Basic Structure MCQ Quiz - Objective Question with Answer for Basic Structure - Download Free PDF

The correct answer is Keshvanand Bharti vs State of Kerala - 1973.

Key PointsBasic Structure of the Constitution 

• There is no mention of the term “Basic Structure” anywhere in the Constitution of India.
• The idea that the Parliament cannot introduce laws that would amend the basic structure of the constitution evolved gradually over time and in many cases.
• The idea is to preserve the nature of Indian democracy and protect the rights and liberties of the people.
• This Basic Structure doctrine of the Indian Constitution helps to protect and preserve the spirit of the constitution document.
• It was the Kesavananda Bharati case that brought this doctrine into the limelight.
  • It held that the “basic structure of the Indian Constitution could not be abrogated even by a constitutional amendment”.
  • The judgment listed some basic structures of the constitution as:

1. Supremacy of the Constitution
2. Unity and sovereignty of India
3. A democratic and republican forms of government
4. Federal character of the Constitution
5. Secular character of the Constitution
6. Separation of power
7. Individual freedom

• Kesavananda Bharati case (1973)
  • This was a landmark case in defining the concept of the basic structure doctrine.
  • The SC held that although no part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, was beyond the Parliament’s amending power, the “basic structure of the Constitution could not be abrogated even by a constitutional amendment.” 
  • The judgment implied that the parliament can only amend the constitution and not rewrite it. The power to amend is not the power to destroy.
  • This is the basis in Indian law in which the judiciary can strike down any amendment passed by Parliament that is in conflict with the basic structure of the Constitution.

The correct answer is Keshavanand Bharti case.

Key Points

• Basic Structure:
  • ​The concept of ‘basic structure’ came into existence in the landmark judgment in the Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala case (1973) 47 years ago.
  • The Constitutional Bench in the Kesavananda Bharati case ruled by a 7-6 verdict that Parliament could amend any part of the Constitution so long as it did not alter or amend the basic structure or essential features of the Constitution.
  • However, the court did not define the term ‘basic structure’, and only listed a few principles — federalism, secularism, democracy — as being its part.
  • There is no mention of the term “Basic Structure” anywhere in the Indian Constitution.
  • The doctrine of the basic structure helps to prevent legislative excesses, as was evident in the Emergence Era. This is required as a shield against an all-powerful parliament, which can resort to the overuse of Article 368.

The Correct answer is Option 2. 

Key Points

• Shankari Prasad vs. Union of India (1951)

  • This case upheld the amendability of Fundamental Rights under Article 368.

• Sajjan Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (1965)

  • Reaffirmed the Shankari Prasad ruling, stating that Parliament can amend Fundamental Rights.

• Golaknath vs. State of Punjab (1967)

  • Overruled the previous judgments and held that Fundamental Rights cannot be amended by Parliament.

• Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala (1973)

  • Introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine, stating that Parliament can amend the Constitution but cannot alter its basic structure.
• Hence Option 2 is Correct. 

The correct answer is Parliament.

Key Points

The doctrine of "Basic Structure of the Constitution"

• This doctrine was propounded by Justice Hans Raj Khanna, in Kesavananda Bharti Case (1973).
• The Supreme Court of India propounded that the Constitution of India has certain basic features that can’t be altered or destroyed through amendments by the parliament.
• The basic structure is not defined anywhere in the Constitution.
• But it reflects through some of its constituents (as many times defined and narrated by the judiciary), i.e.
  • Republic nature of India
  • Sovereignty
  • Rule of Law
  • Republic nature of Indian polity
  • Liberty
  • Judicial review
  • Secularism
  • Separation of power etc.

Additional Information:

Let's have a look at other options:

Answer: D

Key Points

• The Constitution is often described as a living document as almost like a living being, this document keeps responding to the situations and circumstances arising from time to time. Hence, option 4 is correct.
• This also explains the durability of the Constitution. Even after so many changes in the society, the Constitution continues to work effectively because of this ability to be dynamic, to be open to interpretations and the ability to respond to the changing situation.
• In a democracy, practices and ideas keep evolving over time and the society engages in experiments according to these.

The correct answer is Golaknath case.

Key Points

• Parliament enacted 24th Constitutional Amendment Act in the year 1971 which enabled Parliament to dilute Fundamental Rights through amendments. 
• This was enacted after a judgement has been passed by SC in Golaknath case in the year 1967 relating to parliaments power to amend the constitution.
  • SC said that Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights.
• This amendment gave absolute power to the Parliament of India to amend the constitution.
• It made Article 13 inapplicable to any amendment under Article 368.
• Article 13(4) and 368(3) were inserted through 24th Amendment. Article 13 (4) says “Nothing in this article shall apply to any amendment of this Constitution made under article 368.”

