Press Enter

Share with your friends and help them crack UPSC!

Or Share on

Answer

Correct Option is 1 and 2

Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) Supreme Court stated that Parliament is empowered to abridge or take away any of the Fundamental Rights. It laid down a new doctrine of the ‘basic structure’ (or ‘basic features’) of the Constitution. It ruled that the constituent power of Parliament under Article 368 does not enable it to alter the ‘basic structure’ of the Constitution. This means that the Parliament cannot abridge or take away a Fundamental Right that forms a part of the ‘basic structure’ of the Constitution. Minerva Mills case (1980) Supreme Court stated that the Constitution had conferred a limited amending power on the Parliament, the Parliament cannot under the exercise of that limited power enlarge that very power into absolute power. Indeed, limited amending power is one of the basic features of the Constitution and, therefore, the limitations on that power cannot be destroyed. Parliament cannot, under article 368, expand its amending power so as to acquire for itself the right to repeal or abrogate the Constitution or to destroy its basic features. Hence statement 1 and 2 are incorrect. Waman Rao case (1981) the Supreme Court adhered to the doctrine of the ‘basic structure’ and further clarified that it would apply to constitutional amendments enacted after April 24, 1973, the date of the judgement in the Kesavananda Bharati case. Thus statement 3 is correct.

Get access to all of our verified questions