The basic structure doctrine was laid down by the Supreme Court in which case?
- A.Shankari Prasad versus Union of India, 1951
- B.Sajjan Singh versus State of Rajasthan, 1965
- C.Kesavananda Bharati versus State of Kerala, 1973
- D.Minerva Mills versus Union of India, 1980
Correct answer
Explanation
The correct answer is C, Kesavananda Bharati versus State of Kerala, 1973. A bench of thirteen judges held by a majority of seven to six that Parliament may amend any part of the Constitution under Article 368 but cannot destroy or damage its basic structure or essential features. Option A is wrong because Shankari Prasad, 1951, upheld the First Amendment and held that an amendment is not a law under Article 13. Option B is wrong because Sajjan Singh, 1965, followed Shankari Prasad, though two judges began to doubt it. Option D is wrong because Minerva Mills, 1980, applied the doctrine that already existed, striking down clauses of the Forty-second Amendment that tried to put amendments beyond judicial review. Remember that Golaknath, 1967, came between, holding that Fundamental Rights could not be abridged.
Read the full article: Constitutional Doctrines: Cases, Articles and Exam Facts
Practice Questions
View allThe doctrine of eclipse was applied by the Supreme Court in which of the following cases?
- A.A. K. Gopalan versus State of Madras
- B.Bhikaji Narain Dhakras versus State of Madhya Pradesh
- C.K. C. Gajapati Narayan Deo versus State of Orissa
- D.Basheshar Nath versus Commissioner of Income Tax
Show answer
In that case a 1947 motor vehicles law of Central Provinces and Berar had become unenforceable because it clashed with the freedom of trade under Article 19(1)(g).
Read the full explanation →The doctrine of pith and substance is applied by courts mainly to decide questions relating to which of the following?
- A.Amendment of the Constitution
- B.Distribution of legislative powers between the Union and the States
- C.Enforcement of Fundamental Rights by writs
- D.Appointment of judges of the High Courts
Show answer
Article 246 read with the Seventh Schedule gives Parliament and the State Legislatures separate fields of law making, but subjects overlap in practice, so a court must find the true nature and character of the law, its pith and substance, and ignore incidental encroachment on the other list.
Read the full explanation →The maxim that what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly expresses which doctrine?
- A.Doctrine of territorial nexus
- B.Doctrine of colourable legislation
- C.Doctrine of eclipse
- D.Doctrine of waiver
Show answer
The doctrine means that a legislature cannot do by an indirect route what the Constitution forbids it to do directly; if it has no competence over a subject, no clever drafting can give it that competence.
Read the full explanation →In which case did the Supreme Court hold that a Fundamental Right cannot be waived by the person who holds it?
- A.Basheshar Nath versus Commissioner of Income Tax, 1959
- B.Deep Chand versus State of Uttar Pradesh, 1959
- C.State of Bombay versus F. N. Balsara, 1951
- D.Calcutta Gas Company versus State of West Bengal, 1962
Show answer
The petitioner had settled his tax liability under a provision later found to violate Article 14, and it was argued that by agreeing to the settlement he had waived his right to equality.
Read the full explanation →The doctrine of territorial nexus is drawn from which provision of the Constitution?
- A.Article 13(1)
- B.Article 245(2)
- C.Article 254(2)
- D.Article 368
Show answer
That clause says that no law made by Parliament shall be deemed invalid on the ground that it would have extra-territorial operation, and the courts have built on it the rule that a State law too may apply to an object or person outside the State if there is a…
Read the full explanation →