Parliament cannot use its amending power under Article-368 of the Constitution to damage, disable, destroy, repeal, alter or manipulate the basic structure or framework. Which of the following cases is related to the above statement?

Correct option is D

The correct answer is (d) Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala
Explanation:
• In this landmark judgment of 1973, the Supreme Court of India introduced the "Basic Structure Doctrine".
• It ruled that while Parliament has wide powers to amend the Constitution under Article 368, it cannot use this power to alter the essential features or basic framework of the Constitution.
• The case was heard by the largest-ever constitutional bench of 13 judges, and the decision was passed with a 7:6 majority.
• It established that the supremacy of the Constitution, the secular character, and the separation of powers are part of this basic structure.
• This judgment overruled the earlier decision in the Golaknath case (1967), which had stated that Fundamental Rights could not be amended.
Information Booster:
• The term "Basic Structure" is not mentioned in the Constitution; it is a judicial innovation.
• Subsequent cases like the Minerva Mills case (1980) further strengthened this doctrine by including Judicial Review as a basic feature.
Additional Knowledge:
(a) Indira Sawhney vs. Union of India : Famous for the "Mandal Commission" case, it dealt with reservations for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) and the 50% cap on total reservations.
(b) Vishakha vs. State of Rajasthan : Led to the Vishakha Guidelines, which addressed sexual harassment at workplaces.
(c) Champakam Dorairajan vs. State of Madras : The first major case on reservations in India, which led to the 1st Constitutional Amendment Act.