Landmark Supreme Court Cases — Set 1

Correct Answer: B. Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala

Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala (1973) was decided by a 13-judge constitutional bench, the largest ever in Supreme Court history. The court ruled by a 7:6 majority that while Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution, it cannot destroy its 'Basic Structure'. This doctrine protects core constitutional values like judicial review, federalism, secularism, and fundamental rights from being abrogated even by constitutional amendments.

Correct Answer: D. 13

Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala (1973) was heard by a 13-judge constitutional bench, the largest bench ever constituted in the Supreme Court of India. The case was argued for 68 days and the judgment ran into thousands of pages. This mammoth bench was assembled because the case involved overruling the earlier Golaknath judgment (1967) and settling the question of Parliament's amending power once and for all.

Correct Answer: B. 7:6

The Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala (1973) judgment was decided by a narrow 7:6 majority, making it one of the most closely contested constitutional decisions in Indian history. The majority upheld Parliament's power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 but imposed the fundamental limitation of the Basic Structure doctrine. This slender majority reflected the deeply divided opinions among judges about the extent of parliamentary sovereignty versus constitutional supremacy.

Correct Answer: B. Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights at all

Golaknath v State of Punjab (1967) was decided by an 11-judge bench that overruled earlier judgments and held that Parliament has no power to abridge or take away Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution. Chief Justice Subba Rao, writing for the 6:5 majority, held that Fundamental Rights are given a 'transcendental position' in the Constitution. This judgment was prospectively overruled by the 13-judge bench in Kesavananda Bharati (1973).

Correct Answer: B. Parliament can amend Fundamental Rights through Article 368

Shankari Prasad v Union of India (1951) was the first major case testing Parliament's power to amend the Constitution after the First Constitutional Amendment. The Supreme Court unanimously held that the word 'law' in Article 13 does not include a constitutional amendment made under Article 368, meaning Parliament can validly amend Fundamental Rights. This judgment gave Parliament broad amending powers that were later curtailed by Golaknath (1967) and then settled by Kesavananda Bharati (1973).

Correct Answer: A. 42nd Amendment clauses giving Parliament unlimited amending power

Minerva Mills v Union of India (1980) challenged Sections 4 and 55 of the 42nd Constitutional Amendment (1976), which had been enacted during the Emergency. The Supreme Court struck down these provisions as they gave Parliament unlimited power to amend the Constitution and excluded judicial review of amendments. The court held that limited amending power and judicial review are themselves part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution, reaffirming and strengthening Kesavananda Bharati.

Correct Answer: B. Minerva Mills 1980

Minerva Mills v Union of India (1980) is best known for the principle that harmony and balance between Fundamental Rights (Part III) and Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV) is an essential feature and part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution. Justice Chandrachud held that the Constitution is founded on a fine balance between these two parts and neither can be used to destroy the other. This balanced approach prevents both unbridled individual rights and oppressive state socialism.

Correct Answer: B. They were given retrospective immunity from Basic Structure challenge

Waman Rao v Union of India (1981) clarified the temporal application of the Basic Structure doctrine established in Kesavananda Bharati (1973). The Supreme Court held that all constitutional amendments made before the date of the Kesavananda judgment (April 24, 1973) would be immune from challenge on the ground of violation of Basic Structure. This prospective application gave legal certainty to land reform and other social welfare amendments made in the early decades after independence.

Correct Answer: C. Ninth Schedule

I.R. Coelho v State of Tamil Nadu (2007) was decided by a 9-judge constitutional bench and is the landmark case on the reviewability of laws placed in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution. The court held that laws inserted into the Ninth Schedule after April 24, 1973 (the date of Kesavananda Bharati) can be challenged if they violate Fundamental Rights that form part of the Basic Structure. This overruled the earlier view that Ninth Schedule laws enjoy absolute immunity from judicial review.

Correct Answer: B. Cut-off date for Ninth Schedule immunity from Basic Structure review

I.R. Coelho v State of Tamil Nadu (2007) fixed April 24, 1973 — the date of the Kesavananda Bharati judgment — as the critical cut-off date for Ninth Schedule laws. Laws placed in the Ninth Schedule before this date enjoy immunity from fundamental rights challenges. However, laws inserted into the Ninth Schedule on or after April 24, 1973, are open to judicial review if they violate fundamental rights constituting the Basic Structure of the Constitution.