Solved previous year question from the OPSC OAS/OCS 2022 Preliminary Examination (General Studies), with the official answer key and a detailed explanation.
Question
Which of the following statements are correct in respect of Basic Structure of Indian Constitution?
(1) It is a form of Judicial Review
(2) It is used to test the legality of any legislation by the Courts
(3) The Doctrine of Basic Structure of Constitution gave free hand to Parliament to amend any part of Constitution
(4) The Constitution of India defines ‘basic structure’ in terms of Federalism, Secularism, Fundamental Rights and Socialism.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Tap an option to check your answer.
Show answer & explanation
Answer & Explanation
Correct answer: (C) 1 and 4
Error in the OPSC answer key.
- The doctrine of Basic Structure was evolved by the judiciary (Kesavananda Bharati case, 1973) as a limitation on the amending power of Parliament. It allows courts to review amendments to ensure their Constitutionality.
- The Basic Structure doctrine is specifically used to test the validity of constitutional amendments, not ordinary legislation. Testing the legality of ordinary legislation falls under the general power of judicial review under Art. 13, not the Basic Structure doctrine specifically.
- The doctrine restricts Parliament’s power to amend the basic structure of the Constitution, not gives it a free hand
- The Constitution does not explicitly define the "basic structure." Instead, the judiciary identifies these components as part of the basic structure through various judgments.
Basic Structure Doctrine of the Indian Constitution
Origin:The doctrine was propounded by the Supreme Court in the landmark Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) case by a 13-judge constitutional bench. By a 7:6 majority, the Court held that Parliament cannot amend the Constitution in a way that destroys its basic structure.
Background: — Evolution The doctrine did not emerge overnight. It evolved through a series of cases:
- Shankari Prasad case (1951) — Supreme Court held that Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution including Fundamental Rights under Art. 368.
- Sajjan Singh case (1965) — Reaffirmed Shankari Prasad, Parliament’s amending power was held to be unlimited.
- Golak Nath case (1967) — Supreme Court reversed its earlier position and held that Fundamental Rights cannot be amended by Parliament.
- 24th Constitutional Amendment (1971) — Parliament amended Art. 13 and Art. 368 to restore its power to amend Fundamental Rights.
- Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) — Supreme Court upheld the 24th Amendment but laid down the Basic Structure doctrine, holding that while Parliament can amend any part, it cannot destroy the basic structure.