​Additional Information

• Minerva Mills case, 1980
  • Extension to all DPSPs were declared unconstitutional.
• Kesavananda Bharati case, 1973
  • Parliament can amend any part of the constitution but cannot disrupt the basic structure of the constitution.
  • 31C(2) was declared unconstitutional.
  • SC held that Parliament cannot take the power of Judicial Review.
• Shankari Prasad Case, 1951
  • 1st Constitutional Amendment Act was challenged in the court in Shankari Prasad vs. Union of India case.
  • The Supreme Court held that the Parliament has the power to amend any part of the constitution including fundamental rights under Article 368.

The correct answer is Judicial review

Confusion Points

• Judicial review has been added to "the basic structure of the constitution" by Indira Nehru Gandhi case (1975).
• Indira Nehru Gandhi case (1975) is popularly known as the Election Case.

Key Points

• Since the Keshvanand Bharti case(1973) basic structure’ doctrine has since been interpreted to include the supremacy of the Constitution, the rule of law, Independence of the judiciary, the doctrine of separation of powers, federalism, secularism, sovereign democratic republic, the parliamentary system of government, the principle of free and fair elections, welfare state
• According to this doctrine, Parliament with its amending power can't amend the basic features of the Constitution.  
• The present position is that the Parliament under Article 368 can amend any part of the Constitution including the Fundamental Rights but without affecting the ‘basic structure’ of the Constitution.
• However, the Supreme Court is yet to define or clarify as to what constitutes the ‘basic structure’ of the Constitution.

Additional Information

• From the various judgments, the following have emerged as ‘basic features’ of the Constitution or elements/components/ingredients of the ‘basic structure’ of the constitution:
  • The supremacy of the Constitution.
  • Separation of powers between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary.
  • Republic and democratic form of government.
  • Secular character of the Constitution.
  • Federal character of the Constitution.
  • Sovereignty and unity of India.
  • Freedom and dignity of the individual.
  • Parliamentary System.
  • Mandate to build a welfare state.
  • India is a sovereign democratic republic.
  • Equality of status and opportunity of an individual.
  • Secularism and freedom of conscience and religion.
  • Government of laws and not of men (i.e., Rule of Law)
  • Judicial review.
  • Free and fair elections which are implied in democracy.
  • Limited power of Parliament to amend the constitution.
  • Harmony and balance between fundamental rights and directive principles.
  • Effective access to justice.
  • Welfare State (Socioeconomic justice).
  • Powers of the Supreme Court under Articles 32, 136, 141 and 142
  • Principle of equality
  • Independence of judiciary.
  • Powers of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227.
  • Limited power of Parliament to amend the Constitution.

The Correct Answer is Option 2 i.e Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973).

The Correct Answer is option 4.
Key Points'Basic Structure':

• Definition:
  • The Supreme Court established the concept of 'basic structure' in the landmark Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala case (1973).
  • However, it did not explicitly define it in terms of federalism, secularism, fundamental rights, and democracy.
  • Instead, it indicated these as components that may constitute the basic structure.
  • Hence, Statement 1 is incorrect.
• Provision for Judicial Review:
  • While the Constitution does not explicitly state the provision for judicial review, it is considered an integral part of the Constitution.
  • Judicial review is implied through the interpretation of various articles, primarily to ensure that the actions of the legislature and executive are within constitutional limits.
  • It aims to safeguard citizens' liberties and maintain the rule of law, but it is not framed as a provision specifically for preserving the ideals on which the Constitution is based.
  • Hence, Statement 2 is incorrect.

Additional Information

• The Kesavananda Bharati case did not provide a clear definition of 'basic structure' but listed principles such as federalism, secularism, and democracy as part of it.
• The basic structure doctrine has evolved to include additional principles like the supremacy of the Constitution, the rule of law, and the independence of the judiciary.

The correct answer is Keshavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala.

Key Points

• Doctrine of Basic Structure
  • It is a judicial principle developed by the Supreme Court of India in 1973.
  • This principle emerged in the Keshavananda Bharati judgment.
  • The Parliament of India is vested with the power of amending the Constitution (Article 368). But, the doctrine of basic structure restricts the powers of the Parliament.
  • According to this, the Supreme Court has the power to declare any law void if it is found to be unconstitutional.
  • Any amendment that tries to change the basic structure of the constitution is considered unconstitutional, though the term 'basic structure' is not mentioned in the constitution and has evolved over time.
  • This principle thus helps to protect and preserve the spirit of the constitution document.
• According to the judgment, the following are taken as the basic structure of the Constitution:
  • The supremacy of the Constitution
  • Unity and sovereignty of India
  • A democratic and republican form of government
  • Federal character of the Constitution
  • Secular character of the Constitution
  • Separation of power
  • Individual freedom

Additional Information

• The features given below have been later added to the above list:
  • Rule of law
  • Judicial review
  • Parliamentary system
  • Rule of equality
  • Harmony and balance between the Fundamental Rights and DPSP
  • Free and fair elections
  • Limited power of the parliament to amend the Constitution
  • Power of the Supreme Court under Articles 32, 136, 142 and 147
  • Power of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227
• The judgment hence implied that the Parliament has the right to amend the Constitution and not rewrite or destroy it.

