An amendment touching the federal provisions of the Constitution must be ratified by the legislatures of:

The correct answer is C, Article 368. It is titled Power of Parliament to amend the Constitution and procedure therefor, and it sets out both the special majority needed in each House and the cases in which the legislatures of the states must also ratify the change.

Option A is wrong because Article 356 provides for President's rule in a state on the failure of constitutional machinery. Option B is wrong because Article 360 deals with a financial emergency. Option D is wrong because Article 370 contained the temporary provisions with respect to the State of Jammu and Kashmir. The four numbers are close enough that candidates mark the wrong one in a hurry, so link 368 with amendment, 352 with national emergency, 356 with President's rule and 360 with financial emergency before the examination.

The correct answer is C, Part XX. Part XX of the Constitution is a very short part, headed Amendment of the Constitution, and it contains Article 368 alone. Its position near the end of the Constitution, after the emergency and miscellaneous provisions, is what examiners test.

Option A is wrong because Part XVIII carries the emergency provisions, Articles 352 to 360. Option B is wrong because Part XIX is the miscellaneous part, with Articles 361 to 367. Option D is wrong because Part XXI holds the temporary, transitional and special provisions, which include Articles 369 to 392. Note how neatly the parts follow the article numbers here: if you remember that Article 368 sits alone in its own Part XX, the neighbouring parts fall into place on either side.

The correct answer is C, Kesavananda Bharati case, 1973. A bench of thirteen judges, the largest ever assembled at the time, held by a majority of seven to six that Parliament may amend any part of the Constitution, including the Fundamental Rights, but may not damage or destroy its basic structure.

Option A is wrong because Shankari Prasad in 1951 upheld the First Amendment and held that an amendment was not ordinary law, so it could take away Fundamental Rights. Option B is wrong because Golaknath in 1967 went to the other extreme and held that Fundamental Rights could not be abridged at all; it was this ruling that Kesavananda overruled. Option D is wrong because Minerva Mills in 1980 applied the doctrine rather than laid it down, striking down clauses 4 and 5 of Article 368. The chain Shankari Prasad, Golaknath, Kesavananda, Minerva Mills is worth memorising in that order.

The correct answer is A, Golaknath case. In Golaknath in 1967 an eleven judge bench held by six to five that Parliament had no power to amend the Fundamental Rights. Parliament replied with the Twenty-fourth Amendment of 1971, and in Kesavananda Bharati in 1973 the Court overruled Golaknath, restoring the amending power while subjecting it to the basic structure limit.

Option B is wrong because the Berubari Union opinion of 1960 concerned the cession of Indian territory and the status of the Preamble, and was not overruled here. Option C is wrong because S. R. Bommai came much later, in 1994, and dealt with President's rule under Article 356. Option D is wrong on the calendar alone, since Minerva Mills was decided in 1980, seven years after Kesavananda, and followed it rather than being overruled by it. Watch the direction of overruling in such questions.

The correct answer is A, Twenty-fourth Amendment, 1971. It was passed in answer to the Golaknath ruling. It amended Article 13 and Article 368 to make clear that Parliament could take away or abridge a Fundamental Right by amendment, and it made the President's assent to such a bill compulsory, so an amendment bill can neither be withheld nor returned for reconsideration.

Option B is wrong because the Twenty-fifth Amendment of 1971 curtailed the right to property and inserted Article 31C. Option C is wrong because the Forty-second Amendment of 1976 added the Fundamental Duties and tried to bar judicial review of amendments through clauses 4 and 5 of Article 368. Option D is wrong because the Forty-fourth Amendment of 1978 reversed several of those changes and made the right to property a legal right under Article 300A. The pairing to hold is Golaknath with the Twenty-fourth Amendment.