Revision summary
Kesavananda held that amendments cannot destroy basic structure, extending review to Article 368. Indira Gandhi’s election case and Minerva Mills protected review against ouster clauses. Coelho opened post-1973 Ninth Schedule laws to structure review. NJAC (2015) struck an appointments amendment in the name of judicial independence. Bommai used structure values against arbitrary President’s Rule. The Court’s power grew as a shield and as a political prize.
Model answer
Copper italics in this answer — like this — are the key facts. Each one is unpacked in the Facts & figures rail.
Introduction
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) held that Parliament’s amending power cannot destroy the Constitution’s basic structure. That doctrine enlarged judicial review from ordinary law to the constitutional amendment itself.
Body
What review was before
- A. K. Gopalan treated fundamental rights in separate silos. Golaknath (1967) barred amendments to fundamental rights, a first expansion, then found unworkable.
- Dicey’s parliamentary sovereignty had no Indian home once a written constitution with Article 13 existed, but amendments under Article 368 still looked like a sovereign key.
- Judicial review of ordinary legislation was already in Articles 13, 32, and 226. The new claim was review of the constituent power.
How basic structure enhanced review
- The Court named essentials—supremacy of the Constitution, democracy, secularism, federalism, judicial review, and later additions in case law—and measured amendments against them.
- Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) struck an amendment that sought to place an election dispute beyond review, which showed the doctrine protecting the Court’s own jurisdiction.
- Minerva Mills (1980) invalidated clauses that tried to make amendments immune from review and to subordinate fundamental rights to Directive Principles without limit.
- I. R. Coelho (2007) brought Ninth Schedule laws after 24 April 1973 under basic-structure review if they damage rights that are essentials.
- NJAC / Fourth Judges Case (2015) used independence of the judiciary as basic structure to strike a constitutional amendment on appointments.
Examination of “enhanced”
- Enhancement is real: the Supreme Court became the umpire of what Parliament may not do even with a special majority.
- Granville Austin’s social revolution still needs amendment; the doctrine can freeze a judicial reading of essentials.
- Compared with Hobbes’s undivided sovereign, this is Lockean trust enforced by judges.
- S. R. Bommai (1994) used secularism and federalism, basic-structure values, to discipline Article 356, another expansion of review into executive federal power.
- The cost is a political Court. Enhancement of review is also a shift of amending power toward a bench.
Balance
- Without the doctrine, Emergency-era amendments showed how a written constitution can be emptied.
- With the doctrine, democracy depends on judicial self-restraint as well as on judicial courage.
- The examination therefore agrees with the statement and adds that enhancement is both a shield of constitutional identity and a concentration of power in the Court.
Flow diagram
flowchart TD K[Kesavananda 1973] --> BS[Basic structure] BS --> JR[Review of Article 368] JR --> MM[Minerva Mills] JR --> NJ[NJAC 2015] JR --> B[Bommai secularism federalism]
Conclusion
Basic structure extended judicial review from statutes to constitutional amendments and to devices that would oust courts. Kesavananda, Minerva Mills, Coelho, NJAC, and Bommai mark the growth. The power of the Supreme Court rose. So did the need for judicial discipline.
Quick related
Students also ask
-
Examine the unique features of the 73rd Constitutional Amendment. Do you think this Amendment would contribute in achieving the goal of empowerment of marginalised sections of the society?
Next question on this syllabus topic (2022 · Q7(a)). View answer →
-
Is basic structure written in the Constitution?
No. It is judicially identified. The text supplies materials; the Court names the essentials.
-
Did this weaken Parliament completely?
Parliament still amends widely. It cannot, on this doctrine, use Article 368 to unmake the Constitution’s identity.
Same topic · past papers
UPSC has asked this before
These previous-year questions sit on the same topic. Open one to practise the earlier ask.
More from this topic
Q5(b) · UPSC Mains 2026 · PSIR GS 1 · 10 marks · Solution
The Constitution of India was secular even before the word was included in the Preamble. Comment.
Salient Features of the Indian Constitution
• The 42nd Amendment (1976) only added the word 'secular' to the Preamble; the original 1950 Constitution already guaranteed it substantively. • Article 14 ensures equality before the law without religious bias, while Article 15 strictly prohibits state discrimination based on religion. • Articles 25–28 guarantee freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate any religion. • Articles 29 and 30 safeguard minority interests by protecting their distinct cultures and right to run educational institutions. • Unlike the Western "wall of separation," Indian secularism follows *Sarva Dharma Sambhava*—treating all religions with equal respect. • The Supreme Court affirmed in the 1973 *Kesavananda Bharati* case that secularism was already a core, unwritten part of the basic structure.
Q6(a) · UPSC Mains 2024 · PSIR GS 1 · 20 marks · Solution
How far do you agree that the Directive Principles of State Policy are more fundamental than the Fundamental Rights in meeting socio-economic justice as mentioned in the Preamble of the Constitution?
Salient Features of the Indian Constitution
The Preamble’s socio-economic justice is pursued through both justiciable Fundamental Rights and non-justiciable Directive Principles. Article 37 calls Directives fundamental in governance while denying court enforcement, which is the original compromise. Early property-rights litigation blocked reform; amendments, Kesavananda, and Minerva Mills rebuilt the balance. Minerva Mills held that making Directives destroy Fundamental Rights would wreck the Constitution’s conscience. Agree that DPSPs are more fundamental as social-justice aims; disagree that they outrank rights as law. Harmony is the constitutional answer.
Q7(b) · UPSC Mains 2023 · PSIR GS 1 · 15 marks · Solution
The main goal of the Fundamental Duties in the Indian Constitution is to generate civic responsibility among the citizens. Explain
Salient Features of the Indian Constitution
Article 51A, added in 1976, states Fundamental Duties of citizens. The main goal is civic responsibility to match Part III rights, in the line of Ambedkar’s constitutional morality. The list covers respect for the Constitution, unity, harmony, environment, scientific temper, public property, and, after the 86th Amendment, children’s education. Duties are mostly non-justiciable but guide interpretation and civic education. They must not be used to cancel protest and liberty under Part III.