Correct option is C
The correct answer is: (c) Kesavananda Bharati case
Explanation:
· In the historic
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) case, the Supreme Court propounded the
"Basic Structure Doctrine".1
· While the court did not provide an exhaustive list of what constitutes the basic structure, several judges on the bench explicitly cited
Judicial Review as a basic feature of the Constitution.
· This means that the Parliament cannot use its constituent power (under Article 368) to alter or destroy the power of the courts to review legislative and executive actions.
· This judgment overruled the
Golaknath verdict and established that while Parliament has the power to amend any part of the Constitution, it cannot alter its essential features.2
Information Booster:
·
Largest Bench: This case was heard by the largest-ever bench in the history of the Indian Supreme Court, consisting of
13 judges.
·
The Verdict: The doctrine was evolved by a razor-thin majority of
7:6.3
·
Later Confirmation: The status of Judicial Review as a basic feature was further cemented and explicitly clarified in subsequent cases like
Minerva Mills (1980) and
L.4 Chandra Kumar (1997).
Additional Knowledge (Incorrect Options):
Shah Bano Case (Option a)
· This 1985 case (
Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum) is famous for the debate on the
rights of Muslim women, specifically regarding maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC after divorce.5
Shankari Prasad case (Option b)
· In this 1951 case, the Supreme Court held that the Parliament
had the power to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights. It upheld the validity of the First Amendment Act.
Golaknath case (Option d)
· In this 1967 case (
I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab), the Supreme Court ruled that Fundamental Rights are "transcendental and immutable" and that Parliament
did not have the power to amend or abridge them. This was later overruled by
Kesavananda Bharati.
English
100 Questions
100 Marks
90 Mins
