Dalvoy Logo
Dalvoy
UPSC MainsGeneral Studies Paper IIIndian PolityPractice question

Basic Structure in Kesavananda Bharati and Minerva Mills

What according to the Supreme Court, constitutes 'the Basic Features' which is upheld in cases known as: 1. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala 2. Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980)?

IdentifyElucidate~250 words2 min readmedium
Attempt it first, timed · optional

Write the answer on paper, as in the exam. Start the timer, keep to the word target.

00:00/ 11 min · 250 words

Done writing? Photograph the sheet and see how it scores against this model answer, with feedback on what to fix.

Upload your answer sheet

How to approach

Introduce the Basic Structure doctrine as a judicial check on Parliament's constituent power under Article 368. Outline the key basic features articulated in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) and subsequent additions in the Minerva Mills case (1980). Conclude by emphasizing how these decisions safeguard constitutional supremacy.

Model answer

384 words

Introduction

The 'Basic Structure' doctrine is a judicial innovation formulated to limit Parliament's constituent amending power under Article 368. It ensures that the core identity, values, and institutional framework of the Indian Constitution remain indestructible against majoritarian legislative overreach.

1. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)

In a landmark 13-judge bench ruling reconciling Article 368 with Article 13, the Supreme Court held that while Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution—including Fundamental Rights—it cannot alter or damage its 'Basic Structure'. Several judges identified non-exhaustive core features:

  • Supremacy of the Constitution: The Constitution remains the ultimate legal authority to which all organs of the State are subordinate.
  • Republican and Democratic Form of Government: Representative governance and popular sovereignty cannot be abrogated or transformed into an autocracy.
  • Secular and Federal Character: Maintenance of state neutrality in religious matters and the constitutional division of powers between the Union and States.
  • Separation of Powers: Demarcation of institutional boundaries and checks and balances among the Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary.
  • Rule of Law and Dignity of the Individual: Protection of fundamental liberties and governance free from arbitrary exercise of state authority.

2. Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980)

In this decision, the Supreme Court struck down Section 4 and Section 55 of the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976, which had sought to grant unbridled amending powers to Parliament, bar judicial review, and give blanket primacy to all Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs) over Fundamental Rights under Articles 14 and 19.

  • Harmony and Balance between Part III and Part IV: The Court termed Fundamental Rights and DPSPs the 'bedrock of the Constitution' and 'two wheels of a chariot', ruling that subordinating one to the other destroys the constitutional balance.
  • Limited Amending Power: The Court affirmed that Parliament possesses a limited amending power under Article 368. A donee of a limited power cannot expand it into an absolute power to alter its own limits.
  • Power of Judicial Review: Reaffirmed as an indispensable basic feature that ensures constitutional amendments and legislative actions remain within substantive constitutional boundaries.

Conclusion

Together, these two landmark judgments established that the amending power cannot be equated with the power to draft an entirely new constitution. They anchored Indian constitutionalism on the supremacy of the Constitution rather than parliamentary sovereignty, providing an enduring safeguard for democratic governance.

Key facts to remember

case study
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)

A 13-judge constitutional bench ruled by a 7:6 majority that Parliament's amending power under Article 368 does not extend to abrogating or altering the basic structure of the Constitution.

case study
Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980)

The Supreme Court invalidated clauses (4) and (5) of Article 368 inserted by the 42nd Amendment, holding that limited amending power and judicial review are basic features that cannot be removed.

quote
“The Indian Constitution is founded on the bedrock of the balance between Parts III and IV. To give absolute primacy to one over the other is to disturb the harmony of the Constitution.”
— Justice Y.V. Chandrachud in Minerva Mills (1980)
definition
Doctrine of Basic Structure

A judicial principle holding that certain fundamental values and structural features of the Indian Constitution are beyond the amending power of Parliament under Article 368.

Frequently asked questions

Why did the Supreme Court strike down Section 55 of the 42nd Amendment in Minerva Mills?

Section 55 inserted clauses (4) and (5) in Article 368 to bar judicial review of constitutional amendments and confer unlimited constituent power on Parliament. The Court struck them down because a limited power cannot be used to enlarge itself into an unlimited power.

← All questions on this topic (197)