In which of the following cases did the court restrict the Parliament from curtailing any Fundamental Right?

Correct option is B

The correct answer is: (B) Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala

Explanation:

• In the Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala (1973) case, the Supreme Court ruled that while Parliament has wide powers to amend the Constitution, it cannot alter the 'Basic Structure' of the Constitution.

• Fundamental Rights form a part of this basic structure, and thus, Parliament cannot curtail or abrogate these rights even through constitutional amendments.

• This landmark judgment overruled part of the Golaknath case and established the Basic Structure Doctrine, which acts as a check on Parliament's amending power.

• The Kesavananda Bharati case was decided by a 13-judge bench, the largest in Indian judicial history.

• It gave the doctrine of basic structure, which includes judicial review, secularism, federalism, separation of powers, and Fundamental Rights.

• The case emerged due to land reforms in Kerala affecting religious institutions.

• The verdict had a 7:6 majority and continues to serve as a cornerstone of Indian constitutional law.

• It preserved Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution but within certain limits.

• Led to judicial supremacy in constitutional matters in India.

• Option A – Golaknath vs State of Punjab: Earlier ruled that Parliament could not amend Fundamental Rights at all, but was partly overruled by Kesavananda.

• Option C – Indira Gandhi vs Raj Narayan: Related to the validity of election of Indira Gandhi, and reinforced the basic structure doctrine, especially free and fair elections.

• Option D – A K Gopalan vs State of Madras: Concerned with preventive detention and Article 21, not with amending powers of Parliament.