Match List-A with List-B and identify the correct answer from the codes given below:
List-A (Case)
A. Indira Gandhi vs Raj Narain
B. Minerva Mills vs Union of India
C. Kihoto Hollohan vs Zachillhu
D. P. Sambamurthy vs State of A.P.
List-B (Amendment challenged)
i. 42nd Amendment
ii. 52nd Amendment
iii. 39th Amendment
iv. 32nd Amendment
- A.A-i, B-iii, C-iv, D-ii
- B.A-ii, B-iii, C-i, D-iv
- C.A-iv, B-ii, C-iii, D-i
- D.A-iii, B-i, C-ii, D-iv
Show answer
Correct answer: D. A-iii, B-i, C-ii, D-iv
Explanation
The correct answer is D, A-iii, B-i, C-ii, D-iv. Each case tested an amendment against the basic structure of the Constitution. In Indira Gandhi vs Raj Narain (1975), the Supreme Court struck down the part of the 39th Amendment that put the Prime Minister's election beyond the courts, holding free and fair elections to be part of the basic structure. In Minerva Mills (1980), it struck down clauses of the 42nd Amendment that gave Parliament unlimited power to amend and let all Directive Principles override the rights in Articles 14 and 19. In Kihoto Hollohan (1992), it upheld the anti-defection law brought by the 52nd Amendment but kept the Speaker's decision open to judicial review. In P. Sambamurthy (1987), it struck down a clause of Article 371D, added by the 32nd Amendment, that let the state government overrule a tribunal. Option A is wrong because it links Raj Narain with the 42nd Amendment. Option B is wrong because it pairs Minerva Mills with the 52nd. Option C is wrong because it pairs Raj Narain with the 32nd. Exam tip: 39th–Raj Narain, 42nd–Minerva, 52nd–Kihoto, 32nd–Sambamurthy.