The Supreme Court has played a central role in defining the scope and limits of Parliament's power to amend the Constitution.
The judicial journey moved through several stages:
Amendment Power Upheld
↓
Fundamental Rights Protected
↓
Basic Structure Doctrine
↓
Limited Amending Power
↓
Judicial Review of Constitutional Amendments
The most important cases for UPSC are:
The case concerned the:
First Constitutional Amendment Act, 1951
The amendment introduced measures including the:
Ninth Schedule
to protect certain land reform laws from judicial challenge.
The question was whether Parliament could amend Fundamental Rights.
The Supreme Court upheld Parliament's power to amend the Constitution.
The Court held that a Constitutional Amendment made under Article 368 was not "law" within the meaning of Article 13.
Therefore:
Article 13 did not restrict Parliament's power to amend Fundamental Rights.
The Court accepted:
Broad Parliamentary Amending Power
Shankari Prasad → Amendment Power Upheld
The case challenged the:
17th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1964
The amendment protected certain land reform laws through the Ninth Schedule.
The issue again concerned Parliament's power to amend Fundamental Rights.
The Supreme Court reaffirmed the earlier position in:
Shankari Prasad
and upheld Parliament's power to amend Fundamental Rights.
The Court continued to recognise:
Broad Amending Power of Parliament
Sajjan Singh → Amendment Power Upheld
The case involved challenges to land reform laws affecting Fundamental Rights.
The Supreme Court reconsidered its earlier decisions.
The Court held that:
Parliament could not amend Fundamental Rights.
The Court treated Constitutional Amendments as "law" for the purpose of Article 13.
This was a major shift from:
Shankari Prasad + Sajjan Singh
The judgment placed a strong limitation on Parliament's amending power.
The judgment did not permanently settle the issue.
Parliament subsequently responded through the:
24th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1971
Golaknath → Fundamental Rights Cannot Be Amended
This is the:
Most Important Case
on Constitutional Amendments.
A 13-judge Constitution Bench considered the extent of Parliament's amending power.
The Court held that:
Parliament has wide power to amend the Constitution.
However:
Parliament cannot destroy the Basic Structure of the Constitution.
This established the:
Basic Structure Doctrine
Amend → Yes
Destroy Basic Structure → No
The Supreme Court has recognised features such as:
The list is:
Not Exhaustive
Kesavananda Bharati → Basic Structure Doctrine
The case arose from a challenge concerning the election of:
Prime Minister Indira Gandhi
The:
39th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1975
placed the election of certain high constitutional office-holders beyond ordinary judicial scrutiny.
The Supreme Court struck down the relevant provision affecting the election dispute.
The Court reaffirmed that:
Free and Fair Elections
and:
Rule of Law
are part of the Basic Structure.
The case demonstrated that the Basic Structure Doctrine could be applied beyond traditional Fundamental Rights questions.
It also strengthened the constitutional protection of:
Democracy + Judicial Review + Rule of Law
Indira Gandhi Case → Free and Fair Elections + Basic Structure
The case concerned important provisions of the:
42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976
The amendment attempted to expand Parliament's amending power and restrict judicial review.
The Supreme Court struck down important provisions that attempted to make Parliament's amending power effectively unlimited.
The Court held that:
Limited Amending Power
is itself part of the:
Basic Structure
The Court also reaffirmed:
Judicial Review
as a Basic Structure feature.
Parliament cannot use its amending power to:
Destroy the limitations on its own amending power.
Minerva Mills → Limited Amending Power + Judicial Review
The case concerned the relationship between:
Basic Structure Doctrine
and:
Ninth Schedule
The Supreme Court reaffirmed the Basic Structure Doctrine and examined the constitutional protection given to Ninth Schedule laws.
The Court treated:
24 April 1973
as the key dividing date.
This was the date of the:
Kesavananda Bharati judgment
The case established an important distinction between laws placed in the Ninth Schedule:
Before 24 April 1973
and:
After 24 April 1973
Waman Rao → Ninth Schedule + 24 April 1973
The case further examined the:
Ninth Schedule
and its relationship with the Basic Structure Doctrine.
The Supreme Court held that laws inserted into the Ninth Schedule after:
24 April 1973
are not automatically immune from judicial review.
If such laws damage or violate the:
Basic Structure
they can be examined by the courts.
The Ninth Schedule does not provide:
Absolute Immunity from Judicial Review
I.R. Coelho → Ninth Schedule + Basic Structure Review
The entire judicial journey can be understood as:
Shankari Prasad, 1951
↓
Sajjan Singh, 1965
Parliament's power to amend Fundamental Rights upheld.
Golaknath, 1967
Fundamental Rights held unamendable.
24th Amendment, 1971
Parliament's constituent power expressly strengthened.
Kesavananda Bharati, 1973
Parliament can amend but cannot destroy Basic Structure.
Indira Gandhi Case, 1975
Free and fair elections protected.
Minerva Mills, 1980
Limited amending power and judicial review protected.
