims.
- Public interest litigation widened standing, so the Court became a forum for the unrepresented, with gains and with docket politics.
- Review of the Ninth Schedule in I. R. Coelho (2007) pulled even immunised statutes back into basic-structure jurisdiction.
Examination
- Evolution is from a federal-and-rights court to a basic-structure constitutional court with a wide Article 21 and PIL jurisdiction.
- The gain is limitation of emergency-minded majorities. The risk is government by bench, which Habermas would want tested in public reason and in Parliament.
- Compared with the U.S. Supreme Court, the Indian Court combines constitutional review with a vast statutory appellate load; the constitutional-court role had to be carved out of that mix.
Flow diagram
flowchart TD E[Early SC] --> CH[Champakam rights] G[Golaknath] --> K[Kesavananda basic structure] K --> MM[Minerva Mills] MM --> A21[Article 21 PIL constitutional court]
Conclusion
As a constitutional court, the Supreme Court evolved from early rights-and-federation cases through Golaknath’s lock to Kesavananda’s basic structure and Minerva’s harmony doctrine, then into a wide Article 21 and PIL forum. Jurisdiction grew from deciding cases to defining the Constitution’s enforceable identity.
Quick related
Students also ask
-
Explain how caste as a social category is also becoming a political category in the democratic politics of India
Next question in the 2021 paper (Q8). View answer →
-
Is the Supreme Court only a constitutional court?
No. It remains a general appellate court. The constitutional role is the evolved, politically central part of its jurisdiction.
-
Did basic structure enlarge or shrink Parliament?
It shrank unlimited amendment. It enlarged the Court’s say over what the Constitution is.
PYQ trend
When UPSC asked this
Related PYQs from other years, newest first. Open a question to read it.
-
2023 · Q7(a) · PSIR GS 1 · 20 marks
Does the actual working of Indian federalism conform to the centralizing tendencies in Indian polity? Give reasons for your answer -
2023 · Q8(c) · PSIR GS 1 · 15 marks
Do you agree that over the years the Supreme Court has become a forum for policy evolution? Justify your answer -
2021 · Q6(b) · PSIR GS 1 · 15 marks
The role of the President of India becomes more significant during a minority government and a coalition government. Explain
More from this paper
Q1(a) · UPSC Mains 2021 · PSIR GS 1 · 10 marks
Feminist critique of the State.
Theories of the State
Feminists treat the state as gendered, not as a neutral referee. Pateman locates a sexual contract beneath the social contract. MacKinnon reads law as organised around male power. The public–private split hid household domination from liberal theory. Indian Article 15, Vishaka, and the 73rd Amendment are incomplete replies.
Q1(b) · UPSC Mains 2021 · PSIR GS 1 · 10 marks
Affirmative action.
Equality
Affirmative action gives extra access to historically excluded groups. Ambedkar treated it as necessary for equal citizenship in a caste order. Champakam Dorairajan forced the First Amendment and Article 15(4). Mandal and Indra Sawhney framed OBC policy and the creamy layer. Jaffrelot shows the same tool as a political identity, not only a welfare device.
Q1(c) · UPSC Mains 2021 · PSIR GS 1 · 10 marks
Equality of outcome as a political idea.
Equality
Equality of outcome is a political test of actual conditions, not of legal form alone. Marx’s classless society is a strong version; Ambedkar’s status equality is a civic version. Rawls allows unequal outcomes under the difference principle. Hayek and Nozick reject patterned end-states as unfreedom. Indian Parts III and IV mix rights with a drive toward less unequal results.
Toppers' copies
Toppers' copies for this question will be uploaded soon.