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
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
-
Discuss the composition and functions of the Inter-State Council. To what extent has this body been successful in achieving its objectives?
Next question in the 2022 paper (Q6). 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.
PYQ trend
When UPSC asked this
Related PYQs from other years, newest first. Open a question to read it.
-
2024 · Q6(a) · PSIR GS 1 · 20 marks
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? -
2023 · Q7(b) · PSIR GS 1 · 15 marks
The main goal of the Fundamental Duties in the Indian Constitution is to generate civic responsibility among the citizens. Explain -
2022 · Q7(a) · PSIR GS 1 · 20 marks
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? -
2021 · Q5(c) · PSIR GS 1 · 10 marks
Mention the founding principles that define India's Constitution. -
2021 · Q6(a) · PSIR GS 1 · 20 marks
"Constitutionally reconciling the Fundamental Rights with the Directive Principles of State Policy has led to frequent amendments of the Constitution and judicial interventions." Comment
More from this paper
Q1(a) · UPSC Mains 2022 · PSIR GS 1 · 10 marks
Systems Approach.
Political Theory
Easton treated politics as authoritative allocation inside a system of inputs, conversion, outputs, and feedback. Almond restated conversion as interest and rule functions plus political culture. The method compared new states by function, not by legal text alone. Critics charge equilibrium bias and neglect of class, ideology, and silent power. It remains a map of process, not a theory of justice.
Q1(b) · UPSC Mains 2022 · PSIR GS 1 · 10 marks
Cultural Relativism.
Political Theory
Cultural relativism asks that meaning be read inside a culture, against racial ranking. Boas and Herskovits are the canonical names. As method it blocks ethnocentrism; as absolute ethics it can protect domination. Parekh and Kymlicka keep culture with exit and equality. Indian minority rights sit beside Article 17, which relativism cannot erase.
Q1(c) · UPSC Mains 2022 · PSIR GS 1 · 10 marks
"Revolution in Permanence".
Political Theory
Trotsky’s revolution in permanence refuses a long bourgeois stage in late societies. Democratic and socialist tasks are chained; the process is international. The formula opposes Stalin’s socialism in one country. Marx’s 1850 phrase is the ancestor; 1905 and 1917 are the cases. The limit is neglect of peasantry, nation, and post-revolutionary law.
Toppers' copies
Toppers' copies for this question will be uploaded soon.