With reference to the Constitution of India, consider the following statements: 1. No High Court shall have the jurisdiction to declare any central law to be constitutionally invalid. 2. An amendment to the Constitution of India cannot be called into question by the Supreme Court of India. Which of the statements give above is/are correct?
Contents19
- A1 only
- B2 only
- CBoth 1 and 2
- DNeither 1 nor 2
Show answer
Answer: (D) Neither 1 nor 2
The correct answer is (D) — Neither 1 nor 2.
Statement 1 is wrong because the 42nd Amendment (1976) did try to bar High Courts from reviewing central laws, but the 43rd Amendment (1977) reversed this.
So High Courts CAN declare central laws unconstitutional today.
Statement 2 is wrong because the Supreme Court, in the famous Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), held that it CAN review constitutional amendments to check if they violate the 'basic structure' of the Constitution.
Tip:
- High Courts can review laws,
- and the Supreme Court can review even amendments — thanks to the Basic Structure Doctrine.
The Basic Structure Doctrine allows the Supreme Court to strike down constitutional amendments that violate the Constitution's fundamental framework, established in Kesavananda Bharati (1973).
The 42nd Amendment attempted to remove judicial review powers during the Emergency, but the 43rd Amendment restored High Courts' power to review central laws.
UPSC is testing whether students know that judicial review applies to both ordinary laws and constitutional amendments, not just one or the other.
High Court Judicial Review Powers
Indian Polity High Court central law constitutionally invalid
High Court Powers to Review Central Laws: 42nd vs 43rd Amendment
High Courts can declare central laws unconstitutional today
42nd Amendment (1976) tried to bar High Courts from reviewing central laws
43rd Amendment (1977) restored High Court powers to review central laws
High Courts exercise judicial review under Articles 226 and 227
Constitutional Position
High Courts possess constitutional jurisdiction to declare any law — including central laws — as unconstitutional if it violates the Constitution. This power flows from their role as constitutional courts under Articles 226 (writ jurisdiction) and 227 (supervisory jurisdiction).
Amendment History
Amendment | Year | Provision | Impact on High Courts |
|---|---|---|---|
42nd Amendment | 1976 | Clause 4 of Article 32A | Barred High Courts from reviewing central laws |
43rd Amendment | 1977 | Deleted Article 32A | Restored High Court powers to review central laws |
Current Position | 1977 onwards | Articles 226 & 227 | High Courts can declare central laws invalid |
Scope of Review
High Courts can review both central and state laws for constitutional validity
They can issue writs (habeas corpus, mandamus, certiorari, prohibition, quo-warranto) against government actions
Concurrent jurisdiction with Supreme Court — citizens can approach either court
High Court decisions on constitutional matters can be appealed to Supreme Court
Trap: Statement 1 suggests High Courts cannot review central laws — this was true only during 1976-1977 under 42nd Amendment
Emergency Period Confusion: The 42nd Amendment was part of Emergency-era constitutional changes, most of which were reversed
Central vs State Laws: High Courts can review both — not just state laws
Basic Structure Doctrine
Indian Polity amendment Constitution of India Supreme Court of India
Basic Structure Doctrine: Supreme Court Review of Constitutional Amendments
Supreme Court can review constitutional amendments under Basic Structure Doctrine
Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) established this doctrine
Parliament cannot amend basic features of the Constitution
13-judge bench delivered this landmark judgment
Genesis & Significance
The Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) revolutionized constitutional law by establishing that while Parliament has wide amendment powers under Article 368, it cannot destroy the basic structure of the Constitution. This doctrine makes constitutional amendments justiciable — subject to judicial review by the Supreme Court.
Key Basic Features
Basic Feature | Why Protected | Amendment Impact |
|---|---|---|
Supremacy of Constitution | Foundation of constitutional democracy | Cannot be subordinated to Parliament |
Rule of Law | Equality before law | No arbitrary government action |
Separation of Powers | Checks and balances | No organ can usurp others' functions |
Federal Structure | Division of powers | Cannot create unitary system |
Secular Character | Religious neutrality of state | Cannot establish theocracy |
Democratic Government | Representative democracy | Cannot establish dictatorship |
Judicial Review | Constitutional guardianship | Courts' power cannot be eliminated |
Judicial Application
Minerva Mills case (1980): Struck down 42nd Amendment provisions that gave Parliament unlimited amendment power
Waman Rao case (1981): Amendments after April 24, 1973 (Kesavananda date) are subject to basic structure test
I.R. Coelho case (2007): Laws in 9th Schedule can be reviewed if they violate basic structure
Case-by-case basis: No exhaustive list of basic features — court decides in each case
Amendment Review Process
%%{init: {"flowchart": {"wrappingWidth": 460}}}%%
flowchart TD
s1["`**Constitutional Amendment Passed**
Parliament passes amendment under Article 368`"]
s2["`**Challenge Filed**
Petition filed in Supreme Court questioning validity`"]
s3["`**Basic Structure Test**
Court examines if amendment violates basic features`"]
s4["`**Judgment**
Amendment upheld if basic structure preserved, struck down if violated`"]
s1 --> s2
s2 --> s3
s3 --> s4Trap: Statement 2 suggests amendments cannot be questioned — this was the pre-1973 position
42nd Amendment Trap: This amendment tried to make itself unreviewable — Supreme Court rejected this in Minerva Mills
Article 368 Confusion: Article 368 gives amendment power but subject to basic structure limitation
Parliament vs Constituent Assembly: Only original Constitution is supreme, not Parliament's amendments
Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973)
Indian Polity Supreme Court
Kesavananda Bharati Case: The Most Important Constitutional Judgment
Largest bench ever: 13-judge Constitution bench
Decided by 7:6 majority in favor of basic structure doctrine
April 24, 1973: Date that changed constitutional interpretation forever
Balanced parliamentary sovereignty with judicial review
Background & Context
The case arose when Kesavananda Bharati, head of Edneer Mutt in Kerala, challenged land ceiling laws. However, it became much larger — the Supreme Court used this opportunity to settle the fundamental question: Can Parliament amend any part of the Constitution, or are there limits?