Waman Rao, 1981
Basic Structure applied to Ninth Schedule questions.
I.R. Coelho, 2007
Post-24 April 1973 Ninth Schedule laws subject to Basic Structure review.
| Case | Year | Main Principle |
|---|---|---|
| Shankari Prasad | 1951 | Parliament can amend Fundamental Rights |
| Sajjan Singh | 1965 | Amending power upheld |
| Golaknath | 1967 | Fundamental Rights held unamendable |
| Kesavananda Bharati | 1973 | Basic Structure Doctrine |
| Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain | 1975 | Free and fair elections + Basic Structure |
| Minerva Mills | 1980 | Limited amending power + Judicial Review |
| Waman Rao | 1981 | Ninth Schedule + 24 April 1973 |
| I.R. Coelho | 2007 | Ninth Schedule subject to Basic Structure review |
If time is limited, prioritise:
1973
→ Basic Structure
1967
→ Fundamental Rights and Amendment Power
1980
→ Limited Amending Power + Judicial Review
2007
→ Ninth Schedule + Basic Structure
1981
→ Ninth Schedule + 24 April 1973
1951
→ Amendment Power Upheld
1965
→ Amendment Power Upheld
1975
→ Free and Fair Elections + Basic Structure
1951 → Shankari Prasad
1965 → Sajjan Singh
1967 → Golaknath
1971 → 24th Amendment
1973 → Kesavananda Bharati
1975 → Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain
1976 → 42nd Amendment
1980 → Minerva Mills
1981 → Waman Rao
2007 → I.R. Coelho
51 → 65 → 67 → 71 → 73 → 75 → 80 → 81 → 07
Linked to:
Shankari Prasad
Important for:
Linked to:
Sajjan Singh
It added several laws to the Ninth Schedule.
Linked to:
Golaknath
It strengthened Parliament's constituent power under Article 368.
Important in the constitutional amendment litigation leading to:
Kesavananda Bharati
Linked to:
Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain
Important in:
Minerva Mills
The amendment attempted to strengthen Parliament's amending power and restrict judicial review.
Kesavananda Bharati held that Parliament cannot amend the Constitution.
False
It held:
Parliament can amend the Constitution but cannot destroy the Basic Structure.
Golaknath established the Basic Structure Doctrine.
False
Basic Structure was established in:
Kesavananda Bharati, 1973
Minerva Mills established the Basic Structure Doctrine.
False
It:
Reaffirmed and strengthened the doctrine.
Shankari Prasad held that Fundamental Rights could not be amended.
False
It upheld Parliament's power to amend Fundamental Rights.
Golaknath's position remains the present position.
False
The present constitutional position permits amendment of Fundamental Rights, subject to the Basic Structure limitation.
Minerva Mills held that Parliament's amending power is unlimited.
False
It held:
Limited Amending Power is part of Basic Structure.
I.R. Coelho completely removed the Ninth Schedule.
False
It did not abolish the Ninth Schedule.
It held that certain Ninth Schedule laws are subject to:
Basic Structure Review
Waman Rao's important date is 24 April 1973.
True
This date corresponds to:
Kesavananda Bharati judgment
Free and fair elections are not part of Basic Structure.
False
The Supreme Court recognised their constitutional importance as part of the Basic Structure in:
Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain
Basic Structure is an exhaustive list of features expressly written in the Constitution.
False
It is a:
Judicially developed and non-exhaustive doctrine
Shankari Prasad → Amendment Power
Sajjan Singh → Amendment Power
Golaknath → Fundamental Rights
Kesavananda Bharati → Basic Structure
Indira Gandhi Case → Free & Fair Elections
Minerva Mills → Limited Amending Power
Waman Rao → Ninth Schedule
I.R. Coelho → Ninth Schedule Review
| Case | Year | Remember |
|---|---|---|
| Shankari Prasad | 1951 | Amendment power upheld |
| Sajjan Singh | 1965 | Amendment power upheld |
| Golaknath | 1967 | FR held unamendable |
| Kesavananda Bharati | 1973 | Basic Structure |
| Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain | 1975 | Free & Fair Elections |
| Minerva Mills | 1980 | Limited Amending Power |
| Waman Rao | 1981 | Ninth Schedule |
| I.R. Coelho | 2007 | Ninth Schedule + Basic Structure |
The Supreme Court's judgments on Constitutional Amendments demonstrate the evolution of the Indian constitutional system from a broad understanding of Parliament's amending power to a balanced model based on:
Parliamentary Amending Power
Constitutional Supremacy
Judicial Review
Basic Structure Doctrine
The Court has not denied Parliament the power to amend the Constitution.
Instead, it has established that:
Constitutional Amendment cannot become Constitutional Destruction.
The Basic Structure Doctrine therefore acts as a constitutional safeguard against the possibility that a temporary parliamentary majority could permanently alter the foundational identity of the Constitution.
Parliament can amend the Constitution.
The Supreme Court can review the amendment.
The Basic Structure cannot be destroyed.