The correct answer is U.S.A.

Key Points

• Features of Fundamental Rights in the Indian Constitution partly derives their inspiration from the Bill of Rights, enshrined in the Constitution of the United States of America.
• It is enshrined in Part III of the Constitution from Articles 12 to 35.

Important Points

• Fundamental rights are the guaranteed rights includes 6 rights which are as follows :
  • Right to Equality
  • Right to freedom
  • Right against exploitation
  • Right to freedom of Religion
  • Cultural and Educational Rights
  • Right to constitutional Remedies

The correct answer is residuary powers in the center - Canadian constitution.

Key Points

The correct answer is the Election of President.

Key Points

The ‘basic structure’ doctrine include:

• the supremacy of the Constitution,
• the rule of law,
• Independence of the judiciary,
• the doctrine of separation of powers,
• a sovereign, democratic, republic,
• the parliamentary system of government,
• the principle of free and fair elections,
• the welfare state, etc.

​Important Points

• The Supreme Court in the Shankari Prasad case (1951) and Sajjan Singh case (1965) ruled that the term “law” in Article 13 must be taken to mean rules or regulations made in exercise of ordinary legislative power and not amendments to the Constitution made in exercise of constituent power under Article 368.
• However, in the Golaknath case (1967), the Supreme Court held that Parliament could not amend Fundamental Rights, and this power would be only with a Constituent Assembly.
• The Court held that an amendment under Article 368 is "law" within the meaning of Article 13 of the Constitution and therefore if an amendment "takes away or abridges" a Fundamental Right conferred by Part III, it is void.
• To get over the judgments of the Supreme Court in the Golaknath case (1967), RC Cooper case (1970), and Madhavrao Scindia case (1970), Prime Minister Indira Gandhi had enacted major amendments to the Constitution (the 24th, 25th, 26th and 29th).
• The Constitutional Bench in the Kesavananda Bharati case ruled that Parliament could amend any part of the Constitution so long as it did not alter or amend the basic structure or essential features of the Constitution.

The correct answer is Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala.

Key Points

• In the Kesavanand Bharti vs State of Kerala Case of 1973 the Supreme Court of India enunciated the doctrine of "Basic Structure of the Constitution".
• This case is also known as "The Fundamental Rights Case".
• Kesavanand challenged the State of Kerala for the right to manage religiously owned property without any government interference.
• Later, Justice Hans Raj Khanna concluded that the Parliament has the authority to amend any clause of the Constitution as long as it does not violate the Basic Structure of the Constitution.

Additional Information

• A bench of 13 judges was set up in the Kesavanand Bharti Case, which is the highest ever bench at the Supreme Court of India.
• Kesavanand died on 6th September 2020.

CONCLUSION:

The Supreme Court of India enunciated the doctrine of the Basic Structure of the Constitution in the Kesavanand Bharti case.

Important Points

The correct answer is Kesavananda Bharati Case, 1973.

Key Points 

•  Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru and Ors v State of Kerala Case, 1973:
  •  Kesavananda Bharati challenged the Kerala land reforms legislation in 1970.
  • The land reforms case imposed restrictions on the management of religious property.
  •  Under Article 26 the case was challenged.
• The verdict:
  •  Any provision of the Indian Constitution can be amended by the Parliament in order to accomplish its socio-economic obligations that were guaranteed to the citizens as mentioned in the Preamble, provided that such an amendment did not change the basic structure of the constitution.
  • The preamble is a part of the constitution and can be amended by the Parliament under Article 368.

Additional Information

• Golaknath Case, 1967
  • Golaknath Vs. the State Of Punjab was a 1967 Indian Supreme Court case, in which the Court ruled that Parliament could not curtail any of the Fundamental Rights in the Constitution.
  • The judgment reversed the Supreme Court's earlier decision which had upheld Parliament's power to amend all parts of the Constitution, including Part III related to Fundamental Rights.
  • The judgment left Parliament with no power to curtail Fundamental Rights.
  • The majority did not agree with the view that Article 368 of the Constitution contained "power and procedure" to amend, but instead believed that the text of Article 368 only explained the procedure to amend the constitution, the power being derived from entry 97 of the List I of the VII Schedule to the Constitution.
• ​Minerva Mills Case, 1980
  • In the Minerva Mill case (1980), the Supreme court provided key clarifications on the interpretation of the basic structure doctrine.
  • By the 42nd Amendment, Article 31C was amended to give precedence to all the Directive Principles over Article 14, 19, and 31. The Minerva Mill case declared this change as unconstitutional.