Maarg Manthan · Topic 18.4

Landmark Judicial Review Cases (Kesavananda Bharati, Minerva Mills, S.R. Bommai)

Indian Polity › Judicial Review · Topic 18.4

Landmark review cases include Golak Nath (1967), Kesavananda Bharati (1973, basic structure), Indira Nehru Gandhi (1975), Minerva Mills (1980), Waman Rao (1980), Bommai (1994, Article 356), Coelho (2007) and the NJAC case (2015).

5 min read · UPSC Prelims · Polity · Judicial Review

At a Glance

What it is The cases that shaped the limits on Parliament and the executive
Kesavananda 1973: basic structure doctrine
Minerva Mills 1980: limited amending power and rights-directives balance
Bommai 1994: judicial review of President’s Rule
Exam link UPSC Prelims, Polity: Judicial Review

Where Does It Fit?

This is the fourth topic of the category on Judicial Review. A series of landmark judgments has defined how far Parliament can amend the Constitution and how far the Centre can use Article 356.

Golak Nath (1967) to Kesavananda Bharati (1973)

In I.C. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967), the Court overruled Shankari Prasad (1951) and Sajjan Singh (1964), holding that the amending power under Article 368 cannot be used to abridge or take away Fundamental Rights, and that a constitutional amendment is a law under Article 13(2). Applying the doctrine of prospective overruling, it held that the 1st, 4th and 17th Amendments remain valid. Parliament responded with the 24th Amendment Act of 1971, which allowed it to amend any part including Fundamental Rights and declared that an amendment is not a law under Article 13(2).

In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), the Court overruled Golak Nath. It held that Parliament, by exercising its constituent power under Article 368, can amend any or all provisions including Fundamental Rights, except the basic structure. It upheld the 24th Amendment and validated the 29th. The judgment led to the doctrine of basic structure as a limitation on the amending power, and the Court has since enlarged the list of its elements.

Indira Nehru Gandhi (1975) and Minerva Mills (1980)

In Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975), the Court reaffirmed the basic structure doctrine and struck down clause (4) of Article 329A, inserted by the 39th Amendment, which had put election disputes involving the Prime Minister and the Speaker beyond all courts. Following Kesavananda and this case, the 42nd Amendment of 1976 inserted clauses (4) and (5) in Article 368: no amendment could be questioned in any court on any ground, and there was no limit on Parliament’s constituent power.

In Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980), the Court invalidated clauses (4) and (5) of Article 368 and the 42nd Amendment’s change to Article 31C, holding that they destroyed the basic structure. It held that the limited power of Parliament to amend the Constitution, judicial review and the harmony and balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles are basic features. Parliament cannot, under Article 368, expand its amending power to repeal the Constitution or destroy its basic features.

S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)

The Court upheld the imposition of President’s Rule in Madhya Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh and Rajasthan in 1992 on the ground that secularism is a basic feature, but declared the proclamations in Nagaland (1988), Karnataka (1989) and Meghalaya (1991) unconstitutional. It laid down that the President’s proclamation under Article 356 is subject to judicial review; that the burden is on the Union to prove relevant material; that Article 74(2) is no bar to scrutiny of the material; that the court can restore the dismissed government and the assembly if the proclamation is invalid, even if Parliament approved it; and that secularism is part of the basic structure. The judgment placed a check on arbitrary exercise of Article 356.

Waman Rao, Coelho and the NJAC Case

Case	Year	Holding
Waman Rao v. Union of India	1980	Amendments before 24 April 1973 adding laws to the Ninth Schedule are valid; those after are valid only if they do not damage the basic structure
I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu	2007	Reaffirmed Waman Rao; no blanket immunity; direct impact (rights) test
Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (NJAC case)	2015	Struck down the 99th Amendment and NJAC Act for violating independence of the judiciary
Chandra Kumar v. Union of India	1997	Writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and High Courts is part of the basic structure

Why Is This Topic Important?

Cases chain The order and holdings are the most asked content
Link to basic structure Ties to the amendment category
Bommai Key for Article 356 questions

What Came Next?

The next topic covers PIL and judicial activism.

Key People and Terms

Basic structure Features Parliament cannot alter
Prospective overruling Applying a change only to future cases
Article 329A Struck down in 1975
Article 31C Altered by 42nd Amendment
Rights test Direct impact on rights

Exam Corner

Points to Remember

Kesavananda 1973 overruled Golak Nath 1967.
Minerva Mills 1980: clauses (4), (5) of Article 368 void.
Bommai 1994: secularism basic; review of Article 356.
Coelho 2007: Ninth Schedule not immune.

Do Not Confuse With

24th and 42nd Amendments Responses to Golak Nath and to Kesavananda/Indira Gandhi cases
Kesavananda and Minerva Mills Basic structure versus defence of it
Waman Rao and Coelho Ninth Schedule cases of 1980 and 2007

Memory Hook

Golak Nath froze rights, Kesavananda fixed the structure, Minerva defended it, Bommai fenced Article 356.

Mains Angle

Questions on this topic usually ask for the evolution of limits. Use these points to add depth.

Amending power Golak Nath to Kesavananda
Parliament’s response 24th and 42nd Amendments
Federalism Bommai and Article 356
Ninth Schedule Waman Rao and Coelho

A Question You May Face

An original practice question, not a past paper question.

“Trace the evolution of the basic structure doctrine through landmark cases.”

How to Answer

Introduction Article 368.
Cases Golak Nath to Minerva Mills.
Bommai and Coelho Extensions.
Conclusion Judicial review as basic feature.

GS Relevance

Prelims: Indian Polity, landmark judgments. GS Paper 2: Judiciary.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the Kesavananda Bharati case decide?

It held that Parliament, using its constituent power under Article 368, can amend any provision including Fundamental Rights but not the basic structure of the Constitution. It overruled Golak Nath and upheld the 24th Amendment.

What did the Minerva Mills case decide?

It struck down clauses (4) and (5) of Article 368 inserted by the 42nd Amendment, and the change to Article 31C. It held limited amending power, judicial review and the balance between rights and directive principles to be basic features.

What are the key propositions in the S.R. Bommai case?

The proclamation of President’s Rule is subject to judicial review, the Union must prove relevant material existed, courts can restore a dismissed government, secularism is basic structure, and Article 356 should be used only in exceptional situations.

How did Parliament respond to the Golak Nath case?

Parliament enacted the 24th Amendment Act of 1971, providing that it can amend any part of the Constitution including Fundamental Rights, and that a constitutional amendment is not a law within the meaning of Article 13(2).

What did the Coelho case decide?

In I.R. Coelho (2007), the Court held that there is no blanket immunity for laws in the Ninth Schedule; laws added after 24 April 1973 can be challenged if they violate Articles 14, 15, 19, 21 or the basic structure.

PYQ Practice — Statement Analysis

1 The basic structure doctrine was laid down in Kesavananda Bharati.

True

1973.

2 Minerva Mills upheld the 42nd Amendment’s clauses in Article 368.

False

It struck them down.

3 Bommai held that secularism is a basic feature.