Key Legal Questions Settled
Question | Pre-1973 Position | Post-Kesavananda Position |
|---|---|---|
Can Parliament amend Fundamental Rights? | No (Golaknath case 1967) | Yes, but cannot destroy basic structure |
Are there limits to amendment power? | Conflicting judgments | Yes — basic structure cannot be amended |
Can courts review constitutional amendments? | Unclear legal position | Yes — under basic structure test |
What is supreme — Parliament or Constitution? | Ongoing debate | Constitution is supreme via basic structure |
Immediate Impact
Overruled Golaknath case (1967): Parliament can now amend Fundamental Rights within limits
Settled amendment debate: Provided clear framework for future constitutional changes
Strengthened judicial review: Courts became guardians of constitutional essence
International influence: Basic structure doctrine adopted by other countries like Bangladesh
Case Significance
# Kesavananda Bharati Impact
## Legal Doctrine
- Basic Structure Test
- Judicial Review of Amendments
- Constitutional Supremacy
## Political Balance
- Limited Parliamentary Power
- Protected Democratic Values
- Prevented Constitutional Dictatorship
## Future Cases
- Minerva Mills (1980)
- Waman Rao (1981)
- I.R. Coelho (2007)Date Precision: Case decided on April 24, 1973 — not 1972 or 1974
Majority Margin: 7:6 verdict — extremely close, could have gone either way
Golaknath Reversal: This case overruled Golaknath, didn't just modify it
Original Dispute: Started as property rights case, became constitutional law landmark
42nd & 43rd Constitutional Amendments
Indian Polity 42nd Amendment 43rd Amendment
42nd Amendment (1976) & 43rd Amendment (1977): Emergency Era Changes
42nd Amendment: Called 'Mini Constitution' for extensive changes during Emergency
43rd Amendment: Reversed many Emergency-era provisions in 1977
Article 32A: Inserted by 42nd, deleted by 43rd Amendment
Janata Government undid Congress Emergency excesses
Historical Context
The 42nd Amendment (1976) was passed during the Emergency period (1975-77) when democratic institutions were suspended. It made sweeping changes to concentrate power. The 43rd Amendment (1977) was the new Janata Government's attempt to restore democratic balance by reversing the most problematic provisions.
Key Changes Comparison
Provision | 42nd Amendment (1976) | 43rd Amendment (1977) | Current Status |
|---|---|---|---|
High Court Review | Barred via Article 32A | Article 32A deleted | High Courts can review central laws |
Amendment Power | Made unreviewable | Restored reviewability | Subject to basic structure |
Fundamental Duties | Added Article 51A | Retained | 10 duties remain (11th added in 2002) |
Directive Principles | Given primacy over FR | Balance restored | Both important, context matters |
Presidential Assent | Binding on President | President's discretion restored | President can return once for reconsideration |
Major 42nd Amendment Provisions
Article 32A: Barred High Courts from questioning central law validity
Article 31C expansion: Protected laws implementing any Directive Principle
Parliamentary term: Extended Lok Sabha and Assembly terms from 5 to 6 years
Constitutional amendment: Made amendments binding and unreviewable
Fundamental Duties: Added 10 duties in new Article 51A
43rd Amendment Reversals
Deleted Article 32A: Restored High Court jurisdiction over central laws
Narrowed Article 31C: Limited protection only to Articles 39(b) and 39(c)
Parliamentary term: Restored 5-year terms for legislatures
Judicial review: Made constitutional amendments reviewable again
Current Status Trap: Don't assume 42nd Amendment provisions still exist — most were reversed
High Court Powers: They lost jurisdiction only briefly (1976-1977) under Article 32A
Fundamental Duties: Added by 42nd Amendment but retained by 43rd Amendment
Emergency Context: 42nd Amendment changes were anti-democratic responses to political opposition